OPINION: Why advertising needs a wake-up call on ethics

If you said they asked about how to get a job, or how much they'd be paid, you'd be wrong. Here are the most frequently asked questions that I've encountered this year at student lectures, book launch events and talks in book stores. And they are cause for concern: "What do agencies do when they are asked to advertise products they don't believe in?"

"Will I have to tell lies when I make ads?"

"Why do so many ads make such unbelievable claims?"

"Why does the cost of advertising get passed on to consumers in higher prices?"

"Why does advertising continue to exploit and degrade women? Perhaps the most telling question came from a young man: "Will someone use 9/11 in an ad? At that, everyone laughed politely.

But it was a wake-up call. Are agencies and advertisers so poorly regarded that people think we would actually use 9/11 to flog a product?

The answer, it seems, is "Yes". The point is that ethics - not salaries - are now the issue of the day with our potential recruits. Of course all the students' questions can be answered easily enough. But what I found alarming was that they were asked in the first place.

Why are our ethics being questioned? What signals have we as an industry been sending to provoke such scepticism? It's not like the majority of advertising is telling lies. Generally, advertising sets out to create a point of difference and to win friends for brands. Some ads are corny, some are hard sell, and some are hamfisted. Much of what we do is irritating and puerile, and the only people we deceive are ourselves. Most major advertisers, in fact, prefer to err on the side of conservatism. So much so, that many US marketers would prefer not to advertise. They simply don't want to make any claims, even the slightest, blandest claim, lest they be sued.

Certainly in Asia, as in most markets, the truth does get "stretched" occasionally.

But in this age of ad-literate consumers, surely audiences are mature and sophisticated enough to know when creative licence is being exercised?

Well, if we believe our young students, we can't comfort ourselves with that kind of argument any longer. Perhaps our techniques have become so transparent that people these days basically distrust us, whether we're truthful or not. The more they know about advertising, the less they like it or approve of it. Which doesn't augur well for the industry's future survival. Perhaps it all comes down to familiarity breeding contempt.

Consumers can expertly decode our work. They know how to resist it, filter it out, and avoid it totally. Unquestionably, the Asian consumer is under-protected. Which is all the more reason for the industry to reflect on its practices. Any social damage we do today will come back to haunt us tomorrow. And we would all certainly agree that women are still exploited in ads, especially those where beautiful girls in low-cut evening gowns drape themselves over cars and (of all things) photocopiers.

Women have long been advertising's cheapest shot. Exploiting women is creatively meaningless and strategically damaging to the brand. According to the many audiences I speak to it's also unethical.

If so many young people are morally apprehensive about joining the marketing communications industry, if we are perceived as shameless opportunists and purveyors of commercial fantasy, perhaps we should ask ourselves the tough questions more often. Perhaps marketers should be more scrupulous with their communications. Perhaps agency folk should respect their talent and themselves more. Perhaps we should all respect the consumer more.

When advertising ceases to work, so will a lot of people.