|
Do Employee Ethical Beliefs Affect Advertising Clearance Decisions
at Commercial Television Stations?
By:
Dr. Jan LeBlanc Wicks
Journalism Department
116 Kimpel Hall
University of Arkansas
Fayetteville, AR 72701-0116
Office: 501-575-6304
Home: 501-521-2319
Fax: 501-575-4314
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
and
Dr. Avery Abernethy
Dept. of Marketing & Transportation
201 Business Building
College of Business Administration
Auburn University, AL 36849
Office: 334-844-2458
Submitted to the Media Management & Economics Division of the Association for
Education in Journalism & Mass Communication for consideration for presentation
at the 1997 AEJMC Convention in Chicago, Illinois.
Do Employee Ethical Beliefs Affect Advertising Clearance Decisions
at Commercial Television Stations?
Advertising clearance (or deciding whether to reject ads) has become more
important because of the FTC chairman's call for improved clearance and the
airing of liquor advertisements. A national mail survey was conducted, with
responses from over 350 stations, to discover whether employees who consider
ethical beliefs important exhibit different clearance behaviors than employees
who consider beliefs to be of lesser importance. Findings suggest that certain
beliefs are associated with more stringent ad clearance decisions.
TV Employee Ad Clearance Beliefs
Do Employee Ethical Beliefs Affect Advertising Clearance Decisions
at Commercial Television Stations?
Introduction
Advertising clearance (or the decision made by individual media vehicles to
accept, reject or request substantiation of ad claims) has always been a
potentially powerful form of advertising self-regulation. Excepting some
political ads, television stations have the power to reject any commercial
submission for any reason. Recently, advertising clearance has become even more
important.
In 1985 the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) relaxed the rules concerning
individual station monitoring for deceptive advertising. Instead of requiring
strict policies and procedures for each station, the FCC instead thought market
forces and the individual judgment of broadcasters would prevent abuses
(Elimination, 1985). This self-regulatory environment makes the decisions of
individual television stations a critical component of the consumer protection
process. But even the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chairman Robert Pitofsky
notes that self-regulation is not completely effective and encouraged improved
media clearance to "prevent ads with facially implausible claims from continuing
to 'slip through the cracks'" (FTC's Pitofsky, 14 March 1996).
Perhaps the best example of the changed self-regulatory environment is the
airing of television advertisements for Seagram's Crown Royal Canadian Whisky
which broke a voluntary distilled spirits industry TV advertising ban in effect
since 1948 (Goldman, 1996, p. 17). Given the FTC chairman's call for improved
media clearance and the recent airing of liquor ads, there is some question that
the post-1985 self-regulatory environment is providing an adequate screen
against false, deceptive or inappropriate television advertisements.
Past research examining broadcasters' ethical beliefs suggests that factors
like personal ethics, earning high profits and station image are considered when
clearing ads (Rotfeld, Abernethy & Butler, 1990; Rotfeld, Abernethy & Parsons,
1990; Rotfeld & Parsons, 1989; Rotfeld, Parsons, Abernethy & Pavlik, 1990;
Wicks, 1994, 1997). However, no study has specifically examined whether
employees who consider ethical beliefs important when clearing ads actually
exhibit different advertising clearance behaviors compared to employees of
stations who consider ethical beliefs to be of lesser importance.
A national mail study was conducted, with responses from more than 350
commercial US television stations, to discover the relationship between the
ethical beliefs of employees reviewing commercial submissions and their
station's clearance decisions. The clearance decisions or outcomes examined
were whether: 1) more types of ads are banned outright; 2) a higher percentage
of ad submissions are rejected; 3) a higher percentage of advertising
substantiation requests are made, and 4) fewer previously refused ads are
accepted upon resubmission by the advertiser after changes are made. Each
clearance outcome is examined to see whether employees' beliefs regarding the
importance of personal ethics, earning high profits, viewer complaints and the
potential of complaining advertisers to cancel ad schedules results in different
clearance practices. Other organizational and market factors which might affect
clearance decisions are also examined.
Results may identify whether certain ethical beliefs are associated with more
stringent ad clearance practices. If so, results could suggest appropriate
content of education programs for employees designed to improve ad clearance.
Such education programs would aid broadcasters in serving the public interest
and responding to the FTC's call for improved media clearance.
Literature Review
Greater willingness to run ads deemed unacceptable for broadcast prior to 1985,
like the broadcast of liquor ads, arose from several factors. First, the
National Association of Broadcaster's (NAB) TV Code was abandoned as a result of
an anti-trust action (US v NAB, 1982). "NAB employees interpreted Code
guidelines and reviewed commercials for agencies and advertisers prior to
submission for possible broadcast" (Rotfeld, Abernethy & Butler, 1990, p. 299).
