Advertising Ethics: Alcohol and Tobacco

I. Introduction
Commercial advertising is defined as, “communication between a seller and potential buyers that is publicly addressed to a mass audience and is intended to induce members of this audience to buy the seller’s product.” (Velasquez, 2012, p. 322) However, it is clear that advertising often delivers little information and is often accused of violating several ethical standards. The question begs to be asked, in the quest to sell a product, are advertisers in fact selling their souls? Advertising is essential to a company’s success and utilized to generate revenue and profits. While it can be argued that all advertisements are manipulative, the public deserves to know what options they have when making purchases. If advertising were consistent in its standards of use, (delivering only useful information with only words and no other image appeal) then there would be no predicament to its ethical framework. The fact remains that advertising can often be manipulative create false desires and the power advertising agencies exert over the general public is not being used responsibly. Essentially, advertising is trying to accomplish four objectives: first, advertisements are meant to create awareness, second they strive to establish a brand’s name and identity, third advertisements seek to provide information to the public in a way that is memorable and lastly, and controversially, advertisements are used to convince the consumer that he or she will be better off with their product. (Business Ethics: Truth in Advertising, film)
Some advertisements have been accused of more egregious violations of ethical behavior, in particular advertisements for alcohol and tobacco. While the use of most products will not directly kill you, if alcohol and tobacco are used as instructed they will lead to death; these products have no redeeming value. Alcohol related deaths reached 80,000 in the year 2008 making it the third leading lifestyle cause of death in the United States. (www.cdc.gov) Cigarettes contain 70 known cancer-causing toxins such as arsenic, tar and formaldehyde; the same chemicals that are used to kill rats, pave roads and preserve the dead. In 2008 there were 443,000 deaths in the United States due to tobacco use including 49,000 from secondhand smoke exposure. “Based on current cigarette smoking patterns, an estimated 25 million Americans who are alive today will die prematurely from smoking-related illnesses, including 5 million people younger than 18 years of age.” (www.cdc.gov) Often accused of directing their marketing efforts towards teens and young adults (the obvious next generation of consumers) even while there are governmental regulations against doing so, the two industries are sophisticated in their efforts and still successfully manipulate viewers by creating false images of sex appeal, youth, healthful and fun lifestyles that have enticed millions to drink and smoke. Advertising for the products is seen through the use of celebrities, at sporting events, on billboards, in magazines and with the case of alcohol on daily television. If these products are known to kill people, then why are they being advertised and why do people use the products?
This paper will focus on the larger social impact and more specific individual impact that advertising in the alcohol and tobacco industry has. The alcohol and tobacco industries are multi-billion dollar enterprises that likely see their bottom line in an economic sense, making decisions based on numbers and utility. However, key to understanding the ethical issues present in the advertising of alcohol and tobacco products is acknowledging that not just the shareholder’s interests should be considered, but rather all the stakeholders. There are several primary stakeholders whose roles must be analyzed including: the corporations who manufacturer products and promote the advertisements, the agencies who create the advertisements, the media who accept and run such advertisements, the government who tries to regulate them and ultimately the consumers who will decide if the advertisement is effective or not. The key topics discussed in this paper include addressing moral and ethical responsibility, rights, justice, and duties.
With the latest sales gimmicks promoting alcohol involving the use of “Boy Bands”, appealing to patriotism and charitable causes, and continuing to develop sweet and fruity or candy-flavored alcoholic beverages, and tobacco companies promoting flavored loose tobacco and cigars with the banning of flavored cigarettes, is the use of such advertising tactics ethically, morally and socially responsible given the stakes involved? (Tuttle, 2013) Knowing that alcohol and tobacco are responsible for health problems and death, do the stakeholders have a responsibility to ensure that they do not engage in deceptive practices or promote advertisements for which create false consumer desires or beliefs? Should advertising of alcohol and tobacco be completely banned in any form if it contributes to the market powers of monopolies and oligopolies? These questions will be explored in this paper relevant to specific stakeholders using the aforementioned ethical theories. II. Social, Economic, Political and Legal Context
Advertising efforts by alcohol and tobacco companies have created a society of individuals who are victim to false desires; desires that are sold through manipulation. The social contexts in which alcohol and tobacco advertisements exist have lead people to believe that their health is unimportant as compared to the amount of fun they will have if they consume these products. The advertisements show a carefree, beautiful life. If you consume these products you too will be like these people. Advertising has skewed people’s perception of reality and thus created social standards and criteria that are unattainable. In addition to the false perceptions of livelihood, they also perpetuate a sickly and addictive society. The health ramifications the sale of these products have on society are endless; lung cancer, emphysema, diabetes, bronchitis, infertility, low sperm count, liver disease, depression, nerve damage and death – to name a few. The number one cause of death in the United States is heart disease. The second leading cause of death is cancer. (www.cdc.gov, National Vital Statistics Report) Alcohol and tobacco contribute to these increasing rates of instance.
