Research: Exposing Unethical Campaigns

Spin doctors, propagandists, liars, these are all are names that unfortunately some PR practioners receive for their fraudulent and unethical behavior in research compositions and promotions. A recent online study at the University of Missouri and Louisiana State University measured a group of 65 advertisers and their reactions in moral dilemmas in the “Defining Issues Test” or “DIT” standardized psychological exam. According to BrandWeek in this article, “advertising professionals ranked way down the list with a score of 31.64 out of 100, falling behind medical students (50.2), physicians (49.2), and journalists (46.3)”. Even more disturbing is when the practitioners were asked to assess ethical scenarios specific to their industry and campaigns. The advertisers' score of 22.7 was lower than those of high school students (31) and prison inmates (23.7). 

So what exactly are these “professionals” doing to destroy the ethical composure of PR campaigns? Withholding information is common amongst PR professionals and is perhaps one of the greatest malpractices of the industry as explained here in this article by Winifred Mburu. The article talks about how it took Firestone 6 years to admit that they knew something was wrong with their tires. Staring in 2000, the US government began investigating a report indicating that more than 300 car accidents had occurred because of Firestone’s tires. Firestone said they were working on the problem even though faulty tires continued to be advertised in campaigns and sold in stores. It was only when the government intervened three months later, Firestone finally recalled 6.5 million tires. Even more unethical was Firestone’s research records indicated that the company had evidence of complaints and lawsuits on Firestone tires as early as 1994 the article concludes, yet nothing was done to fix the problem earlier.

This Firestone incident violates what the book Advertising and PR Research Ethics, stresses is needed in order to ensure ethical research practices. The book explains that “full disclosure of methodology and results” be present without any of the data “fabricated, altered or discarded”. Personally, I agree with this and believe that consumers have the right to know the safety precautions of the tires they were purchasing. A disclaimer should have been noted in adverting of the campaign or a recall of the defeated tires should have been brought into action immediately in response. PR research attention is to aid campaigns not find out what information to hide inside the campaign regardless of what nation the campaign occurs.  Professional credibility is thus lost for Firestone and now seen to me as a company more interested in selling a product than in ensuring safety of their customers.

Although not all American PR campaigns have unethical backgrounds. Some are starting to act as “watch dogs” or “whistle blowers” in reporting unethical campaign behavior. In this article on PR Watch, a breast cancer awareness campaign, “Think Before you Pink” is discussed which aims to raise awareness of companies exploiting breast cancer as a marketing device to sell products. Raising most concern for the campaign is the Smith & Wesson's Pink Breast Cancer Awareness 9 mm Pistol. The “Think Before you Pink” research for the  pistol highlights a “2008 report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, stating that firearms are the second most common cause of violent deaths of women, accounting for 29.2% of all violent deaths among females in the U.S. in 2008”.  Thus, ethics and research here are used hand in hand to combat an unethical campaign and to stop the deaths of women in America instead of implementing death as did the U.S. Firestone campaign. Campaigns like “Think Before you Pink”, therefore help to take away the spin-doctor reputation that has become a stereotype for PR professionals.

But what about research campaigns outside of America? Are these nations still remaining ethical when dealing with the composure of campaigns? Of course in other nations “pay for play”, and gift-giving is more acceptable and in some countries encouraged. But with the rise of global campaigns such as this, Japanese campaign against Wal-Mart, research is also being found to do things for the better like America’s “Think Before you Pink” campaign did abroad.

The article talks about a new organization called, WOM Japan, developed by adverting and PR professionals to promote the growth of word-of-mouth marketing. Their code of ethics specifically attacks American ethics of Wal-Mart for its skewing of data promoting a false interpretation of the product by hiring bloggers to write specific content on their products. This deception or deliberately providing a false statement of what the data may be telling you that is also referenced in Advertising and PR Research Ethics as an aspect of unethical research composition.

Overall, I hope organizations and campaigns that preach and respond to watch dog behavior increase all around the world. Serving as a new social epidemic, “watch-dog” campaigns can make the PR world more connected to strive to become ethical throughout.