So the NAB Code provided ad clearance guidance to advertisers and ad agencies,
as well as member and non-member NAB stations (Rotfeld, Abernethy & Butler,
1990). When the Code was abandoned, an important source of guidance about ad
clearance was lost.
Second, the FCC deregulated commercial television in 1984. When lifting its 16
minute per hour commercial time guideline, the FCC said that market forces would
prevent the broadcast of too many commercials. The FCC concluded that
deregulating its commercialization policies would "promote licensee
experimentation and otherwise increase commercial flexibility" (Revision, 1984,
p. 1105). Deregulation thus set the stage for experimentation in commercial
acceptance.
Third, the FCC deregulated ad clearance practices (Elimination, 1985).
Requirements to: 1) have at least one employee stay abreast of ads under FTC
review and other obvious areas of concern; 2) conduct background checks of
prospective advertisers; 3) review ads and ad copy; and 4) request
substantiation of dubious ad claims were dropped (Alan Neckritz, 1971; Center,
1971; Elimination, 1985; KMPC, 1939). After deregulation, clearance
responsibility amounted to how licensees interpreted the following policy
statement:
"Broadcasting licensees must assume responsibility for all material which is
broadcast through their facilities. This includes all programs and
advertising
material which they present to the public. With respect to advertising
material,
the licensee has the additional responsibility to take all reasonable
measures
to eliminate any false, misleading or deceptive matter...This duty is
personal
to the licensee and may not be delegated" (En banc, 1960, p. 2313).
Given the deregulation of ad clearance practices, what do clearance employees
consider when they screen ads for broadcast? An employee's ethical values and
philosophies enter into clearance decisions (Rotfeld, Abernethy & Butler, 1990;
Rotfeld, Abernethy & Parsons, 1990; Rotfeld & Parsons, 1989; Rotfeld, Parsons,
Abernethy & Pavlik, 1990; Wicks, 1994). The pressure to earn profits might make
personnel more likely to accept ads (Trevino, 1986). Cable network consider
whether an ad is in good taste, might offend viewers and had credible claims
(Hayes & Rotfeld, 1989, 1988).
Employees consider whether airing an ad reflects negatively on station image.
They also want to avoid ads which "look like a rip-off" and appear to include
misleading claims. Personal ethical beliefs also prevent some managers from
accepting questionable ads like sexually suggestive ads or those for baldness
cures (Rotfeld, Abernethy & Butler, 1990; Wicks, 1994, 1997).
Employees feel obligated to accept ads they might not otherwise accept when
competing stations air them (Wicks, 1994). Economic theory suggests this type
of behavior occurs in concentrated markets like oligopolies, which have few
competitors who consider each others' reactions when making decisions (Scherer,
1970). Many local TV markets are oligopolies. And the FCC's suggested that
market forces play a role in ad clearance. So market factors may affect ad
clearance.
Employees may also consider potential viewer complaints when clearing ads. VCR
owners, cable subscribers and 18-34 year old viewers notice when stations
increase the number of commercials or air questionable ads (Mord & Gilson, 1985;
Wicks, 1991). Radio station employees may contact advertisers regarding a
complaint and review an offending commercial again (Rotfeld & Abernethy, 1992).
Indeed, "the perception of what content 'viewers will accept' is...important,
with effect on station image being 'critical'" (Wicks, 1993, p. 94).
Some stations have written and/or verbal ad clearance standards to aid
employees in avoiding viewer or advertiser complaints. As organization size
increases, communication becomes more difficult (Dubin, 1958). So guidelines
may be developed to standardize operations and limit direct supervision to
extraordinary situations (Blau, 1974). Larger organizations may communicate
rules in writing, while rules may be communicated verbally at smaller stations
(Rushing, 1980). Organizational policies influence a manager's ethical decision
making (Hunt, Wood & Chonko, 1989; Trevino, 1986).
While larger stations tend to have more ad standards, stations of all sizes
tend to communicate ad policies or standards verbally (Wicks, 1991). Stations
that have written policies tend to request substantiation of ad claims and
reject ads more often (Parsons & Rotfeld, 1990; Rotfeld, Abernethy & Parsons,
1990; Wicks, 1991, 1994). So the presence of ad clearance guidelines,
especially written ones, seems important.
Stations affiliated with ABC, CBS and NBC appear more likely to have written
policies and stay abreast of FTC ad cases. They tend to have clearance
standards regarding more policy areas (e.g., contraceptive ads) and practices
(e.g., limiting commercial interruptions) than Fox and independent stations do.
These network affiliates, which tend to broadcast on the VHF band, ban more
types of questionable ads (e.g., X or R rated movie ads, Wicks, 1991).
