Fast Food, Shoe Sales, Ice Cream, Reality TV…The things that we absolutely adore, but rarely admit for fear of facing judgment. Things we don’t need, are not necessarily good for us, but we occasionally justify because they make us feel so good.

Haagan Daz Print

Sound familiar? It should, even if you never fall prey to temptation. Ad agencies learned long ago how effective it is to appeal to consumers’ hedonic needs. Of course consumers purchase products and services to fulfill functional needs. We need water to stay hydrated, food for sustenance, gas to make our cars run, but often the things we really desire; decadent food, lavish clothing, and sex, drive our behavior. Marketers and agencies alike have told us to spoil ourselves, to give in and let our temptations take over, be it chocolate, ice cream, a soothing bubble bath or big greasy cheeseburger.

Adrina Patridge for Carls Jr.

Some of these indulgences are worse than others and because many of them conflict with our symbolic needs, (our desire to be perceived in a particular way by and how we relate to others), many people keep their “guilty pleasures” a secret.

Yes, consumers go to great lengths to hide these little imperfections. Women cut the tags off of new clothing before slipping it in the closet, hoping their husbands won’t notice. Meanwhile their husbands are careful to dispose of the cheeseburger wrapper from their fast food lunch before pulling in the driveway. And who hasn’t spent a Saturday in your pajamas watching an all day marathon of Jersey Shore or Top Model, all the while hoping your friends don’t call so you won’t have to come up with an excuse for missing spin class.

All of these things, despite the pleasure they provide us, create turmoil in our minds because although they bring us pleasure, “we know better.” It’s an approach-avoidance conflict that we all experience when we desire something that fulfills one need, but fails to meet another. These examples are mild; we know that all things in moderation can be healthy, but what happens when the desire is truly wrong? As consumers, where do we draw the line at acting on our hedonic needs and overlooking our symbolic needs.  And as advertisers, is it right to encourage an unethical action to fulfill these needs?

Earlier this month the Buffalo Bills radio network dropped an advertising campaign for AshleyMadison.com, an online dating site that uses the tagline, “Life is short. Have an affair.” This isn’t the first time that this site has been dropped from or denied an advertising buy based on the ethical position of the network or broadcast association. The site also tried to purchase a spot in the 2009 Super Bowl and the 2010 Academy Awards. Both networks denied the site’s bid for airtime citing a conflict of interest between the ad content and the demographics of the audience.  The site was however, allowed to run an ad during the February 2010 Pro Bowl which reached an audience of 5 million viewers.

Jenna Jameson for PETA

It’s no secret that sex sells. In recent years we’ve seen ice cream, fast food and even PETA embrace sexual images as a way to capture attention and sell their products and ideas.

Obviously everyone has a set of values and ethics that we live by and we make choices based on these values, a sort of internal monitor as to what we find offensive, inappropriate, or edgy, but acceptable. Sometimes these perceptions very by situation and company, but with changes in social values, the proliferation of free media and a desire for networks and terrestrial radio to keep up with cable and satellite competitors, it’s no wonder ads are constantly pushing the limits of social propriety.

Advertising has the power to persuade. It’s dependent on each of us within the Advertising Institution to determine how we use that power. Some say because a product is legal, it’s fine to promote, while others think there is a right place and time for specific products and messages given possible dangers, i.e., alcohol, and tobacco. Given the content of the AshleyMadison.com commercials, what do you think?

The 30-second spot is beyond suggestive. It outright tells you to go out and cheat on your spouse. The company even has additional campaigns running online to teach you how to cheat without getting caught. Talk about a guilty pleasure you want to keep under wraps!

You might expect to see commercials like these on an adult cable network, or hear the radio version of it while listening to Howard Stern on satellite radio, but during the Super Bowl or any other professional sports event? Never! There are children watching those games, who follow their favorite players week after week, dreaming of emulating their performance on the field. It’s bad enough that parents have to hope their son‘s or daughter’s idol is truly someone for them to look up to, without also having to censor the ads they will see while watching them perform.

I applaud the networks that denied AshleyMadison.com these opportunities. Everyone knows that extra-marital affairs happen. In fact, Americans are seemingly intrigued by adultery scandals involving celebrities, professional athletes, even the President of the United States. The more scandalous, the better, but that doesn’t make it right.

In a society where bisexuality, homosexuality, co-habitation, divorce, and multiple marriages are widely accepted there should be no need for a service like AshleyMadison.com or for the promotions of the service to be placed in mainstream media where inappropriate audiences could be exposed to the messages. We as advertisers need to recognize that there is more to life than pleasing a client and making “funny” or “pretty” ad. We need to show more social responsibility when considering the time, place, content, and context of the messages we produce and places in which those messages are received.

AshleyMadison.com can keep running on the Playboy Channel, Howard Stern Radio and in Maxim magazine where the appropriate (if there is such a thing), audiences can receive their messages. The only guilty pleasure I want with my football is a big plate of hot wings and a frosty beer.

I love my favorite radio station, KLTY 94.9, because of the positive music and the positive messages. It touts itself as “Safe for the Whole Family” and it is… Then why my beef? Negative political ads are infringing on my time with God.

On my drive to work this morning, I was confronted with all of the terrible thingsSenator Kay Bailey Hutchison has done in Washington. Was it investigative reporting? No, an ad by the campaign to re-elect our current Texas governor Rick Perry.

On a station that promotes such positivity in all aspects of the way it conducts business, does it have a policy about negative political ads? Does the parent company Salem Communications? Wouldn’t the world be a better place if media outlets could refuse such ads and force the politicians to promote their own positive agendas instead of just focusing on the negative aspects of their rivals. Is this censorship or a higher calling?

Gov Perry and Sen. Hutichison…Please focus on what YOU can do for Texas as you have in other positive ads!

This is one of a series of media ads that encourages fathers to be a part of their children’s’ lives. Sponsored by the Advertising Council, the US Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families Office of Family Assistance, and the National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse, these ads were launched coinciding with Father’s Day. The reason this campaign was launched is because millions of children live without their biological fathers and are more likely to be poor, use drugs, experience educational, heath, emotional, and behavioral problems, among other things.

The series of television spots created through this campaign applies to people through humor and depicting a diverse range of family types. I found this ad to be my favorite because the ad depicts a father helping his daughter in ways not many fathers would. The other spots can be seen at http://www.fatherhood.gov/media/tv/index.cfm.

The series shows a diverse range of relationships between father and daughter or father and son. With the popular belief that money equals happiness, this campaign serves to portray the value that family is happiness. The variety of the roles depicted through these television spots also serves to reverse gender stereotypes where the father practices cheerleading with his daughter (commonly believed to strictly be a girls’ activity) or the father makes lunch for his son (believed to be the mother’s job).

One of the main reasons I believe this campaign to be socially responsible is because it wants to fight community evils like theft, drug abuse, educational issues, and much more by showing how father child relationships can make people happier. Yes this campaign mainly endorses father children relationships, but it also serves to encourage healthy marriages. Culture, background, and life experiences all influence consumer behavior and buying decisions. The campaign for responsible fatherhood serves to promote the health and happiness of consumers and their life experiences.