Towards more assertive advertising practices: An evolutionary, not revolutionary, step forward.

Abstract

Abstract We presented arguments in favour of loosening self-imposed restrictions on advertising by psychologists (Shead & Dobson, 2004). Dr. Koocher's commentary on our paper suggested that these practices may, in fact, be viable. We view the implementation of these strategies as part of an evolution in advertising within the field of psychology, rather than a revolution that aims to encourage extreme business practices. A review of the historical changes in advertising practices by psychologists in North America indicates that progress has been slow (Shead & Dobson, 2004). Although regulatory bodies have tended to liberalize their guidelines concerning advertising practices, it appears that individual psychologists continue to favour a more traditional approach to announcing their services. Specifically, three types of advertising strategies that were once subject to disciplinary action are now typically permissible under current regulatory guidelines: 1) claims of unusual, unique, or one-of-a-kind abilities; 2) claims of the comparative desirability of one service over another; and 3) the use of statements appealing to a client's fear and anxiety if services are not obtained. Despite their official acceptability, the majority of advertisements abide by a time-honoured template that consists of very little distinguishing information about services offered. We presented arguments to suggest that each of the above three advertising approaches could be implemented in a manner that is consistent with ethical standards (Shead & Dobson, this issue). It is our contention that the movement towards more assertive advertising would be beneficial for both the psychologist, in terms of recruiting potential clients, and for the public, in terms of providing valuable information about available services. Dr. Koocher's response to our paper suggested that these practices may, in fact, be viable (Koocher, this issue). He also includes an opt-out clause, however, noting that if these recommendations do not end up benefiting both psychologists and public stakeholders, then the blame can be placed on Canada. His response suggests our recommendations were revolutionary in nature. It was not our intention to revolutionize the way psychologists advertise, however, but to present arguments in favour of practices that seem long overdue. As noted above, the current approach to advertising professional services has changed very little in recent decades. The arguments we present seem in line with practices that might currently be employed had the discipline followed a more natural evolution. We were careful, however, not to suggest the deployment of distasteful and unscrupulous business practices that potentially benefit the professional more than the potential consumer. Other professions have begun to approach, or in some cases may have already crossed, the crooked line between assertive advertising and unscrupulous business. Today's marketplace has many examples of avaricious practices that aim to prey on naive consumers. …