The economic impact that alcohol and tobacco advertising have on society is momentous. In 2008, the tobacco industry spent $9.94 billion on advertising and the alcohol industry spent $2 billion. These costs are paid for in the products society is consuming, not to mention the deaths as well. In addition to these economic expenditures on advertisements, and more importantly, are the expenditures that the previously mentioned health risks are costing society. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that, “during 2000–2004, cigarette smoking was estimated to be responsible for $193 billion in annual health-related economic losses in the United States (nearly $96 billion in direct medical costs and an additional $97 billion in lost productivity).” In addition, when consumers spend their money on alcohol and tobacco (both highly addictive) they are choosing not to spend their money on things that could be beneficial for society in the long run, like public works projects or their children’s educations and future.
Prior to the knowledge that tobacco was bad for you there was little regulation in the advertising industry. Finally in 1964, the US Surgeon General released a report that linked tobacco use to several health related issues. With this information began the legal regulations in advertising. An article in Time Magazine sates that: “the report led a surge in restrictive legislation, including mandatory warning labels on packages and a ban on advertising on radio or television.” However, tobacco companies just changed their strategy, advertising to younger markets with candy cigarettes and mascots like Joe Camel. In 1996, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sought to gain control over the tobacco industry to regulate advertising schemes, but the US Supreme Court denied this effort. In 2010, with support of President Obama, Congress granted the FDA power over the tobacco industry to regulate its advertising techniques.
The Bureau of Consumer Protection (BCP), under the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has several policies in place that encourage self-regulation in the alcohol advertising industry. In a report released by the FTC they state the positive impacts that self-regulation has had: “for decades, the FTC has recognized the important role that effective self-regulation can play and has worked with many industry groups to develop sound self-regulatory initiatives. These programs complement the Commission's law enforcement efforts to stop unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The net effect is greater consumer protection in the marketplace.” However, it is clear that alcohol and tobacco companies continue to use deceptive techniques that pervade the FTC’s watchful eye. Not to mention almost all regulatory government entities are underfunded, under staffed and as a result are inefficient. The Association of National Advertisers (ANA) offers consumers a place to bring their concerns regarding specific advertisements that they find offensive or improperly directed at teens. This course of action, as one can imagine, is very slow and often produces little change. (Smoking Out the Truth, film)
Alcohol and tobacco companies were once heavy political lobbyists. However, due to their known health risks and deceptive advertising practices, the industries political engagements have decreased. In 2011, Altria Group, the parent company of Philip Morris, donated almost $2 million to political initiatives and representatives in their favor. Reynolds American donated almost half a million dollars to political causes that would support the industry. (Center for Responsive Politics)
It is clear that the alcohol and tobacco industries, specifically their deceitful advertising practices, pervade American society within all contexts including: social, economic, legal and political. It is now appropriate to turn to an analysis of unethical effects these advertisements have on society as a whole and individuals as well. III. Ethical and Social Issues and relevant theories
As discussed above, the general theory behind advertising is that advertising promotes a demand for products and thus leads to economies of scale and in turn results in lower pricing. On its face, this appears to be a beneficial action to society as it serves to promote economic growth, create jobs and opportunities and grow wealth and prosperity. However, there are many issues with morality and ethics in the advertising sector that must be considered by the stakeholders, and the evaluation of the morality and ethics of advertising would be incomplete without considering the utilitarian, deontological and libertarian views on ethical and moral actions. This section will address the obligations and rights of each of the parties, address the issue of justice, care and virtue, and finally, discuss who is gaining and who is being harmed.
So what is the driver behind using “pop culture” to promote beer, or appealing to patriotism through the use of packaging with the American flag prominently featured? Even better, a group of nine craft breweries are appealing to the public’s sense of social responsibility by promoting a charity to benefit families of American service members. The Hops for Heroes project involves the sales of a beer to help provide emergency aid to soldiers and families via a nonprofit agency. (Tuttle, 2013) One almost can’t feel patriotic and responsible if you don’t buy this beer and support our troops. And yet, the sales of the beer also benefits the manufacturers, the production of the promotional literature and advertisements fuels the bottom line of the ad agencies, the media feels good because it is promoting a worth-while cause, and the consumer feels a sense of accomplishment and solidarity with the men and women serving our country because the consumer’s alcoholic consumption of this special beer directly supports a fellow American in need.
Likewise, Tobacco and alcohol companies have become quite capable of targeting the young consumer base with products rather than blatant advertising. Over the last decade there has been an exponential increase of fruit and candy flavored alcohol and tobacco products available. “They come in brightly colored, shiny packages in fun flavors like chocolate, blueberry, gummy bear, wine and pink berry. But the American Cancer Society says the little cigars and packages of loose tobacco are aimed at kids and are just as deadly as cigarettes.” (www.wsj.com, NY Cancer Society says sweet smokes aimed at kids) These products are targeting children, teens and young adults and are available at convenience stores in plain view at the check out counter. It is apparent and logical that these flavors would be quite inviting to a young customer base; hence, that is what they are intended to do. Imagine a 14-year-old buying a bag of fruit gummies from 7-11 and while paying at the counter, staring at an assortment of fruit flavored tobacco products, holding a pack of fruit flavored candies. These dangerous circumstances for our youth to be in considering the lack of care these companies commit to their consumers and the susceptibility of our youth. These products should be banned and this oversight shows how ineffective the FDA is at monitoring and protecting our society from harmful products and advertising.
The utilitarian perspective on morals and ethics involves evaluating actions and policies on the basis of the costs and benefits of such actions and policies to society. It rationalizes the ethical dilemma as the decision that has the most utility for all, or maximum benefit for society as a whole. Under this view, there is only one morally correct action for any particular situation; the action, which provides the greatest utility, based on subtracting the costs from the benefits. When looking at the utility of advertising, utilitarian arguments would suggest that economic success might outweigh individual health risks by weighing the costs and benefits of using the product. Using pop culture to promote an item sells, as does appealing to patriotism, or masking the taste of a substance with something sweet or fruity, even if the item is known to have adverse health benefits. Alcohol and tobacco sales boost the economic bottom line of all stakeholders but the consumers – the desired outcome. This argument would lend support to the idea that tobacco and alcohol advertisements are usefully and necessary in order to promote demand for the products and continually renew or build a consumer base.
However, in looking deeper at the issue, the utilitarian perspective also advocates that the production of advertisements is a waste of resources since the advertisements add no additional utility to the product or service advertised. Studies support such utilitarian views by demonstrating that advertisements fail to stimulate consumption and lead to the conclusion that advertising is indeed wasteful. Furthermore, increasing consumption adds to the pollution of the environment and depletion of natural resources, further supporting the idea that advertising, successful in promoting consumption or otherwise, isn’t favorable. With the known risks of alcohol and tobacco consumption, and evidence showing that advertisements add no utility to the product, why do stakeholders in these two industries continue to advertise so heavily? Because despite the evidence showing this negative side of advertising, the fact is “studies have established that alcohol advertising exposure influences a young person's beliefs about alcohol and his/her intention to drink… These findings are bolstered by similar studies of tobacco advertising, which has been shown to influence the likelihood of young teenagers experimenting with tobacco.” (www.camy.org, State Alcohol Advertising Laws Current Status and Model Policies) The bottom line is the primary stakeholders continue to engage in advertising because alcohol and tobacco companies have a need to continually recruit new consumers and advertising is the most effective and coercive form to engage the target audience.
