Using the PRSA Code of Ethics

Case 3B-Tailgate Approved? The Rise and Fall of the Fan Can

The Public Relations Society of America’s (PRSA) Code of Ethics applies to members of the PR community, looking for guidelines to go about making an ethical decision. In this case, I will be using this Code of Ethics to evaluate the case of Anheuser- Busch vs. colleges across the country that were featured in their Bud Light promotion for their campaign that was being associated with tailgating at college football games. The names and logos of these schools were left unused, but school colors were used to advertise this promotion. 27 colleges nationwide were chosen, and beer cans were color coordinated with the school colors. This promotion was brought about to increase sales during one of their biggest selling seasons, football since their brand’s sales had declined for the first time in 27 years, due to the economic recession beginning in 2007. 

The PRSA’s Code of Ethics is helpful in determining the ethical considerations of this case because the PRSA is known for a high level of public trust, and has the interest of the public good to determine what is ethical in any scenario. Members of the PRSA follow six fundamental beliefs that act as a guide in the decision making process. They are:

·      Advocacy

·      Honesty

·      Expertise

·      Independence

·      Loyalty

·      Fairness

They also have six provisions of conduct that are used to seek out the best ethical decision. They include:

·      Free flow of information

·      Competition

·      Disclosure of information

·      Safeguarding confidences

·      Conflicts of interest

·      Enhancing the profession

In this case, many issues from promoting underage drinking on college campuses, to alcohol regulations in advertising bring about strong opinions and a difficult ethical dilemma for Anheuser- Busch. They are obviously selling a product that, in itself, can be seen as unethical anyway. To the eyes of the colleges whose colors were featured in this promotion, many felt that they “infringed on trademark rights, and expressed concern about the social responsibility of alcohol advertising.“ Eight schools requested to be pulled from the promotion.

By using this Code, we are able to look at this dilemma from the perspectives of both Anheuser- Busch and the colleges that were affected. The Provisions of Conduct directly apply to Anheuser- Busch, and how they could have faced this issue. Free flow of information, meaning to maintain relationships with the media, govt. etc, was lacked in this case. Since they were only using school colors in their promotion, they did not ask permission from the schools first. Keeping lines of communication open is most important, and not to ruin open communication is essential. This goes hand-in-hand with disclosure of information which they didn’t do with the colleges. Anheuser-Busch probably knew that asking permission from the colleges would not be accepted, but they felt using colors did give them the right to do it because colors are not copyrighted.  Open communication builds trust with the public, and with this case, the schools that were used in their promotion. The Code also mentions, under this provision, the guideline, “a member shall reveal the sponsors for causes and interests represented.” I feel that if they had received permission from the schools, this would have been the more ethical way to approach this situation.  I also feel it was highly unlikely the colleges would have said “yes” if they were asked in advance.

From the eyes of the schools, this could also be seen as a conflict of interest. Many students attending these schools are under the age of 21, is it ethical to promote a product like Bud Light at these institutions? It could be seen as ethical since the colleges sell Bud Light at their games, but only to those 21 and older. But from the eyes of the schools, this could be promoting drinking for the underage drinkers on college campuses. Colleges know that their students drink alcohol, they just don’t want to be associated with drinking in the media.  Perhaps it should have been associated with advertising for a designated driver campaign for students that do drink.  Most importantly, I feel that Anheuser- Busch followed the guidelines of enhancing the profession. Promoting and selling beer in itself can be seen as unethical, we no longer see cigarette ads on TV, but they make sure to clearly acknowledge that their product can be harmful if consumed irresponsibly. Anheuser- Busch’s message on college campuses nationwide is, “If you’re 21 and older and choose to drink, please drink responsibly. If you’re under 21, respect the law; don’t drink. This is a great message to get out to the students. 

The PRSA’s Code of Ethics can also be seen as just general guidelines to adhere to when faced with an ethical decision. Since the selling and promotion of alcohol is so controversial, PR practitioners opinions may play too much of a factor when trying to solve an ethical dilemma like this. Anheuser- Busch may not have been ethical with the way they went about promoting this product, and not asking permission to use the schools’ colors they chose for their beer cans, but some could also think promoting alcohol is wrong. It’s too controversial of an issue to use these guidelines solely to determine an ethical decision.

Aside from the PRSA Code of Ethics, other ethical perspectives can also be used when determining the best outcome for the dilemma at hand. Two principles that stuck out to me would also aid in helping Anheuser- Busch make the best ethical decision possible in this case. First, pluralism- it is used to denote diversity in many different views, not one ultimate value. Every company and organization has different view points, especially on the subject of promoting alcohol. Often used in politics, this perspective can offer several values that may be equally correct, but they still may conflict with each other.  Lastly, Bok’s Ethical Decision Making Model is broken down into three steps:

1.    Ask yourself about how you feel about the actions?

2.    Ask yourself if there is another professionally acceptable way to achieve the same end goal without raising the ethical issue at hand? In this case, the promotion of Bud Light with the use of colleges across America in there campaign.

3.    Conduct a discussion with the parties involved and see how they would respond to the proposed act.

By going through these three steps, Anheuser- Busch would have been able to see how the affected schools and public would have reacted to their decision to be in their national campaign. As I mentioned in my first blog post, this is the way I go about making any ethical decision. Besides going to step by step guidelines that don’t necessarily work in every PR scenario, you are provided with the primary goal of maintaining social trust, and if you follow the steps, you are able to see the outcomes before the occur. In this case, I would have followed the steps to Bok’s Model, especially since the issue was so controversial.

Advertising alcohol is perfectly legal and everyone knows that college kids drink alcohol.  Is it wrong for one company to prefer that they drink their brand?  I think that the colleges objected to the ad solely for the fact that they don’t want the public to know that the students at their college drink alcohol.  Every college wants to be known for their education, not for being a “party school”, but banning a legal ad just because it might make the college look bad in the public’s eye isn’t the correct way to go about it.  Colleges could have asked that they include more information about responsible drinking, designated drivers, and drinking for those only over 21 in the ads may have made a win-win situation for both the college and Anheuser-Busch.