Pro-Regulation: A Political Case Study

In thinking about the implications of grassroots marketing, questions of ethics and trust arise. As corporations are becoming more Internet-savvy their paid advertisers are becoming better equipped at posing as amateurs. From a political perspective, misrepresentation in advertisements may have a negative effect on a candidate’s campaign. Thus, in such an environment issues of trust, ethics, and accuracy are unavoidable. I believe that in light of the potential for deception, it is important that grassroots marketing is regulated through legislative policies and initiatives.

With the presentation of misleading information, citizens are not being adequately informed. As a result of the prevalence of such advertising, they may fall victim to the agendas of corporations masking as amateur users. A prime example can be found in the famous “Harry and Louise” advertisement, sponsored by the Health Insurance Association of America (HIAA). In 1994, President Bill Clinton proposed a health care initiative generated a stream of issue ads as interest groups voiced their opposition. HIAA served as one group that opposed Clinton’s plan. Thus, the organization disguised their corporate endorsement by featuring actors posing as a middle-class couple in their home. In a series of print and TV ads, “Harry and Louise” voiced their questions and concerns about Clinton’s plan, which had a significant impact on Clinton’s political campaign. Commenting on the pervasive effects of the ads, Mark Crispin Miller, a professor of communications at New York University, and issue ad watcher, said “[the]campaign was really instrumental in shooting down Clinton’s plan. The ads seemed to have come from the grassroots but were really bogus grassroots organizations.”

The media response to the issue ads was also very telling. In a study conducted regarding the issue ad, it was found that “reporters did a poor job of contextualizing ads, assessing their fairness and accuracy and identifying their sponsors. One such example of media manipulation was that most broadcast reports on the ads aired on a full-screen. As a result, theirpower was magnified “and increased the likelihood that viewers would confuse them with news”. I think that this instance demonstrates the importance of securing such legislative regulation. Through the “Harry and Louise” advertisements, public opinion was swayed in a manner that hindered Clinton’s health initiatives. The ethical and trust issue in this instance pertained to the actions of HIAA. They consciously made the executive decision to mask their corporate sponsorship of the ads, in lieu of perpetrating as amateurs. Thus, individuals may have viewed the advertisements in a different light if they had knowledge regarding HIAA’s direct involvement. I think that if this was the case, that HIAA’s political agenda would have weighed in more into the discussion. However, because of the deceptive practices of HIAA, such was no afforded to the public.

Source: Untruth In Advertising: Misrepresentation in Ads Washington Monthly, April, 2000, by Howard Isenstein