Deontological ethics is based on the idea that morality of an action is determined by a person’s interior motive rather than the external consequence of the action. Immanuel Kant’s “categorical imperative”, that “everyone should be treated as a free person equal to everyone else” (Velasquez, 2012, p. 98) Kant derives from two approaches to determining the morality of an action. The first approach supporting the categorical imperative comes from the perspective that regardless of an individual’s desire, the only morally correct action is the one that is both universal and reversible; the individual would also want everyone else to take that same action in a similar situation, even against that individual. (Velasquez, 2012, p. 99-100) The second approach to Kant’s categorical imperative comes from the idea that because people are to be treated as free and rational individuals, they are not to be used as a means to one’s end, rather they should always be able to freely and knowing choose rather than have a choice forced upon them. (Velasquez, 2012, p. 100)The implication is that people “have a dignity that sets them apart from things such as tools or machines and that is incompatible with being manipulated, deceived, or otherwise unwillingly exploited to satisfy the self-interests of another.” (Velasquez, 2012, p. 101)
This idea presents one of the key ethical and moral issues with the advertising of alcohol and tobacco – because advertisements are coercive by nature and particularly tobacco and alcohol ads are targeted younger and naive consumers in order to continually build and renew the dying customer base, the ads arguably are exploiting the self-interests of the manufacturers, advertising agencies and publishers at the expense of the health and well-being of the consumer. Advertising, therefore, also potentially violates Kantian rights because it deprives individuals of the freedom of choice as a result of the coercive nature of advertising and further takes away the freedom to pursue life as a free and rational being void of undue influences to engage in activities such as drinking or smoking. In fact, the Libertarian view of morals and ethics also supports such rights. Libertarians claim, “that the only basic right that every individual possesses is the negative right to be free from the coercion of other human beings.” (Velasquez, 2012, p. 104) Further, under the theory of Kantian rights, individuals possess the negative right to be free from injury or fraud and to be able to think. (Velasquez, 2012, p. 102) Yet, the deontological and libertarian theories also provide support for the First Amendment right to freedom speech, which highlights the moral and ethical dilemmas in advertising alcohol and tobacco particularly, as issues arise regarding whether and the extent to which advertising should be protected due to the known high-risks associated with smoking tobacco and excessive drinking.
In addition, advertisement increases barriers of entry and promotes monopolistic competition rather than a perfectly competitive free market. Large conglomerates with enormous advertising expenditures can essentially advertise the competition out of the market. They can reach a much larger consumer base and spend more money on ad campaigns relative to new market entrants. Consumers benefit from perfect competition, because it drives companies to be more efficient and cater more to consumer demands. Monopolies allow corporations to influence our product preferences by reducing viable alternatives as a result of oppressing competitors via raising the costs to compete. This does not benefit society from a utilitarian lens, for society benefits from efficient markets that produce products at the smallest resource cost and lowest price-point. Therefore advertising with costly gimmicks and catchy creative attention grabs become a burden that consumers pay through product cost, reduced product choice and an inefficient market.
While a seller has a moral duty not to misrepresent or coerce or “take advantage of gullibility, immaturity, ignorance, or any other factors that reduce or eliminate the buyer’s ability to make free rational choices”, controversy exists over whether advertising can truly create or manipulate desires. While there is debate as to the level of manipulation that advertisements can create, advertisements that contain subliminal messages or are aimed directly at children have been shown to influence consumer habits. According to John K. Gailbraith, advertising creates psychic desires that can be manipulated; the goal is to ensure that consumers buy what is produced, leading to an expansion of the industrial system. For that reason, an argument can be made that because of its manipulative and coercive nature, advertising violates an individual’s right to free choice. By their very nature that advertisements are “intended to arouse in consumers a psychological desire for the production without consumers’ knowledge and without consumers being able to rationally weigh whether the product is in their own best interests.” A corporation’s moral duty to its customer is created through a contractual relationship when the customer purchases a product. Both parties must have full knowledge of the nature of the agreement, and this knowledge must be void of misrepresentation. According to Velasquez, “because freedom implies the absence of coercion, contracts must be made without duress or undue influence.” (Velasquez, 2012, p. 309) Alcohol and tobacco manufacturers as well as those who create and promote advertisements of such products, therefore, have four main