Employees at VHF stations tend to considering earning the highest possible
profits when clearing ads, suggesting that rejecting more questionable ads may
make the station more attractive to reputable advertisers (Wicks, 1994).
Hypotheses
When deregulating commercial TV, the FCC stated the individual judgment of
managers would prevent abuses. Past research has suggested that managerial
ethical beliefs may affect the clearance of infomercials but may not be as
important as other factors (Wicks, 1993, 1994). The literature review also
suggests that employees at network affiliates (which are often VHF stations) and
stations with written policies tend to ban more ads and request substantiation
more often. Larger stations, which are often in larger markets, tend to have
more policies and may thus refuse more ads. Stations in markets with higher
cable penetration may refuse more ads because viewers are more likely to notice
new ad types. Thus, the following hypotheses stem from the literature review.
Hypothesis 1: Employees who say they consider certain ethical values important
work at stations having more stringent ad clearance practices (e.g, more types
of ads are banned outright, a higher percentage of ad submissions are
rejected,
a higher percentage of advertising substantiation requests are made, and
fewer previously refused ads are accepted upon resubmission by the
advertiser after changes are made).
Hypothesis 2: Employees who say they consider certain ethical values important
are more likely to work at larger stations, stations with written clearance
standards,
and stations affiliated with ABC, CBS and NBC.
Hypothesis 3: Employees who say they consider certain ethical values important
are more likely to work in larger markets and markets with higher cable
penetration.
Previous research did not suggest whether a manager's years of experience would
make him/her more likely to hold ethical beliefs important. So this
relationship was posed as a research question:
"Is a manager's experience related to holding ethical beliefs important?" or
"Are more or less experienced managers more likely to hold ethical beliefs
important?"
Methods
A mail questionnaire was developed based on past research and an in-depth
interview with a sales manager at a network affiliated station. Three pretests
to ensure items were understood correctly and the questionnaire was easy to
complete quickly. All commercial television stations listed in the 1996
Broadcasting Cable Yearbook (excluding religious, home shopping and satellite
stations which carry the signal of another station) were mailed a questionnaire
so results would be generalizable to stations nationwide.
Sales managers were polled because they are often responsible for, are included
in, and/or are informed about ad clearance. They also supervise the sales and
traffic departments which are responsible for ad content and scheduling (Wicks,
1991). As a check, the cover letter included instructions to give the
questionnaire to the employee who was primarily responsible for ad clearance.
The main mailing and two follow-ups were conducted in the summer of 1996.
Ethical belief items were developed based on the in-depth interview with a
sales manager and previous clearance research noted in the literature review.
The ethical beliefs factors, operationalized as bipolar rating scales, were
measured as follows:
"Please indicate how important each of the following statements is considered
when
deciding whether to refuse to air an ad. (Check the space which represents
how
important each statement is considered when clearing an ad.)
The ad violates my personal ethical values.
Very Not
Important_____ :: ______ :: ______ :: ______ :: ______ :: ______ ::
_____Important
(7 6 5 4
3 2 1)
Each of the following ethical belief statements was measured in this same way:
"The ad violates my personal ethical values."
"The ad's content is in poor taste (e.g., ad content would offend most viewers
in
your community)."
"Avoid negative reactions, such as complaints from viewers."
"Avoid negative reactions, such as advertisers canceling ad schedules."
"Serve the public interest, convenience and necessity."
"Maintain a positive station image in the community."
"Earn the highest possible profits for my station."
"Protect the audience from ads selling questionable, "rip-off" type products
and
services."
The goal of the study was to find out whether employees who felt certain
ethical items were important worked at stations where: 1) more types of ads
were banned; 2) refused a larger proportion of ad submissions; 3) ad
substantiation was requested more often; and 4) fewer ads which were originally
rejected but then resubmitted with changes making them acceptable were accepted
for broadcast. These clearance outcomes are based on past research (e.g.,
Rotfeld, Abernethy & Butler, 1990; Rotfeld, Abernethy & Parsons, 1990; Rotfeld,
Parsons, Abernethy & Pavlik, 1990; Wicks, 1991, 1994). Responses were coded as
follows. Employees who checked the space representing 5, 6 or 7 shown above
were coded as considering that item important. Employees who checked 1 through
4 for that item were coded as not considering that item important.
Network affiliation was coded by indicating whether the station was an ABC,
NBC, CBS, Fox or Independent/Other station. To measure the type of advertising
policy a station had, respondents indicated whether their stations had no
policies, verbal, written or written and verbal policies (Wicks, 1991). The
written and written and verbal responses were combined into one "written"
category. Broadcast band was coded by indicating whether the station broadcast
on the VHF or UHF band. Market size was measured by the number of television
households in a station's ADI or TV market (e.g., New York City). Cable
penetration was measured by the percentage of ADI TV households which subscribe
to a cable system (Broadcasting Cable Yearbook 1996; Wicks, 1997). Station size
was measured by asking respondents to estimate the number of people employed
full-time at the station. Employee experience was measured by asking
respondents the number of years they have worked in commercial television .
