Are there any accounts you won't work on?

Are there any accounts you won't work on?
I for example never work on tobacco or tobacco related products.
What about you?

Tags: advertising, ethics

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Buddy 'Friendly' Wachenheimer on December 24, 2007 at 3:13pm

Is the Chicken Ranch in Vegas cool?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by J.S. Gilbert on December 24, 2007 at 4:01pm

If the Chicken Ranch is looking for a radio campaign, give them my number. I was trying to work on a jingle, but the only decent rhyme I could up with was "lap dance" and "chance" and I think it's been used.

But I suppose it's perspective. There are those who think that the military industrial complex is good for the United States becuase it cuts down on the number of "young" people who would otherwise be competing for goods and services, such as jobs, housing, etc. and would be bearing children, instead of dying in wars.

Cigarettes have done a good job of keeping funeral parlors, oxygen companies, surgeons and many others in business. Hey if it weren't for cigarettes, politicians might have actually had to look at some other issues over the past 20 years and perhaps enacted a law or two that didn't deal with smoking.

Yes, you can rationalize everything, including the fact that recycling in the United States currently uses more energy and materials than it saves. Apparently the beef industry is more responsible for greenhouse gases and global warming than the burning of fossil fuel. And to those of you responsible for dog food commercials, I ask how you can sleep at night if you haven't actrually tasted the new improved Alpo for yourself to verify that it is actually tastier?

And because I didn't spend the prerequisite $1,237.56 this year on Christmas presents, I apparently may be single handedly responsible for the economy taking a nose dive.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sanjay on December 25, 2007 at 3:01am

i dont work on energy drinks e.q. redbull, gettored etc.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Richard Laurence Baron on December 25, 2007 at 3:12pm

Gracious - the things you stumble across on Christmas Day. As always with Sunil's questions, there is some thought required. Mary and Buddy's responses are sound business answers and should be de rigueur by now for all ad professionals.

As for accounts, I would balk at [1] political campaigns (also see first paragraph, above). [2] Work for OUS governments whose policies are proven inimical to basic human rights. [3] "Miracle" cures, homeopathic remedies - they're right out; many additional products and services which lack supporting data for claims fall into this third category.

Beyond that, my door - and mind - are pretty open. Remember this comes from a guy who's created successful campaigns for weapon systems, e.g.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mary Baum on December 25, 2007 at 11:43pm

I will say I've been greatly irritated by the ads on progressive talk radio exhorting folks to buy gold.

Most of my billings come from a financial-services product that thoroughly explains the connection between risk and return and come in five flavors, from very conservative to rather aggressive. We paper the walls of our presentations and web sites with disclosures and disclaimers, and commodities in any stripe are not part of the investment mix.

Now, maybe I have the progressive radio listener demographic all wrong, but I don't usually associate that segment of the market with the ultra-sophisticated investor who would normally find commodities on a suitability statement -- maybe that's because the same stations are also carrying commercials for bankruptcy solutions and not Barron's.

So to hear my favorite personalities reading live commercials for any commodity, even gold, in a commercial that doesn't include any standard disclaimers of the "this is not a solicitation; please read the prospectus carefully" sort kind of sticks in my craw. Especially since I think "precious metals are among the highest-risk investments on the market, compared to their expected return, and are only suitable for highly sophisticated investors" should be a disclaimer.

So knowing what I know about the financial industry, I wouldn't, come to think of it, work on a financial-services product that was unsuitable for its market.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Antonio on December 26, 2007 at 9:19am

I would never work for a "penis enlargement" company...

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kevin Glennon on December 27, 2007 at 1:58am

Maybe I'm a total whore, but I don't see a problem with doing work for any client. Really, do we live in a society where we have to babysit for everybody? Let's face it, I could spend all my time railing against Big Tobacco, and it wouldn't even dent the sales of cigarettes. I think of the AA model -- until a customer wants to be helped, you can't help them.

Screw it, do your best for your clients. If there's something you simply can't stomach, I can't imagine you'd have a chance at winning the account. I think Big Oil is evil. Would I do great work for them? Of course.

But here's the kicker -- as leaders in communications in the information age, some of our tools involve changing the ways our clients do business. It's not just about PR stunts these days, so much as creating relationships with customers. These days, we're actually given chances to modify business to make results with more impact. What's better, to get on a high horse and decline pitching the work, or to land the account and do something positive, like having your Big Tobacco client not even try to market to kids?

Once again, great post Sunil!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Radovan Grezo on December 27, 2007 at 4:00am

tobacco.

there's a lot of people who don't mind it, sure. but I worked on the League Against Cancer account at my first agency and since I'm a strict anti-smoking guy I would never do ads for cigarettes.

also political advertising that is far far off from my own beliefs (chrstian conservative parties and stuff) is a no no for me.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Richard Laurence Baron on December 27, 2007 at 8:34am

Well done, Kevin. Yes, I work for Big Oil which is mostly too busy to be evil. My own current practice mirrors precisely what you recommend: Creating new and more rewarding relationships with customers - whom I identify as "stakeholders."

The Worldwide Web makes stakeholder interactions far more practicable, increasing the opportunities for change and positive reinforcement. Our mutual friend David Wolfe (and his associates) even wrote a book about the whole thing. Creating and maintaining more positive customer relationships is within our power.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kevin Glennon on December 29, 2007 at 12:25am

Hey Richard, what's going on with Big Oil and the relationship with wild animals?

What with the huge writer's strike going on, wouldn't now be the perfect time to strike with a client like Exxon Mobil (Esso, et al) with an animal-centric television show demonstrating the simple things we could do these days, while capitalizing on the Green movement our industry seems to be loving?

Is Barb Pflughaupt still showing up here? You two need to talk. Wasn't she recently speaking with NBC about a couple of her television shows about animals? Imagine Richard taking a small percentage of your ad budget and working with Barb to make it a primetime show in the next two months???

This is what AdRants was BUILT to do!!!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Richard Laurence Baron on December 30, 2007 at 9:26am

Good AM, Kevin - Happy New Year to come and apologies for the delay in answering. I don't know if Barbara is still following AdGabber, but I have her as a friend on Facebook. Meantime, your idea about ExxonMobil is a pretty good one. I offer these thoughts quickly on a Sunday morning.

1. Of all the oil and gas companies I work with, ExxonMobil isn't currently on my client list, though I have very long-term connections with the company on the Lubricants side going back several decades.

2. If you check ExxonMobil's sustainability report, you'll note that much more than half its 2006 contributions went to educational efforts; the company spent $6.5 million on "environmental causes."

3. However, ExxonMobil does also promote a "Save the Tiger Fund" which might be a prospective target...especially in light of the recent tiger incident on the West Coast.

I'll lay a note on Barbara this AM via Facebook about this: I suppose I could track down someone at ExxonMobil who might be an appropriate contact. Meantime, keep the cards and letters coming. All the best from Houston...RLB.