moral duties: (1) to comply with the sales contract, (2) disclose the nature of the product, (3) avoid misrepresentation, and (4) avoid use of duress and undue influence. (Velasquez, 2012, p. 309) Since this paper focuses on the ethics of advertising by alcohol and tobacco companies and not the ethics of manufacturing such substances, the discussion will not focus on the corporation’s moral duty to provide consumers with a product that lives up to the claims such corporations make about their products. Such lack of duty has been litigated extensively, particularly in the tobacco lawsuits of the late 1990’s and early 2000’s. However, corporations generally lack the due care to consumer’s to provide truthful and useful information about the harmful effects of their products. Corporations have a duty to disclose to the buyer any characteristics of the product that could impact the consumer’s desire to purchase the product, particularly those characteristics that could pose a health risk to the consumer. Yet tobacco companies in particular have increasingly fought against providing warning labels on cigarettes, most notably the graphic anti-smoking images that were the subject of a federal law requiring such warnings on cigarette packages. “Studies around the world have shown that large, pictorial warnings are most effective at informing consumers about the health risks of smoking, discouraging children and other nonsmokers from starting to smoke, and motivating smokers to quit.” (www.tobaccofreekids.org, U.S. Requires Bold New Cigarette Warnings) The legislation was blocked in 2012 “when tobacco companies argued it violated their first amendment rights.” In what is perhaps a most surprising win for tobacco companies, In March 2013, the Obama administration opted to end its legal battle with the cigarette manufactures and said it is “effectively scrapping a series of graphic warning labels on cigarette packages that were blocked by a federal appeals court,” leaving it up to the FDA to develop a new set of warning labels in the anti-smoking campaign. It is expected that the new labels will not appear on packages for years. (Dooren, 2013) Knowing that the graphic warning labels have been demonstrated to be far more effective than written warnings, this effort by the tobacco companies to suppress the information about the harmful effects of tobacco is contrary to a corporation’s moral duties discussed above. (Neighmond, 2013)
Court cases show a trend in that the “majority of the Court currently prefers the First Amendment interests of advertisers over the health and safety goals of government.” (Vladeck, 2004, p. 32) As discussed above, the alcohol and tobacco industries each spend billions a year on advertising, a vastly greater budget than what can be spent by competing government health agencies. Currently, under the First Amendment, it is the government that must show a statement is false or misleading; the question therefore arises whether it is still ethical for alcohol and tobacco companies to advertise given that they make no such claims that their products are “healthy” and yet also attempt to stay silent on the health-risks of consuming their products. In fact, the “ACLU has often come to the aid of the tobacco industry on free speech issues and opposes restraints on tobacco advertising on the grounds that restraining speech that cannot be proven false is paternalistic.” (Vladeck, 2004, p. 33) And yet, evidence shows that specifically in regards to smoking, it is “a pediatric disease; unless someone takes up smoking by age 18 or younger, there is little chance that person will end up a smoker.” (Vladeck, 2004, p. 33) Justice deals with the fair distribution of burdens and benefits in a society. There is a burden the consumer pays for a product being advertised, which is reflected in a higher price point. Furthermore, when advertising products that are unsafe and result in death, the immeasurable burden falls on the consumer once again. One can not quantify the value of a life and if advertising a product that kills results in the loss of life, there is no price tag on a mother, father, sister, brother, son or daughter to remedy the void. So advertising is an accessory to the injustice of the product distribution and its use. Corporations bear the burden of a lost consumer in terms of reduced revenue, which they have easily adapted to with advertising that targets a young and susceptible target customer to fill in their expected expedited depreciation of their consumer base. The compensatory justice does not exist in terms of the responsibility for corporations to take full social costs of a life lost due to their product being used as a result of intense, misleading, uninformative, and manipulative advertising. Protecting our most vulnerable consumers, the young generation for whom these ads are particularly coercive and manipulative, is of utmost importance. “Consumer safety can be provided efficiently through the free market because sellers must respond to consumer demands if they are to make a profit.” (Velasquez, 2012, p. 306) Under this market theory, consumers who seek safer products will force the hand of manufacturers by paying higher prices for safer products rather than purchase unsafe products. Such a system, in theory, promotes safer products at a fair price to all parties, continues to promote free choice without government intervention, and efficiently uses the resources of society. However, the reality is that in the markets for alcohol and tobacco, “safety” often isn’t a choice for consumers who purchase these highly addictive substances. And history has shown that the manufacturers, particularly the tobacco giants, have known about the health and safety risks and chose not to disclose this knowledge with consumers. Therefore, since the market itself cannot manage the safety concerns of the government, public and consumers, it is the responsibility of the primary stakeholders to effectively protect consumers through legal constraints and voluntary initiatives of responsible manufacturers. IV. Present initiatives and constraints Technology has brought about a new difficulty to the ethical discussion of how to protect our youth and society from dangerous product advertising. “Researchers have long focused on the effects of cigarette and alcohol ads on children – and more recently, on the effects of subtler marketing through product placement in movies and TV shows. Studies show that advertising does help push children and adolescents toward unhealthy behaviors, but also that it is increasingly difficult to shield them as marketers exploit the Internet and social media.” (Klass, 2013) It is clear that technology has made it difficult to monitor and protect our youth from advertisers. The Internet has become prominent, especially for our youth, and created more mediums and channels for these corporations to access children and consumers. Parents have to be extremely diligent and watchful to protect their children from exposure to these ads, since they have been woven into the fabric of our lives. Mothers and fathers have had to resort to extreme measures: “children are not permitted to discuss movies or video games at school. The children don’t watch television, have limited computer access and have only seen movies pre-screened by their parents.” (Musemeche, 2012) Although some may view this as extreme, this is the reality of corporate hegemony. Parents have to filter content out of their children’s lives, to reduce exposure to the negative and unethical advertising practices our society has come to tolerate. Our government has not taken the initiative to protect our youth, and the lobbying power of tobacco, alcohol and advertising companies is strong. These corporations are spending money in lobbying efforts and in the courts. There are lawsuits against the FDA to reduce the burden companies have to bear in terms of advertising life threatening products. Recently the Supreme Court thankfully ruled against a tobacco-industry challenge to overturn, “a 2009 federal law that requires graphic warning labels on cigarettes and expanded marketing restrictions on tobacco products.” (Kendall and Dooren, 2013) The 2009 law mandates that tobacco companies place graphic labels covering half of the front and back of cigarette packs. This is a step in the right direction. If a corporation chooses to manufacture and sell a product that kills, they must be transparent with the ill effects it has on a person’s health. As it stands they have too much liberty in terms of their advertising parameters set by the government. “Ordinarily under the First Amendment, government bears the burden of showing that a statement is false or misleading in order to justify a speech restraint.” (Vladeck, 2004, p. 33) For instance the burden of proof for negative health effects rests on the government to demonstrate. As a result, if a tobacco company decided not to disclose certain health complications their products cause, the government has to spend time and money to prove such ill effects in order to mandate the disclosures. This is a waste of our tax dollars and shows a lack of care in an industry that morally requires it. The first amendment argument has been going for decades, in many different courts and districts. The tobacco companies are working hard to make sure they can operate with a certain level of freedom, which ensures their profits. However, some states are adopting a 21-year-old age limit for the purchasing of tobacco products as well, which will help reduce the ability for tobacco companies to target the young. New York City is leading the charge, which “would put the issue in a big-city spotlight, as the city did by helping to impose the highest cigarette taxes in the country, barring smoking at parks and on beaches and conducting sometimes graphic advertising campaigns about the hazards of smoking.” (www.wsj.com, NYC Proposes Raising Age For Cigarette Purchases) This will help counter the flood of advertising and efforts to recruit smokers on behalf of tobacco companies. These are the types of initiatives and the leadership we need to equalize the playing field. Senators, Governors and Mayors need to step in and take charge when the federal government won’t or is paralyzed by special interest and campaign contributions. Corporations don’t bear the burden of truth regarding misleading or false advertising. They don’t bear the burden of advertising costs, which are incorporated into the selling price. V. Solutions Ideally, stringent restrictions and limiting the advertising of harmful and potentially deadly products to information and word only advertisements would make a change. Removing the gimmicks and images, restricting the use of celebrities and banning the use of fruit and candy flavors in products would show due care in the industry. Commerce depends on advertising product information, which is appropriate, but these advertisements are far from pure information. A recent study shows that, “researchers found that a 32-year ban on fast-food advertising to kids in electronic and print media in Quebec resulted in a 13 percent reduction in fast-food expenditures and an estimated 2 billion