Measures of the dependent variables are now explained. The number of ad types
banned was measured by having respondents indicate how likely they were to ban a
few ad categories which past research indicated were controversial (e.g.,
psychic ads, 900 phone number ads and ads simulating newscasts and news
reports). Respondents also indicated in an open-ended question other types of
ads their stations never accepted. Responses to both of these questions were
totaled to obtain the number of ad types banned.
Ad substantiation was measured as follows:
"On average, considering all standard ads (e.g., 30- or 60-sec.) submitted to
air on
your station per month, for what percentage do you ask for substantiation
(e.g., of an
ad's content or the safety/validity of the product being sold)?
(If you ask for substantiation for 5% of all standard ads submitted per
month,
write in 5%.)_______________________________________________________"
Ad rejection was measured as follows:
"On average, what percentage of all standard ad (30-sec.) submissions has your
station rejected--for any reason--during the past month?
(If you rejected 2% of all standard ads submitted for airing last month,
write in 2%)________________________________________________________"
The percentage amounts included in the previous measures were based on past
research.
Acceptance of resubmitted ads previously refused was measured as follows:
"Of the standard ads rejected, how often are they resubmitted with changes that
make
them acceptable for broadcast?
Always______ :: ______ :: ______ :: ______ :: ______ :: ______ :: ______
Never"
T-tests of the Important/Not Important groups for each ethical belief item were
conducted on interval level dependent and control variables. Crosstabs or
chi-squares were conducted for control variables measured at the nominal or
ordinal levels.
It is possible that some personal ethical belief items may be considered
important by the majority of clearance employees. The focus of the study is to
examine whether clearance practices varied between employees finding a clearance
belief statement important or not important. Consequently, any items which were
considered important by a majority of respondents (e.g., more than 80%) were
excluded from the analysis.
Results
The mail survey response rate was 40.6% (364 of 896, excluding undeliverable
mailings). Frequencies for the ad clearance ethical belief statements (see
Table 1) showed that four were important to the majority of respondents (or more
than 80% indicated they were important). These four statements were excluded
from the analysis. The statements retained for analysis are:
"The ad violates my personal ethical values."
"Avoid negative reactions, such as complaints from viewers."
"Avoid negative reactions, such as advertisers canceling ad schedules."
"Earn the highest possible profits for my station."
Hypothesis 1 posited that employees who consider statements important work at
stations having more stringent clearance practices. Results for the number of
ad types banned were significant but do not support the hypothesis (see Table
2). Employees who considered personal ethical values more important worked at
stations where more ad types were banned. However, those considering high
profits and canceled ad schedules important worked at stations banning fewer ad
types. Perhaps employees having certain ethical values tend to work at
organizations which foster those same values.
Results for the percentage of ads rejected partially support Hypothesis 1.
Mangers who considered personal ethics and viewer complaints important rejected
more ads (see Table 2). Results were in the expected direction but not
significant for highest possible profits and canceled ad schedules.
Substantiation request results were partially supported as well. While managers
who found all four statements important made more substantiation requests,
results were significant only for the personal ethics and viewer complaint
items. Finally, resubmission results were significant for personal ethics and
canceled ad schedules. Managers considering personal ethics and canceled ad
schedules important accepted fewer resubmitted ads. Thus results partially
support Hypothesis 1.
Hypothesis 2 predicted that employees considering the ethical statements
important are more likely to work at larger stations, stations with written
clearance standards and stations affiliated with ABC, CBS and NBC. Results are
significant but not as expected for station size. Managers who consider
personal ethics, highest profits, viewer complaints and advertiser complaints
are significantly more likely to work at smaller stations (see Table 3).
Perhaps station philosophies are communicated better among employees in smaller
stations. Or the chance to get to know fellow employees better allows more
give-and-take in making clearance decisions. Employees can make a case for
refusing an ad on a personal level.
Only managers who consider viewer complaints important are more likely to work
at stations having written ad policies, or even verbal ad policies (see Table
4). Perhaps these policies were developed based on past complaints to avoid
future complaints. For affiliation status, managers considering highest
profits, viewer complaints and canceled ad schedules important work at CBS, ABC
or NBC affiliates, as predicted. For broadcast band, managers who find highest
profits and canceled ad schedules important tend to work at VHF stations, as
expected. Hypothesis 2 is partially supported.
Hypothesis 3 stated that employees who consider ethical values important are
more likely to work in larger markets and markets with higher cable penetration.
Hypothesis 3 is not supported as results were not significant for any belief
statement. Managers who consider factors important are not more likely to work
in larger, more competitive markets.
