You have just been promoted to head of the advertising sales department of a successful magazine. You decide to rewrite standards that submitted advertisements must have for the magazine to accept them. At the top of your new list of standards is the requirement that any scientific evidence claims in an ad must be substantiatied (e.g if the add says “studies have shown……” the actual study must be cited) and the magazine itself be able to confirm there is an actual study with that finding. You apply the policy and start turning away some ads with the result that advertising sales go down. After a few months, your general manager calls you in and wants an accounting of why there has been a downturn in advertising income for the magazine. You reply that you think it is because of your new policy. The general manager says she wants sales back up and wants you to eliminate the new policy. She goes on to say that it between the advertiser and the FTC if there are problems with the ad.
How would you reply to her? Would you simply follow her demand? Are you excused from being ethical in accepting these ads since you are just following her orders?
Please also post comments on two blog posts on this one.
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.
Comment by fountain — September 29, 2009 @ 9:56 pm