I can’t imagine that I would come up with a set of new policies for my magazine without prior approval from anyone else. You would think that the magazine would have policies set in place prior to my employment and if they needed to rework new ones or fix old policies why have just one person in charge of that? That would be like saying one super hero in the Justice League creates a new policy for every hero to reveal their true identities to all new heroes in the JLA. I would think issues like this would be more of a group collaboration, than one single person controlling the policy. The concept is silly and I can’t imagine my position having this much power to rewrite a set of new rules. Revenue makes the business go round, so if this is hurting our business, then I definitely would let my boss do what is necessary to keep the company afloat. It is also their decision to run the company however they chose.
If you really want to keep your “set of ethics” you might not be cut out of the advertising business. Everyone in this business will exploit ideas through ads everyday, and there is usually a “work around” to get them out to the public, whether it is in print or another type of media. There is an organization out there that regulates advertising anyway, so why should we have to come up with even stricter guidelines at the magazine for someone else’s ads? Let the major organizations work with those advertisers to regulate their ads, and let the JLA do what they do and take care of the high priority threats on Earth.
The magazine’s priority will, unfortunately, always be the bottom line and how much revenue it is generated through ad sales. In this case, I would first attempt to find new advertisers, who don’t rely on scientific claims that aren’t credible. If there was no increase in ad sales, I would immediately draw my general manager’s attention to the importance of providing our readers with true information that is not specifically designed to trick them into buying a product.
His likely reply to this would still be that the magazine must make money to continue to exist, which would cause me to question my own ethical practices and determine whether the job was worth sticking to my guns or making a compromise without considering the misleading ads and there effects on readers. This is a severe enough conflict for me to decide to quit the job because of the magazine’s lack of morals and obligation to the public.
I would be by no means excused from responsibility because I was just following orders. With every decision we make in our lives, we must be prepared to defend ourselves and take responsibility for everything we are affiliated with.
I would just listen to my boss and get rid of my new policy. Even though I am trying to do the right thing but trying to raise the integrity of the company, I am losing the company money. And money makes the world go round. So trying to keep my documented ethical policy isn’t worth losing my job. I don’t feel this puts a negative tag on me if the company goes back to their old policy as long as i hold true to beliefs. If i want to try and change the ethical standard of the company I would just have to find another way.
I would talk to my boss about my new policy and see if we could come up with any kind of compromise on how to alter it to a way that we both like. If she still wanted me to get rid of the policy, I would. I think she is right in saying that it’s the FTC’s business, that is what they’re there for. It is not worth putting my job on the line to preemptively correct a problem that the FTC would correct later anyways.
The heart of this dilemma lies in whether it is ethical or not to knowingly promote advertisements that are false or misleading. Unfortunately in this circumstance, I feel that I would most likely do as my boss asks. I believe that most of us would do exactly as our boss asks because it is just not worth losing a job over. While it may be ethically wrong to allow misleading advertisments to fly, the repercussions to ourselves are simply not enough for most of us to care.
Unfortunately there seems to be a spectrum of what we will ethically allow and what will or will not weigh heavily on our consciences. Because it is unlikely that printing a misleading advertisment in a magazine will closely affect anyone we know, we are okay with the idea that we are doing it. If, for example, this misleading advertisement was going to pose a direct threat to someone close to us, say a family member or friend, the printing of the ad would weigh much more heavily on us. It is unfortunate that our mindset is as such (at least mine is), but characteristically, humans rarely worry about anything that will not directly burden ourselves or those we care about. It may not be ethically correct, but it is human nature.
In all honesty I would probably just do what my boss told me to. Does that make me a tool? I guess. But the point is that if I actually was working for a magazine where these things were even an issue, I probably wouldn’t want to be working there anyway, and therefore my apathy would just get the best of me. Advertisements have to go through their own separate process anyway, so Im assuming what gets filtered to me should at that point be legit.
This one is easy. I would do what my boss said. It is not my job to make sure ads are correct or false. There is this government aggency that I pay to keep running, whos job is excatally that. I would much rather have my job you support my self and my family then have some strict policy that keeps me from getting work. I seriously think that any one who would rather get fired then loose their new policy would filp flop if this were real. I know that people would swap if it really came down to their jobs.
In this case I think that I would probably follow my boss’ directions. I think in the magazine’s case, in order to stay afloat it needs ad money. With that said, I think if my boss wants to risk the magazine’s credibility by running less than credible advertisements its up to him/her. I do think ads should be credible but that should be more up to the company the ad belongs to. They will take the heat for misleading the public, not the magazine. My job in this case would be more important than the ad ethics. The responsibility lies with my boss and I understand they need the ad sales. I’m not sure if that makes me unethical, but that’s what I would do.
This one is a tricky one because there are other organizations that put restrictions on advertising. In this case what ever is decided I don’t think that either one would be considered unethical. If I felt strong enough about my new standards I would fight for it. I would look into other ways to promote sales/advertising. Maybe if the readers knew that the magazine was more credible then others readers would prefer this magazine to others.
I would also look into the organizations out there that put the restrictions on ads. Is there anything that can be done to change there rules/standards?
I would tell my boss that I was unwilling to retract my new set of standards. However I would suggest keeping the “studies have shown” with citations, but offering new ways to promote the magazine and increase sales to previous levels. I would suggest working with each department within the magazine to come up with a solution. All of us are consumers, and I for one can attest to the annoyance that comes over me when I buy a product that turns out to be a bust, and find myself asking how such a product can remain on the market. It would be exciting to put an end to that kind of misleading advertising.