Finally, the research question asked whether an employee's experience seems
related to his/her having strongly held ethical beliefs. Managers who felt
highest profits, viewer complaints and canceled ad schedules were important had
significantly fewer years of experience than those believing such statements not
important. Results were in the same direction but not significant for personal
ethical values.
Discussion
Results suggest that employees who consider their personal ethical values
important are willing to take a stand to promote those values. And that stand
results in significantly different clearance outcomes which seem to protect
viewer and advertiser interests. These employees may more likely be found at
smaller organizations, where they can make a case
for rejecting an ad personally with an administrator. Or they supervise others
who follow their ethical guidelines. This seems to hold true for more or less
experiences employees.
Employees who find it important to avoid negative reactions like viewer
complaints request substantiation for ad claims and reject ads more often.
Again a personal commitment to ethical concerns seems to result in viewer
protection. Education programs aimed at developing personal ethical values in
clearance employees would be useful.
Employees who feel earning the highest possible profits is important seem to
work at stations that refuse fewer ads. Employees who find it important to
avoid canceled ad schedules work at stations banning fewer ads outright and
rejecting fewer resubmitted ads. When the profit motive is important, it
appears that employees are willing to "give" more, being more likely to do
whatever it takes to earn additional advertising revenue.
Thus, education programs which promote the value of protecting viewer interests
rather than relying on a profit motive could change clearance outcomes.
Employees could consider what the true meaning of their legal mandate, serving
the public interest, convenience and necessity, truly is. Whether airing a
psychic ad is inconsistent with the public interest is a matter of debate. Yet
an ethical discussion among employees as to why an ad for a psychic service
which has no proof of offering tangible benefits to viewers should or should not
be banned would send a message that profits are not always the most important
consideration. And an ethical discussion on whether distilled spirits
advertising encourages young viewers to drink hard liquor seems consistent with
serving the public interest. Especially if such discussions were sponsored or
sanctioned by station management.
Perhaps this is why clearance employees at smaller stations seemed more likely
to find all four ethical beliefs important. The ethical or philosophical values
inherent to their stations' culture can be communicated more effectively. If
so, this also suggests that
education programs regarding ethical beliefs would be useful. It appears that
the chance to discuss or consider ethical concerns on a more personal level
results in different clearance outcomes.
These education programs may be helpful to less experienced employees who
seemed more likely to consider highest profits, viewer complaints and canceled
ad schedules important. Perhaps they need education and advice on how to avoid
such complaints and cancellations, protect viewer and advertiser interests, yet
earn the highest possible profits for their stations. More experienced
employees or outside specialists may be able to provide insight on dealing with
balancing station and constituents' interests.
Conclusions
Future research using qualitative methods might be useful in examining
first-hand the discussions and ethical conflicts (or lack thereof) that occur
when clearance decisions are made. Such research would provide the basis for
educational programs intended to promote clearance effectiveness. This would
aid employees in meeting FTC Chairman Pitofsky's call for improved clearance to
prevent ads with obviously deceptive claims from airing. References
Babbie, E. R. (1983). The Practice of Social Research (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Blau, P. (1974). On the Nature of Organizations. New York: Wiley.
Broadcasting & Cable Yearbook. (1996). New Providence, NJ: Bowker.???
Center for Law and Social Policy. (1971). 23 RR 2d 187.
Dillman, D. (1978). Mail and Telephone Surveys. New York: Wiley.
Dubin, R. (1958). The World of Work. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Elimination of Unnecessary Broadcast Regulation (1985). 50 Fed. Reg. 5583.
"FTC's Pitofsky Plans to Hold Steady on National Advertising Enforcement
Program" (14 March 1996). Federal Trade Commission on-line news release.
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/9603/amer.htm.
En banc (1960). Report and Statement of Policy Res: Commission en banc
Programming
Inquiry. (1960). 44 FCC 2303.
Goldman, D. (1996). A Spirit's New Medium. Adweek 35 (29), 17-18.
Hayes, R. & Rotfeld, H. (1988), "The Peril of Infomercials and Cable Network
Clearance." In V. L. Hampton (Ed.), Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference
on the American Council of Consumer Interests (pp. 206-212). Columbia, MO:
American
Council on Consumer Interests.
Hayes, R. & Rotfeld, H. (1989), "Infomercials and Cable Network Programming,"
Advancing the Consumer Interest. 1 (2), 17-22.
Hunt, S., Wood, V., & Chonko, L. (1989). Corporate Ethical Values and
Organizational Commitment in Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 53, 79-90.
KMPC, The Station of the Stars, Inc. (1939). 6 FCC 729.
Mord, M. & Gilson, E. (1985). Shorter Units: Risk-Responsibility-Reward.
