The AdNews NGen blog: Freedom of Choice in Advertising

I Think, Therefore I Am

I'm a small 'l' liberal. I believe in freedom of speech, choice, assembly and religion. I also believe that the majority of Australians feel the same way. Nobody wants to be told where they should live, what footy team they should follow, or what they can and cannot say. As Australians, we expect these freedoms to form the cornerstone of our democracy. Therefore, the mind boggles at how much censorship and how many restrictions are placed upon consumers and their ability to effectively engage with brands. The government, both at a federal and state level, say that some brands should be banned because "it's for our own good". Tobacco advertising has been banned in Australia since the early 1990s, and there is still an outcry on fast food advertising.

I'm not suggesting that smoking doesn't give you cancer, or that some fast food outlets are not unhealthy, but by explicitly banning certain categories, brands and products "for our own good", it is inherently encroaching on our basic rights as Australians. Freedom of choice means we can choose to engage with some advertising and ignore others; we have the choice to buy a Mars Bar instead of a fruit salad, and ultimately we decide whether buying a certain product is detrimental to our health and well-being. There is an argument to be made about adding excess strain on our health care system to accommodate these "lifestyle" choices, but if we start going down this road, where does it end? Do we ban motorcycle advertising because it is more dangerous than driving a car?

In a free society, everyone can compete with their different opinions, and the consumer is their judge and jury. Philip Morris can compete with the Quit organisation; KFC can compete with obesity-related health organisations and the beauty of it is that consumers can think of the communication logically and rationally, and make up their own mind. If people believe that it is unfair to pit multi-million dollar companies against non-profit organisations, they have clearly missed the key of  Media 101 – content is king. Programmes such as The Biggest Loser and Big are far more engaging than a 30 second TVC for a fast food outlet.

This leads to my next point - engagement. Social media is perhaps the single-most revolutionary thing to happen to advertising, and the world, in the 21st Century. Social media has immense marketing power and best of all, it is unfiltered. Consumers can blog, tweet, comment and review anything they like, in real time. This then helps other consumers as they can research that restaurant down the road via Urbanspoon, or that brand of jeans via the Vogue forums, and decide whether it will be a worthwhile purchase. Instead of fearing this unbiased and honest assessment, brands are immersing themselves in it, which will undoubtedly lead to better and more effective communication in the long term. This, in essence, is what freedom of choice is all about. The freedom to choose what is good for us, and what is not.

Now, juxtapose this with the current rigid governmental advertising guidelines in Australia. Tobacco advertising is banned and there are limitations on alcohol and fast food advertising - just to name a few. Canberra needs to understand that consumers cannot, and should not be treated like passive infants. This "mother knows best" mentality entrenched in government ranks is condescending at best, and unconstitutional at worst. It is high time to give consumers the freedom of choice they not only deserve, but are entitled to.

Mark Tzintzis
OMD