Is Subliminal Advertising Ethical?

Despite little proof of subliminal advertising's effectiveness, its purpose is to invade and manipulate a person's utmost level of privacy — their mind. Therefore, it is in every sense unethical.

James Vicary pioneered subliminal advertising in the 1950s with an experiment that would "prove the effect subliminal perception could have on people" (Exploring Your Mind, 2020). He inserted the words "Eat Popcorn" and "Drink Coca-Cola" into a movie, which supposedly led to an 18.1 percent and 58.7 percent increase in Coke and popcorn sales, respectively (Love, 2011). Later it was revealed Vicaray actually never conducted the experiment, yet subliminal advertising, and consumers’ infatuation with the idea that advertisements can influence us without our consciously knowing it, lived on.

As stated in Cambridge Dictionary, subliminal advertising is "advertising that uses images and sounds that the conscious mind is not aware of, in order to influence people and make them attracted to a product" (Cambridge Dictionary, n.d.). A subliminal message is inaudible and unperceived by a person's conscious mind, yet is audible and perceived by their unconscious mind (Zimmerman, 2014). Psychologists and advertising professionals debate the effectiveness of subliminal advertising. However, because it attempts to control consumer behavior subconsciously, it is widely perceived as unethical. When effective, it can be used to "undermine a consumer's conscious values, promote unethical behavior or increase a consumer's desire to engage in an unhealthy or risky practice" (Thompson, n.d.). Because of these messages' sublimity, consumers are unaware they are being manipulated into behaviors they otherwise would not display.

In The Ethical Executive, Trap 30, "We Won't Get Caught," it says when the risk of getting caught or being punished for an ethical or legal transgression are low, one minimizes the perception of their wrongdoing and "the sting of unethical behavior seems less serious" (Hoyk and Hersey, Defensive Traps, p. 72, 2008). In its simplest form, subliminal advertising aims to go uncaught and unacknowledged by the conscious mind and is particularly difficult to prove because of consumers' lack of conscious awareness.

Subliminal advertising is banned in many countries, yet the United States does not "expressly forbid" its use (Shewan, 2017). However, it does fall under federal law enforcement jurisdiction, and in the 1989 case Vance v. Judas Priest, the Court ruled the First Amendment does not protect subliminal messages because they constitute an invasion of privacy because its purpose is to produce information the viewer is not aware he or she is receiving. Ten years prior, in 1979, the Supreme Court ruled in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York that the First Amendment may only protect marketing speech if it is not misleading (Dwilson, n.d.). The purpose of subliminal advertising is just that — to mislead.

A common practice of unethical subliminal messaging is to insert hidden messages and images containing sexual innuendos into advertisements, thus harnessing the power of sublimity "to associate their products with sex and power" (Love, 2011). In the mid-'80s, Coca-Cola recalled millions of collateral and promotional items for its "Feel The Curves!" campaign after an individual spotted a not-safe-for-work image hidden in a campaign poster. The artist responsible claimed it was a joke, Coca-Cola claimed it was unaware until hearing the individual's complaint, and then proceeded to fire and take legal action against the artist (Shewan, 2017).

The brands who succeed with subliminal advertising are those who make their consumers feel as if they are in on the joke — an ethical loophole, perhaps. When done right, Ads like these give viewers a sense of pride upon uncovering the hidden message – either indirect or hidden in plain sight — as well as an appreciation for the brand's cleverness (Lincoln, 2020). Further, social media's advent and its growing popularity has created an entirely new platform for subliminal messaging. For example, Kentucky Fried Chicken's (KFC) Twitter account follows only 11 people: all five former members of the Spice Girls and six men named Herb. The message is so subliminal one might not notice unless they were looking for it, but the messaging is soon understood to be '11 Herbs and spices' (KFC Twitter, n.d.).

However, subliminal advertising isn't subliminal if it is obvious, and when poorly executed, brands risk getting caught purposely trying to manipulate consumers (Lincoln, 2020). Because advertisers walk a fine line with subliminal advertising, many brands will not attempt for fear of poor execution leading to controversy. The purpose of advertising is to inform, persuade, and remind consumers about a brand or product, with an end goal of changing their behavior — either overtly or covertly. As long as it's done honestly, advertising is not an ethical concern. However, subliminal advertising crosses a defined ethical boundary because it lacks consumers' conscious consent, thereby making it both misleading and an ultimate invasion of privacy.