• Breadcrumb navigation uses Javascript

---

Protecting brand values:

Navigating the ethics of marketers' guidelines

by Simon Longstaff

Imagine this ... let's suppose that a bank decides to put its advertising out to tender. The brief for the pre-selected agencies includes a set of guidelines that the company has developed to protect the integrity of its brand. Indeed, the company insists that the winning agency must agree to produce advertising that complies with these guidelines – and it does so because of a concern that its brand values not be compromised. Now, I wonder how this requirement would be viewed by advertising agencies?

I suspect that the vast majority of people would take the bank's decision in their stride. Indeed, I doubt that it would raise much comment. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, our 'imaginary' situation is, in fact, commonplace. Agencies constantly have to operate within a matrix of formal and informal guidelines that define the boundaries within which advertising can be created. So, who will object to what is a basic fact of advertising life? Second, although the vast majority of people who go along with this arrangement probably never give it a second thought; and those who do think about it will probably feel that there is nothing wrong with an organisation claiming the right to define its brand values and then insist on their being respected.

The owner of a name (or brand) is ultimately responsible for deciding what it stands for. It's a matter of open choice – and brands can be (and often are) situated at quite different points on the spectrum. Some aim to be associated with values that fit with an image of being 'rough and ready'; others want to exude a sense of 'refinement". Some appeal to people of moderate tastes and habits – others pitch their message to the 'wild child' who wants to smash taboos. In each and every case, the person who owns the brand decides how it stands in society.

Surely the right to define 'who we are' and 'what we stand for' is fundamental to the operation of a free society. So, if people want to make use of our name (even for our benefit) then they should do so only in a manner that respects the values and principles with which we wish our name to be aligned.

Of course, this is not to say that advertising agencies should surrender their right to choose which brands they want to work with. Indeed, agencies have a responsibility to ensure that they do not violate their own sense of integrity by surrendering their right to say 'no' to clients they would prefer not to work with. For example, some agencies have chosen, in the past, to miss out on lucrative commercial opportunities by refusing to work with tobacco companies. Of course, others have made different choices. The point is that agencies enjoy the same rights as clients to define who they are and what they stand for – and to act accordingly.

Now, imagine this ... let's suppose that the bank sets some further conditions. First, it requires that its advertising agency not work for any of its competitors. Second, the bank states, in its brief, that it wishes to position its brand at the leading edge of socially responsible corporations. Believing that its brand should be protected from the risk of 'guilt by association' it has decided to ask all of its suppliers (including its advertising agency) to adopt complementary policies. For example, it states that suppliers may not provide goods or services to the tobacco industry. Now, I wonder how this requirement would be viewed by advertising agencies?

This issue is, of course, more complicated. Even the requirement that an agency not work for its competitors might be seen as an unjustifiable restraint. However, given that agencies either implicitly (or explicitly) promise to add considerable commercial value to a business, it is easy to see how one or more competitors could come to the view that acting for more than one of them would represent a conflict of interest. Of course, conflicts of interest do not produce an insurmountable obstacle to acting for competitors. The simple solution is for all affected parties to give their informed consent to the agency continuing to act (despite the conflict). In practice, achieving this consent is difficult.

But what of the further prohibition against working for tobacco companies? Is the bank asking for too much? Well, in common with the earlier discussion about brands, it seems to me that the bank can ask for more or less what it wants from an agency. After all, there is no compulsion for any agency to pitch for the work. To do so, is entirely a matter of choice. So, if the bank has good reasons for thinking that its brand needs to be protected and it is acting in an open and transparent manner within a competitive market place, it is hard to see that it can be condemned for setting conditions that agencies must agree to if they want to enter into a commercial relationship.

Now, imagine this ... let's suppose that the bank goes one step further. Not only does it want to shape the way its own brand is portrayed. Not only does it want to develop a relationship with an agency that voluntarily renounces the opportunity to produce advertising for tobacco companies. In addition to this, it asks prospective agencies to sign up to a charter that establishes guidelines relating to the portrayal of women. The bank argues that a majority of its customers are women and that it wishes to ensure that it can demonstrate the extent of its commitment to them by using its influence in the market place to encourage practices favourable to their interests. As such, the bank wishes all of its key suppliers to adopt the same code of conduct that it applies to the conduct of its own affairs. Now, I wonder how this requirement would be viewed by advertising agencies?

As we have seen, there is nothing new in the idea of ensuring the 'integrity' of a supply chain. However, is it another thing to insist on the integrity of a supplier – and then to assess compliance across the full span of a supplier's activities; whether directly linked to the organisation's business or not?

In answering this question, we could consider whether or not the Cancer Council might reasonably be expected to insist that its suppliers have nothing to do with the tobacco industry. Would a business concerned with environmental sustainability have a legitimate interest in ensuring that its suppliers control pollution in all of their operations?

If we answer 'yes' to questions about the Cancer Council, then what might be wrong with a bank requiring its suppliers to meet a similar condition? Well, it seems to me that there is nothing wrong with this, in principle. The critical issue is that the adoption of the bank's prescribed ethical standards be voluntary on the part of its suppliers. In the case of advertising agencies the final decision will, in part, involve balancing a presumption in favour of creative and commercial freedom against the commercial costs of losing the bank as a client. However, of even greater importance is the agency's assessment of the bank's guidelines. In the worst case, the guidelines might be based on principles that the agency finds intrinsically repugnant. In that case, the agency would have no alternative but to walk away from the business. In the best case, the guidelines will mirror the agency's own approach to the relevant issues. In these circumstances, the fact that adoption of the code is driven by the bank is relatively unimportant – for the agency is only being asked to do what it would freely choose to do in any case. The bank's code then becomes the basis for an easy relationship between like-minded people.

Now, imagine this ... let's suppose that a State Government decides to put its advertising out to tender. The brief for the pre-selected agencies includes a set of guidelines that the government has developed to protect the integrity of its brand. Indeed, the government insists that the winning agency must agree to produce advertising that complies with these guidelines – and it does so because of a concern that its brand values not be compromised. The Victorian Minister for Women's Affairs, Mary Delahunty, has proposed that government work only be given to agencies that sign up to a charter establishing guidelines for the portrayal of women. Now, I wonder how this requirement will be viewed by advertising agencies? Will this be considered a fairly unremarkable turn of events? Will the government's decision be labelled as “insidious invasion” of an agency's control over its creative work?

discuss this article

---