Back in 2005 I wrote about "Bumvertising," the unfortunate name given by Ben Rogovy to his company's practice of hiring homeless people to hold placards with ads on them. The practice was roundly criticized — people thought it tasteless at best, and perhaps seriously exploitative. (I offered a limited defence: the name "Bumvertising is demeaning, but Rogovy was actually providing employment to people who desperately need it — which is more than most of us do for them.)Now a Toronto radio station is playing on the same turf: an ad campaign for talk-radio CFRB has panhandlers holding signs that say "Should panhandling be illegal?" and prostitutes holding signs that ask "Should prostitution be legal?"
Here's the story, from the National Post: Ad agency hires prostitutes for talk-radio stunt
As the snow fell Saturday night at the corner of Jarvis and Carlton streets, vehicles slowed to watch two sex workers on the corner. Some drivers honked. Others rolled down their windows to talk about the law.
The women held signs with a question: "Should prostitution be legal?"
The stunt is part of a controversial ad campaign created by the zig ad agency for CFRB 1010; it is its latest ploy to get people talking about issues in Toronto.
Again, as with Rogovy's Bumvertising, I don't see much of a problem here. Indeed, I can see even more plusses, here: the prostitutes in question were paid the "normal fee that they would get for a job," for carrying a sign for an hour — in other words, they were paid the usual, to do a safer-than-usual job.
Now, the prostitutes involved clearly thought this was a good deal; advocates claiming to represent those same prostitutes disagreed, calling it exploitative. But as is so often the case, the charge of exploitation received no useful explanation: if "hiring" counts as "using," then all employed people are being used. Is it "use" in the negative sense, just because they were being used to draw attention to an issue — and to provoke public debate? That doesn't make sense: they were carrying signs asking a question that they have a legitimate stake in.
----
Thanks to Paul for the story.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Alicia PhD
Wayne Norman
AmyTuteurMD
teendoc
Jason D. Hill
researchethics
Salon.com
Comments
More exploitative than having sex for money? That's a pretty bizarre argument. As for "bumvertising", I suspect a point could be made about dignity, but it is a job. I'm no psychologist, but it seems to me that if you offer a homeless person a job to earn money, it would be more dignified than begging for it.
Rated.
This is S.O.P. for me in my sole prop business.
I hire NOBODY so, the ethics only apply to me and how I conduct my business.
Last week, I did a compressor replacement in a refrigerator.
After I completed the installation of the new compressor, I recharged it.
I found that there was a leak in the lines within the walls of the frig after the customer called me back in a couple of days.
They had paid me for the completed job.
After much investigation of the unit, I decided that it would be all but impossible to cut into the cabinet and repair/replace the leaking lines as, it was an older unit and would be cost prohibitive.
Since it isn't good practice to remove the new compressor and save it for use in yet another job, I left it in the unit and was told by the customer that they'd purchase a new refirg.
Since I hadn't yet deposited their check, I gave it back to them and said no charge.
The gave me a $150 check for my time.
The next day, I went back and gave them THAT check back.
I told them that I did not complete the job and cannot take their money.
I am NOT rich and don't 'throw' my money away/around however, I have my own way of doing things, a way in which I allow room to feel ok about myself.
There are several other businesses like mine here in Wasau WI which are NOT AT ALL like this.
They WOULD keep the money.
To me, THIS episode defines business ethics.
I RARELY get replies to my posts here in salon butt, I wanted to give MY definition of business ethics as, I see too goddamn much of the opposite everywhere.