Defend your view of the ethical obligations of advertisers to Essay

Defend your view of the ethical obligations of advertisers to consumers - Essay ExampleThe above advertizement includes the facts supporting the above argument. Because of these facts, it is suggested that bottled urine should not be advertised as let on than the spigot water, since there is no much(prenominal) case, as proven by dint of the figures provided through the above advertisement. In the particular advertisement reference is made to all aspects of bottled water aiming to show that bottled water is worse than tap water explanations are given by referring to each particular devise used for advertising bottled water. In general, in terms of quality, bottled water raisenot be characterized as better for human health compared to the tap water. The phrase that bottled water is better for you as used by advertisers for promoting the specific product is not valid this view can be based on the following facts, as presented through the particular advertisement In accordance w ith the case study, bottled water is checked as of its quality just once a week under the alive legislation, as monitored by the Environmental Protection Agency while the tap water is checked about 100 times a month. Moreover, it is noted that the boorishs municipal water systems estimated to about 55,000 have to pass a thorough quality test every 3 months. Through this procedure, it is ensured that the quality standards of the tap water are higher compared to the bottled water. This view has been proved in practice in the case of the Fiji bottled water. More specifically, in an advertisement of Fiji water (as included in the case study) consumers are asked to prefer Fiji just because it is not bottled in Cleveland (part 2 of the case study). In the research made as of the quality for Fiji water, the above bottled water was found to include arsenic (6.3 micrograms/ liter) while in the tap water of Cleveland no such ingredient was identified. In accordance with the above, tap w ater can be characterized as better for consumers, compared to the bottled water. The advertisements based on the argument that bottled water is better for consumers compared to tap water should be rejected as invalid. Another ballpark argument used by advertisers promoting the bottled water is that the water of this type smells better however, no such case exists, a fact, which is proved through the findings of the research provided in the advertisement. From this point of view also, the advertisement of bottled water is unethical. In the case study reference is made to a blind taste conducted in 2001 in dear Morning America regarding the taste of water the tap water of New York gathered a percentage of 45% of the votes of the participants compared to well known bottled water brands, such as Evian (12%) and Poland Springs (24%) (part 2 of case study). Reference is also made to another study conducted in Yorkshire among 2800 people where the 60% of the participants were not abl e to distinguish in the midst of the tap water and the bottled water brands used in the research (part 2 of the case study). The experiment conducted during an episode of the television series Penn & Teller Bullshit, has also proved that bottled water does not have better taste than tap water. In the above experiment, tap water was served as bottled water to the customers of a restaurant customers, opinion that it is bottled water, highlighted its exceptional taste and freshness of the bottled water, while, in fact the water