An Empirical Examination Of Three Machiavellian Concepts: Advertisers vs. The General Public John Fraedrich O. C. Ferrell William Pride ABSTRACT. This paper examines the perceived ethics of advertisers and the general public relative to three ethical concepts. Based on the survey findings, it can be concluded that with regard to the ethically-ladenconcepts of manipu- lation, exploitation, and deviousness,advertisers are percep- tually as ethical as the general public. The research also clarifies some of the differences between ethics and Machiavellianism. Introduction Recently, much attention has focused on the ethics of individuals and organizations in our society. Insider trading, the Iran-Contra affair, the Challenger John P. Fraedrich is an Assistant Professorof Marketing at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. Dr. Fraedrich's teaching and research interests are primarily in the areas of business ethics, international channels, strategy, and theory. His recently com- pleted dissertation was entitled "Philosophy Type Interaction in the Ethical Decision Making Process ofRetailers." O. C. Ferrelt is the Distinguished Professor of Marketing and Business Ethics in the Fogelman College of Business and Economics at Memphis State University.Dr. Ferrellis the author of articles in the Journal of Marketing,Journal of Market- ing Research, Journal of BusinessResearch, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,Journal of Advertising, Journal of Risk and Insurance, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Journal of Health Care Marketing, as well as others. He is co-author of Marketing: Concepts and Strategies, 6tk ed., MarketingStrategyand Plans, 3rd ed., and Business. William M. Pride is a Professor of Marketing at Texas A&M University. Dr. Pride's teaching and research interests are primarily in the areas of consumer behavior, promotion, and advertising. He has written several books and has published numerous articles in a variety ofjournals including the Journal of Marketing,Journal of Marketing Research,Journal of Retailing, and the Journal of Advertising. space shuttle disaster, and college athletic scandals paint a picture of duplicity and deception in many institutions within our society. A survey by U.S. News and World Report concludes that we are becom- ing a nation of liars. The survey found that over half of those who responded believe that people are less honest than they were 10 years ago. In fact, 72% of all households indicated that they have told falsehoods, notjust white lies (1987, p. 57). Many researchers have identified marketing as an area where ethical problems exist (Murphy and Laczniak 1981; Walton 1961; Farmer 1967, 1977; Crawford 1979; McGown 1979a, b, 1980). Farmer (1967, 1977) states that the public perceives market- ing as "hucksterism" and that it will always be perceived as unethical because it "deals with greed and selfishness and base human desires" (1977, p. 18). Even though marketing includes many other activ- ities (e.g., distribution, product development, pricing, market research) that do not depend on persuasive efforts, the general population perceives the disci- pline as fundamentally manipulative. In fact, 49% of the general public believes that "marketing is the same thing as advertising" with another 23% uncer- tain about any differences (Smart et aL, 1986). Many people perceive advertising as the most unethical area of marketing (Greyser and Bauer, 1966; Aaker and Day, 1982). Aaker and Day (1982) reviewed a number of studies that revealed "35-40% of the public believe that advertising - especially television advertising - is seriously misleading" (p. 11). Smart et aL, (1986) surveyed a sample of the general public and found that 74% of the respon- dents agreed with the statement that "advertisers frequently manipulate consumers by using deceptive claims." In defense of marketers comes an article by Hunt Journal of Business Ethics 8: 687--694, 1989. © 1989 Kluwer Academic Publishers.Printed in the Netherlands.