The media and the ad business are only a part of society. It’s the job of everyone to kick off positive change for themselves! You don’t have to buy coke! If you haven’t learned that to much sugar is bad for you, and that ads want to sell products, the problem lies in a lack of knowledge.

But attention please! The other way round it’s the same story. Ad agency can’t blame the public, they should protect their “primal source of income” from harm as they would protect themselves.

Should individuals start taking responsibility for their own actions and a less time trying to find someone to blame other than themselves?

You can’t go around demanding morals from agencies when as an individual or a group, you don’t adhere to those morals yourself.

“Should ad agencies have a similar moral decision when it comes to soda as they do to tobacco?”

Sure, well, if they had morals, er, right? Perhaps they could get their clients to stop advertising unhealthy food and beverages to kids, for example.

Vs. the argument I first posted whose subtext is: anything consumed immoderately can be unhealthy, ergo I’ll do work for Coke and defer calorie counting responsibility to their “audience” (that word still feels a bit awkward in this context)

hit me: rjulian@quo-vadis.tv

“apply rational scrutiny when evaluating net harm vs. net good”

Give me an example if you please.

As for big agencies, I tend to agree, their calculus is more base: can this account help us feed the beast?

Should the agency for the bagel brand I consume wring their moral hands? Should the cream cheese folks, or the Cheezit folks, or the hundred-of-other-food-brands-I-consume do the same? I think not. I place the responsibility for moderating consumption of potentially unhealthy (when consumed in excess) products at the feet of the buyer (especially parents).

Next time Coke and W+K could do a promotion, maybe they’ll ask the artists to work with a more sustainable medium.

Thanks for raising this issue!