to 4 billion fewer calories consumed by children in the province.” (Musemeche, 2012) Although fast food is not alcohol or tobacco there are correlations as to the long-term health effects. A ban on advertisements for such products would be the ultimate solution to the problem, but is not a realistic outcome. So a ban in Quebec reduced the consumption of fast food, improving children’s health conditions. Arguably rigorous restrictions on advertisements targeting children would decrease consumption as well. However, these restrictions must be explicit: “Although a state agency can argue that advertising that targets minors is false or misleading, enforcement will be much easier if a specific provision is included. On the other hand, a provision that is poorly drafted will probably undermine a general false or misleading statute...” (www.camy.org, State Alcohol Advertising Laws Current Status and Model Policies, Report) State legislation must not use general and vague provisions in legislation, especially when protecting our youth. It is this very ambiguity that has allowed alcohol and tobacco companies to file suits defending their positions and circumvent the system or manipulate loopholes to their advantage. This strategy has allowed continued targeting of our country’s youth. Technology has brought about new channels and mediums for advertisers to utilize. Considering how much unfiltered information is out there we must take notice and ban alcohol and tobacco advertising online. Proponents for marketing and advertisement companies say that advertiser’s are not responsible for messages over the internet: “An additional frequently cited problem was the advertiser’s loss of control over the message itself. In traditional media, advertisers create commercial content, but in new media, consumers also generate content.” (Drumwright, et al., 2009) There is truth to this, but these companies are benefitting from reviews, blogs and other user-generated content and hide behind users in defense. For these companies any exposure is good exposure. The authors don’t feel an alcohol or tobacco company would allow an ad or message to be created or released in a medium or channel that didn’t help capture market share. In fact, these companies depend on advertising more than most other manufacturers, due to the nature of their product. Banning online content would also reduce the ability for these firms to target young consumers, as seen in the prior Quebec results. The most effective solution to this matter is a two-fold approach from the private sector. First corporations adopt a caring organizational model. This would put people at the forefront of all decisions, treating them truly as an end rather than a means. Centering the corporation’s activities around the people in it and who they serve rather than profits and quality. It promotes individuals caring for other individuals, rather than pitting them against one another striving for the competitive advantage and pushing productivity thresholds. (Velasquez, 2012, p. 447) Secondly corporations should be held responsible for all social costs and adopt a social costs view. This theory holds that manufacturers are responsible for all social costs (death, injury, etc.) as a result of using their product even if they have exercised due care. Holding corporations fully responsible for their products will deter corporations from producing, selling and advertising products that incur a high social cost. Corporations would take more time to test and develop safe products as a result. This would eliminate many of the problems we see involving harmful and potentially deadly products. (Velasquez, 2012, p. 319) VI. Conclusion So what does this mean for us as a society? In sum, we operate in a system of corporate hegemony. Multi-billion dollar conglomerates and industries move and shape our country at will, with little care and regard for the affects on our population. They line their pockets with profits and ensure their legacy will perpetuate through their children and the elitist groups in which they reside. Advertising is a concrete facet of a much larger and abstract problem that is the very foundation our system is built on, Capitalism. Our endless wants and needs to consume are perpetuated through how manufacturers and corporations target consumers. Firms use advertising as their Excalibur to penetrate consumer markets and carve out their empire of consumption and production. We have little say to what we are exposed to and we must start looking out for ourselves and our children, for seemingly the government is not only ill-equipped to do so, but also has been paid to look the other way. So, we must rely on educating ourselves and protecting our children from what seems to be a dismal and never ending cycle. As consumers we can make a difference. As individuals we can research brands, filter what our children are exposed to, buy ethically sound products and talk to one another about our findings. The most powerful tool we have is our freedom of speech and right to associate. Seeing how tobacco and alcohol corporations hide behind commercial free speech and make cases defending blatant targeting of minors. Individuals must combat them in numbers and united. So tell your neighbors, friends, parents, co-workers and everyone you can the truth about products and corporations behind them. Sooner or later this bottom up change will force the government to take serious action and regulate industries and corporations who have been operating without consequence for too long. Change is not a condition it is an outcome of action.