Journal of Advertising Research. 25, 9-19.
Parsons, P. & Rotfeld, H. (1990). "Infomercials and Television Station Clearance
Practices," Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 9, 62-72.
Policy Statement on Deception (1983). Letter from Chairman James C. Miller III
to Congressman John D. Dingell, 14 October 1993.
Revision of Programming and Commercialization Policies, Ascertainment
Requirements, and Program Log Requirements for Commercial Television Stations
(1984).
98 FCC 2d 1076.
Rotfeld, H. & Abernethy, A. (1992). Radio Station Standards for Acceptable
Advertising.
Journal of Business Research. 24, 361-375.
Rotfeld, H., Abernethy, A. & Butler, D. (1990). Acceptance of Products for
Television. In M. Carsky (Ed.), Proceedings of the American Council on Consumer
Interests ( pp. 299-304). West Hartford, CN: University of Hartford.
Rotfeld, H. Abernethy, A., & Parsons, P. (1990), "Self-Regulation and Television
Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 19, 18-26.
Rotfeld, H. & Parsons, P. (1989). Self-Regulation and Magazine Advertising.
Journal of Advertising, 18, 33-40.
Rotfeld, H., Parsons, P., Abernethy, A. & Pavlik, J. (1990). Television Station
Standards for Acceptable Advertising. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 24, 392-410.
Rushing, W. (1980). Organizational Size, Rules and Surveillance. In J. Litterer,
ed.
Organizations: Structure and Behavior, 3rd ed. New York: Wiley, 396-9, 404.
Scherer, F. (1970). Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance.
Chicago: Rand McNally.
Trevino, L. (1986). Ethical Decision Making in Organizations: A Person-Situation
Interactionist Model. Academy of Management Review, 11, 601-617.
U.S. v. NAB (1982). United States v. National Association of Broadcasters.
536 F.Supp. 149 (D.C. Cir.) 1982.
Wicks, J. (1991). An Exploratory Study of Television Advertising Practices:
Do Profitability and Organization Size Affect Clearance Formality?
Journal of Advertising, 20, 57-68.
Wicks, J. (1993). Do Managerial Factors Contribute to Viewer Complaints About
Infomercials? Esther Thorson, Ed. Proceedings of the 1993 Conference of the
American Academy of Advertising. Columbia, Missouri: Esther Thorson, School
of Journalism, University of Missouri-Columbia, 1993, pp. 93-102.
Wicks, J. (1994). Does Infomercial Clearance Vary by Managerial, Organizational,
and
Market Factors? Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 38, 229-239.
Wicks, J. (1997). Which Factors Primarily Influence the Number of Infomercial
Hours A
Commercial Television Station Airs? Journal of Media Economics 10:1, pp.
29-38.
TV Employee Ad Clearance Beliefs
Table 1
Frequencies of Clearance Ethical Belief Statements
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------
Number/Percent Considering
Ethical Belief Statement Not Important Important
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------
The ad violates my personal ethical values. 245 (67.5%) 118 (32.5%)
The ad's content is in poor taste 36 ( 9.9%) 327 (90.1%)
(e.g., ad content would offend
most viewers in your community).
Avoid negative reactions, 188 (51.8%) 175 (48.2%)
such as complaints from viewers.
Avoid negative reactions, 167 (46.1%) 195 (53.6%)
such as advertisers canceling ad schedules.
Serve the public interest, 35 ( 9.6%) 328 (90.4%)
convenience and necessity.
Maintain a positive station image 30 ( 8.3%) 333 (91.5%)
in the community.
Earn the highest possible profits for my station. 142 (39.1%) 221 (60.7%)
Protect the audience from ads selling 40 (11.0%) 323 (89.0%)
questionable, "rip-off" type products and services.
Table 2
T-tests of Clearance Ethical Beliefs (one-tailed tests) by Clearance Outcomes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------
Comparisons Mean T Sig DF
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------
The ad violates my personal ethical values
Number of Ad Types Banned
Not Important (n=245) 1.5878 -2.60 .005 361.00
Important (n=118) 2.0508 -2.43 .008* 195.48+
% of Ad Substantiation Requests
Not Important (n=223) 6.6547 -2.11 .017 324.00
Important (n=103) 11.8835 -1.82 .036* 142.86+
% of Ads Rejected
Not Important (n=229) 1.3275 -2.36 .009 335.00
Important (n=108) 2.2315 -1.84 .034* 126.33+
How Often Rejected Ads Resubmitted?
