send mail to support@abhimanu.com mentioning your email id and mobileno registered with us! if details not recieved
Resend Opt after 60 Sec.
By Loging in you agree to Terms of Services and Privacy Policy
Please specify
Please verify your mobile number
Login not allowed, Please logout from existing browser
Please update your name
Subscribe to Notifications
Stay updated with the latest Current affairs and other important updates regarding video Lectures, Test Schedules, live sessions etc..
Your Free user account at abhipedia has been created.
Remember, success is a journey, not a destination. Stay motivated and keep moving forward!
Refer & Earn
Enquire Now
My Abhipedia Earning
Kindly Login to view your earning
Support
How would you feel if your favourite celebrity had manipulated you? Had subconsciously persuaded you to purchase a product in order to gain more money for themselves? Well, truth is, they most probably have. Advertisers understand celebrity endorsements help sell the products and services of the businesses they represent. Like all aspects of a business, it is important to consider the ethical issues that could arise over the use of celebrity endorsements. In this particular application, ethics revolve around a firm's responsibility to its customers. It is, therefore, when endorsements leave a dishonest impression or create conflicts of interests that celebrities and companies behave unethically.
Celebrities are generally held in such high regard that an endorsement can drive consumers to purchase a product that they might not otherwise buy. Where a celebrity does not use a product or offers a dishonest opinion, a clear ethical conflict exists. It is when a celebrity says something misleading that the endorsement is lacking in ethics. As such, both the celebrity and the beneficiary of the endorsement need to work together to make a more honest, accurate statement about the product or service.
In more serious scenarios, a conflict of interest can often arise over a celebrity endorsement. For example, Weatherproof dedicated an entire billboard in Times Square to President Obama, who happened to be wearing one of their jackets when visiting China, as a celebrity endorsement of its products with a billboard in the middle of time square. Where an endorsement conflicts with the celebrity's image, values, professional affiliations, and other responsibilities or the celebrity does not make an actual endorsement, the ethical implications can be very serious. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the celebrity and the represented firm to recognize these issues.
The most serious conflicts occur when unsafe or ineffective products and services are promoted by celebrities. Celebrities can push consumers to purchase things that will not work or can cause harm. It is especially unethical when a celebrity endorsement is used to override expert opinion. When a celebrity interjects his or her non-expert opinion, it had been not undermine the opinion of more qualified individuals.
As noted, endorsements push people to make certain choices, but are subtle and, in many cases, unnoticeable to the public eye. This is similar to celebrity endorsements, which are done to influence consumer buying decisions. Celebrity endorsement exploit our rationality, with a number of celebrity tweeters promoting expensive goods. Also, people are more likely to change their behaviour if celebrity endorsement is positively framed… more people will be attracted to a product if a celebrity says they like it, than if a celebrity gives a neutral view of it.
Ethical Issues Surrounding Celebrity Endorsements
First and foremost, celebrity endorsements that aren’t obvious to the public are manipulative. They deliberately try to influence publics to change buying behaviour without telling them their motive. They psychologically affect human beings who have no control over the situtation.
Endorsements must be transparent and able to be monitored in order to be ethical – the type interference and token interference must be visible. In this way, we need to be told that endorsement is being used, and we must be able to notice. Thus, ensuring that all twitter statuses that are endorsing a company are followed by “ad” or “spon” will help to make it more ethical. The more actual token interference transparency we demand, the less effective these techniques are. Here we have to make a decision between ethical paths and effective paths – do we want to build a reputation on public trust by being ethical, or do we want to dismiss ethicality and be more successful? In terms of Public Relations, the first option would be better – no public likes to be lied to.
Ofcourse, we have to look at the other side of the argument too. If an organisation is trying to do good for the publics health – even by means of subtle manipulation – then we can’t really judge them negatively. Yes, it would be more ethical to be honest with the public, but if endorsements work better and are more successful in changing harmful behaviour, then we should not be too judgemental. Moreover, if a company constantly nudges their publics to aid behavioural change for the better – for example to eat more healthily – and the public start to eat healthily in the long-term, then the organisation would have changed a life for the better.
By: Mona Kaushal ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources