Is this Ethical?

I have no idea who Count Chocula & General Mills are, but I am presuming they are mascots of some kind?!

LOL..

I for one believe Count Chocula is real. Don't you?

Ha ha thats hilarious!

OOps... double post.

I'm afraid it's true... Quisp and Quake told me so.

No, Count Chocula is who I'm going after... it's General Mills I don't believe in!

Yeah, good point! I never thought I would get into trouble or anything, but I guess what I am saying is that in the case of building a list and relationship with your subscribers based on a fictional story that helps you to craft your USP...sometimes feels a little, well..."sly", you know?

I think there is a difference with using true stories with some minor details altered as opposed to totally made up stuff. Stories that come just from your imagination, that's deceptive.

It's still lying. If you're okay with that, that's cool. But don't try and pretend it's something it isn't.

Everyone rationalizes their actions - be they good, bad or indifferent. Even serial killers and rapists rationalize what they did. They'd go insane otherwise. It's how the human mind works.

What you do is up to you. But at least be honest with yourself that you're lying to get more sales. Saying anything else is a load of bull and both you and the people you tell that too deserve more honesty than that.

-Dan

I can't agree with this - lying to sell a product makes me no better than Madoff. We all see how well that worked out for him, right?

This thread makes me think about the Apple trial. 3g twice as fast, half the price =)) Their answer was: Only a fool would believe an ad.

I didn't think respected lawyers/politicians existed.

I think this sums it up pefectly.

Assuming another persona for advertisment sakes is fine as long as you don't embelish the truth of what the product actually offers.

By keeping your ads in line with the Ronseal ad method (i.e. telling people exactly what your product does) it shouldn't matter whether or not you assume another personality to put this point across!

Mark

PS - I love that this thread immediately turned into a breakfast cereal debate! AWESOME!!!

PPS - For members outside of the UK - Ronseal is a paint and varnish manufacturer that always end their ads with; "Ronseal; it does exactly what it says on the tin!"

Just not the case. In many professions there is a code of ethics. Not an individual code but one the entire industry is expected to live up to.

Obvious to whom? The market the McDees ads run to (pre-schoolers) BELIEVE in McDonaldland.

How obvious is it that?

What about Uncle Ben? Aunt Jemima? The Marlboro Man? Need I go on? Okay, I will...

The Culligan Lady... The Gorton's Fisherman... Josephine The Plumber... Juan Valdez?

Madge the Manicurist... Maytag Repairman... The Tasters Choice couple...

And what about the Polaroid couple from the 80's? Remember James Garner and Mariette Hartley? Two well known actors that did a series of commercials... billboards... mag. ads... even a few radio spots as a spokes couple for the camera. Yet they were not a couple... weren't even friends... YET for years afterward some people just assumed they were a couple. The only truth was they owned and used polaroid cameras.

Unethical? Fraud?

Seriously... this can go on for hours. Fiction in advertising, whether it be a character or a scenario is very much allowed as long as the ad is honest and not out to defraud.

Not apples and oranges... more like apples and baseballs. Harry potter is a work of literature... not an advertisement.

dude,

No offense but go back and read this entire thread. You're jumping into a conversation you obviously don't know too much about. The question is about created personas. And there is nothing... I repeat NOTHING unethical about that. There is no ronald mcdonald... betty crocker... or [sigh]...

Seriously, I can't list them all again. Just do a search and look around. No one is talking about coming up with an alias to screw people. It's coming up with a character that brands your product or service.

And that's completely ethical.

I have to be honest here... and no disrespect intended... but what are you talking about?

Marketing is full of fictional characters longterm mascot types as well as short term just to help sell. Advertising (ethical... honest advertising) is built on this.

Here's an example: Sonic restaurant chain is currently running ads with 2 fictional characters that appear to be a married couple. They use the speaker/car service thing and each "episode" they're doing something else comical that further sells us the idea that they are a couple. They are in fact... not a couple. Will they become the trademark of Sonic? Most probably not. But in advertising you never know who or what is going to end up being the trademark. And god... there are far too many examples like the sonic one, for me to mention...

But remember this important fact: In advertising you never know what's going to "click" with your market. Therefore it is quite normal... and yes ethical and honest to try out characters to see what works.

FYI: There is no human form of a mac and a pc. And had those mac ads not been successful you could bet your azz those 2 actors would be out of work.

This is what's so confusing about your post, in my mind. We DO ALL KNOW THE DIFFERENCE. You're talking about something that isn't close to what the rest of us are talking about. You're talking fraud.

It's been said before and I don't know about you, but I talk to lawyers all the time especially with my offline clients. As long as it's not meant to defraud someone, fictional characters are perfectly normal.

There is not delusion... we know the difference... Not just deep down, but on the surface too.

What if we use different words, like "change" identity and create a story?


If you make false stories of trades then the END RESULT will probably not be what you say. Marketers can create (creative) stories to fit the product and the listener, but what you say about the products/services and the results you get, need to be truthful.

If you're writing a story and you want to create a story to relate to the listener to create rapport, then I see nothing wrong with that. What you are doing is creating an Image or a brand with that character.

Is Lexus lying because they create the same car, throw another "brand" on it, and its 10-20k more? Is that unethical?

You get the same result and you Pay for the Marketing and the Brand...

IMO- As long as the end result, is a Win/Win situation, then do whatever it takes

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ALL SAYING. You're talking about fraud. But... if you learned how to trade in the summer but you tell a story about discovering it in the dead of winter... on a snowy retreat skiing with your family... There is nothing unethical abou that.

Admittedly I have no idea who Ray McDoald is but I've already given you a bunch of stories that were written to sell. The examples go on. BTW... if McDonalds does (another) commercial about the hamburglar escaping from Mayor McCheeze's jail, is that unethical? The characters are made up and so is the story.

This is again where I say you're not getting it. OF COURSE YOU DON'T MAKE UP STORIES OF FAKE TRADES... THAT'S UNETHICAL!

No question about it, it's fraud and you should be put in prison...

But there is no problem legally or ethically with you taking the events of a real trade and turning up the drama for a story that sells.

"I made 1 million dollars" is boring...

But...

"When I was just 6 years old I wrote myself a fake check for a million dollars. A piece of scrap paper and a crayon. I laugh now when thinking about it but everynight for years I went to bed wishing it were true... hoping against all hope that a dirt poor farmboy with only a high school education could really make it big in America...

Then... just last June it happened. I remember it like it was yesterday. A Friday afternoon. My family and I were preparing for a weekend camping. Just an inexpensive way to get some family time. Before leaving the house my wife checks the mailbox.

"Honey... this looks important... I think it's a check..."

The family gathered around as I tore open that envelope like a kid on christmas morning. I had to rub my eyes when I saw it...

A check for $1,194,500.

The dreams of that 6 year old farm kid actually came true. And I couldn't have done it without Forex."

I decided from that day forward the Raregoodstuff family would still go camping whenever we could... but maybe it was time to upgrade our tent.

(Only parts being true is you grew up on a farm, had only a high school education... and ultimately did get a check for that much and you got it trading forex.)

Do you really not see the distinction?

Of course selling yourself as somethng you're not is unethical. But that's really not what the origina idea here was.