Not Important (n=199) 3.2915 1.85 .032* 292.00
Important (n=95) 2.8737 1.86 .032 186.14+
Earn the highest possible profits for my station
Number of Ad Types Banned
Not Important (n=142) 1.9859 2.41 .008* 312.00+
Important (n=221) 1.5792
% of Ad Substantiation Requests
Not Important (n=128) 6.9688 -.93 .176 324.00
Important (n=198) 9.1717
% of Ads Rejected
Not Important (n=131) 1.5954 -.10 .461 335.00
Important (n=206) 1.6311
How Often Rejected Ads Resubmitted?
Not Important (n=115) 3.1565 .00 .500 292.00
Important (n=179) 3.1564
Note: Plus or "+" indicates a separate variance estimate (SVE) (rather than a
pooledvariance estimate) t-test. SVE t-tests are used when variances within
groups appear unequal. The SVE is used whenever probabilities for the F-Test
for equality of variance are "small." So the SVE was used whenever the F-Test
significance level was .10 or below.
*Denotes significance at the indicated level. One-tailed tests.
Table 2 (continued, p. 2)
T-tests of Clearance Ethical Beliefs (one-tailed tests) by Clearance Outcomes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------
Comparisons Mean T Sig DF
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------
Avoid negative reactions, such as complaints from viewers
Number of Ad Types Banned
Not Important (n=188) 1.7234 -.18 .427 361.00
Important (n=175) 1.7543 -.18 .427 356.95+
% of Ad Substantiation Requests
Not Important (n=172) 5.2267 -2.85 .002 324.00
Important (n=154) 11.7468 -2.77 .003* 240.83+
% of Ads Rejected
Not Important (n=176) 1.2159 -2.35 .009 335.00
Important (n=161) 2.0559 -2.27 .012* 202.71
How Often Rejected Ads Resubmitted?
Not Important (n=149) 3.2617 1.01 .157 292.00
Important (n=145) 3.0483 1.01 .157 291.98+
Avoid negative reactions, such as advertisers canceling ad schedules
Number of Ad Types Banned
Not Important (n=167) 1.9042 1.84 .033* 360.00
Important (n=195) 1.5949
% of Ad Substantiation Requests
Not Important (n=153) 6.8497 -1.21 .113 319.45 +
Important (n=172) 9.6221
% of Ads Rejected
Not Important (n=160) 1.4438 -.94 .174 321.91+
Important (n=176) 1.7784
How Often Rejected Ads Resubmitted?
Not Important (n=142) 3.4225 2.51 .006* 291.00
Important (n=151) 2.9840
Note: Plus or "+" indicates a separate variance estimate (SVE) (rather than a
pooledvariance estimate) t-test. SVE t-tests are used when variances within
groups appear unequal. The SVE is used whenever probabilities for the F-Test
for equality of variance are "small." So the SVE was used whenever the F-Test
significance level was .10 or below.
*Denotes significance at the indicated level. One-tailed tests.
Table 3
T-tests of Clearance Ethical Beliefs by Station and Market Variables
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------
Comparisons Mean T Sig DF
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------
The ad violates my personal ethical values
Years of Experience in Commercial TV
Not Important (n=244) 16.4672 .89 .185 359.00
Important (n=117) 15.5983
Station Size or Estimated # of Employees
Not Important (n=241) 80.9004 -1.21 .031* 356.00
Important (n=117) 68.6068
Market Size or No. of ADI TV Hshlds.
Not Important (n=245) 630163.102 1.34 .091 361.00
Important (n=118) 499666.864
Market Competition or Cable Penetration
Not Important (n=245) 63.0033 -1.33 .091 361.00
Important (n=118) 64.2449
Earn the highest possible profits for my station
Years of Experience in Commercial TV
Not Important (n=142) 17.7817 2.84 .002* 359.00
Important (n=219) 15.1507
Station Size or Estimated # of Employees
Not Important (n=140) 92.5643 4.12 .000* 287.73+
Important (n=218) 66.8119
Market Size or No. of ADI TV Hshlds.
Not Important (n=131) 602373.028 .26 .399 361.00
Important (n=206) 578342.443
Market Competition or Cable Penetration
Not Important (n=115) 63.5937 .34 .366 361.00
Important (n=179) 63.2869
Note: Plus or "+" indicates a separate variance estimate (SVE) (rather than a
pooledvariance estimate) t-test. SVE t-tests are used when variances within
groups appear unequal. The SVE is used whenever probabilities for the F-Test
for equality of variance are "small." So the SVE was used whenever the F-Test
significance level was .10 or below.
*Denotes significance at the indicated level. One-tailed tests.
Table 3 (continued, p. 2)
T-tests of Clearance Ethical Beliefs by Station and Market Variables
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------
Comparisons Mean T Sig DF
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------
Avoid negative reactions, such as complaints from viewers
Years of Experience in Commercial TV
Not Important (n=188) 17.4894 3.01 .001* 359.00
Important (n=173) 14.7688
Station Size or Estimated # of Employees
Not Important (n=186) 84.0914 2.44 .007* 356.00
Important (n=172) 69.0872
Market Size or No. of ADI TV Hshlds.
