Question

Two students at Cambridge University in England raised more than $40,000 toward their university tuition by wearing business logos painted on their faces for a day. Dunlop, however, went to the extreme by offering a set of free tires to those who would have the company's flying- D logo permanently tattooed somewhere on their bodies. Ninety-eight people complied. Is it ethical for advertisers to resort to such promotions dubbed "skinvertising"? Do you think it's even effective? Would you participate? (Objs. 1,5)

Answer 1

Skinvertising is when an individual agrees to get a permanent tattoo of a brand logo on his body. Advertising is risky because businesses have to esnure that they attract customers without manipulating them. Companies would want to display their logos in places where the targetted audience can see it often so the chances of them recalling the brand are higher. One would participate in this because it is a fast and easy way to earn money to support their families. If people are doing it out of choice, then it might be seen as ethical but if poverty pushes them to do it because they do not have acess to resources, this would mean that firms are taking advantage of their poverty.

It cannot be perceived as ethical because it gives a wrong message to the society. For instance, in Japan, companies would pay women who are over 18 to wear stickers on their thighs and post pictures of the same. This could give a wrong message as their perceptions about women could change.

It could be effective because if a person got a tattoo on some visible part of the body, then individuals would keep seeing the logo for a continuous period of time which would increase the chances of them recalling the brand. It is easier to reach the targetted audience this way, and the reach is higher because everywhere that the individual goes, people around him/her will see the logo. Though it is a quick way to make money, I would not be willing to participate in the same.