Not Important (n=188) 590459.043 .06 .475 361.00
Important (n=175) 584824.857
Market Competition or Cable Penetration
Not Important (n=188) 63.1537 -.60 .274 361.00
Important (n=175) 63.6789
Avoid negative reactions, such as advertisers canceling ad schedules
Years of Experience in Commercial TV
Not Important (n=167) 17.5689 2.85 .002* 358.00
Important (n=193) 14.9793
Station Size or Estimated # of Employees
Not Important (n=165) 88.8424 3.63 .000* 355.00
Important (n=192) 66.6719
Market Size or No. of ADI TV Hshlds.
Not Important (n=167) 632064.192 .89 .187 360.00
Important (n=195) 550297.641
Market Competition or Cable Penetration
Not Important (n=167) 63.0946 -.61 .271 360.00
Important (n=195) 63.6287
Note: Plus or "+" indicates a separate variance estimate (SVE) (rather than a
pooledvariance estimate) t-test. SVE t-tests are used when variances within
groups appear unequal. The SVE is used whenever probabilities for the F-Test
for equality of variance are "small." So the SVE was used whenever the F-Test
significance level was .10 or below.
*Denotes significance at the indicated level. One-tailed tests.
Table 4
Crosstabs of Clearance Ethical Beliefs by Station and Market Variables
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Clearance Beliefs by
Type of Advertising Policy
No Policy Verbal Written Row Total/% X2 df p
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Personal Ethics
Not Important 34 104 107 245 (67.5%) .31 2 .335
Important 10 53 55 118 (32.5%)
Column Total/% 44 (12.1%) 157 (43.3%) 162 (44.6%)
Highest Profits
Not Important 11 60 71 142 (39.1%) 5.45 2 .065
Important 33 97 91 221 (60.9%)
Column Total/% 44 (12.1%) 157 (43.3%) 162 (44.6%)
Viewer Complaints
Not Important 14 86 88 188 (51.8%) 8.13 2 .017*
Important 30 71 74 175 (48.2%)
Column Total/% 44 (12.1%) 157 (43.3%) 162 (44.6%)
Adv. Complaints
Not Important 15 69 83 167 (46.1%) 4.82 2 .089
Important 29 88 78 195 (53.9%)
Column Total/% 44 (12.2%) 157 (43.4%) 161 (44.5%)
Clearance Beliefs by Network Type
CBS ABC NBC FOX IND Row Tot/% X2 df p
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Personal Ethics
Not Important 58 49 51 36 51 245 (67.5%) 4.22 4 .376
Important 25 26 16 19 32 118 (32.5%)
Column Total/% 83 75 67 55 83 363
(22.9) (20.7) (18.5) (15.2) (22.9)
Highest Profits
Not Important 38 29 38 14 23 142 (39.1%) 19.29 4 .000*
Important 45 46 29 41 60 221 (60.9%)
Column Total/% 83 75 67 55 83 363
(22.9) (20.7) (18.5) (15.2) 22.9)
Viewer Complaints
Not Important 45 40 44 27 32 188 (51.8%) 11.55 4 .020*
Important 38 35 23 28 51 175 (48.2%)
Column Total/% 83 75 67 55 83 363
(22.9) (20.7) (18.5) (15.2) (22.9)
Adv. Complaints
Not Important 44 37 42 19 25 167 (46.1%) 20.81 4 .000*
Important 39 38 25 35 58 195 (53.9%)
Column Total/% 83 75 67 54 83 362
(22.9) (20.7) (18.5) (14.9) (22.9)
*Denotes significance at indicated level
Table 4 (continued, p. 2)
Crosstabs of Clearance Ethical Beliefs by Station and Market Variables
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Clearance Beliefs by
Broadcast Band
UHF VHF Row Total/% X2 df p
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Personal Ethics
Not Important 111 134 245 (67.5%) 1.67 1 .196
Important 62 56 118 (32.5%)
Column Total/% 173 190 363
(47.7%) (52.3%)
Highest Profits
Not Important 55 87 142 (39.1%) 7.49 1 .006*
Important 118 103 221 (60.9%)
Column Total/% 173 190
(47.7%) (52.3%)
Viewer Complaints
Not Important 81 107 188 (51.8%) 3.27 1 .070
Important 92 83 175 (48.2%)
Column Total/% 173 190 363
(47.7%) (52.3%)
Adv. Complaints
Not Important 68 99 167 (46.1%) 5.75 1 .016*
Important 104 91 195 (53.9%)
Column Total/% 172 190 362
(47.5%) (52.5%)
*Denotes significance at indicated level
|
