What is the best example of an unethical advertisement?

There are enough and more examples of being pitched products we don't need - diet pills, cigarettes and of course beauty creams. But my vote on unethical advertising goes to subliminal advertising. Subliminal advertising consists of flashing a single frame in the middle of an innocuous ad, too short to be generally perceived actively but which supposedly registers in the subconscious. The idea is far from proved; infact, there exist multiple studies disproving its effectiveness. Yet, as an advertising practice, it takes the top spot in unethical advertising practices. Some examples -                           Look at the two figures dancing-                   Look at the centre of the castle closely             Look out for the word "Rats" in this Bush ad - The NY Times carried an article debating this issue threadbare - Our  subconscious beliefs, which we cannot easily understand or change,  motivate many of the decisions we make. Some companies use manipulative  branding techniques that create untrue associations between their  products and some deep human desires   —   like sex or social status   —   with the goal of having the viewer establish this connection  unconsciously. The desired result, presumably, is that the consumer will  then buy the product with the misguided intent of fulfilling said  desire. Is this practice unethical? ADAM GIDDING, NEW YORK When  I first received this question, I did not take it too seriously. But  I’ve found myself thinking about it a lot, and so have a lot of other  people. The Federal Trade Commission and the Bureau of Consumer  Protection have each considered this issue, including situations in  which the problem isn’t even visible. In  the eyes of the government, clarity of purpose is paramount: An ethical  commercial seeks to distinguish a product from its competition, while  an unethical advertisement tries to cloud that distinction and  purposefully confuse the consumer. But you’re asking about something  significantly more complex. Your question is closer to the plot of John  Carpenter’s “They Live.” Everyone  knows that advertisers try to create unreal associations between  products and lifestyles. Beer commercials show beer-drinkers living  dynamic lives, so the implication is that consuming a certain type of  beer will make your life more exciting. There is a kind of unreal  message there. But this isn’t the same as subliminal advertising. The  fact that the commercial’s erroneous relationship can be described and  mocked proves that a consumer can recognize and reject the ad’s message. This  is not the case with actual subliminal messages, which are embedded  into other mediums and virtually impossible to recognize with the  conscious mind. Imagine a beer company that shoots a commercial of two  hunters enjoying brews in a duck blind but secretly includes a single  frame of an orgy. The single frame would be imperceptible to the casual  viewer but, in theory, would still imprint on the viewer’s unconscious  and tap into a base desire he will unknowingly connect to beer  consumption (and if this strikes you as impossible, go to YouTube and  punch the words “subliminal advertising” into the search field). Now,  the general scientific consensus is that this advertising strategy  doesn’t work particularly well. Yet if it works to any degree  whatsoever, it creates a unique ethical dilemma. Subliminal advertising  is an optical trick. As such, it would be easy to argue that it’s  unethical (because deception is unethical). That argument is valid, but  it draws an awkward distinction between “lifestyle” advertising and  subliminal messaging. I say this because, within reason, adults should  be expected to understand the implicit agreement they enter into by  watching advertising. When  a commercial for Tide laundry detergent comes on TV and the viewer  elects to continue watching, the viewer is essentially saying: “O.K.,  pitch me on Tide. I am open to this attempt. Try to persuade me to buy  Tide instead of Cheer.” We know what we are seeing and what Tide is  trying to do. The only inflexible ethical expectation is that Tide won’t  lie to you directly. They can’t fabricate factual data; Tide can’t  claim it makes you taller or that it’s safe to eat as a snack. But I  don’t think it’s incumbent on the creator of the commercial to pitch the  product for the “right” reasons (whatever those may be). It’s not as if  they must exclusively argue that Tide is an effective solvent or that  it’s a bargain (and even if they did, few would take those messages at  face value). \ The  viewer knows he’s seeing a biased 30-second attempt to promote the  consumption of a certain product. The important thing is that this  remains the ad’s singular intent: that it’s selling the product it  purports to be selling. The motives need to match. So if Tide  commercials are embedding subliminal messages solely to sell more Tide, I  don’t think it would be necessarily unethical; it potentially could be,  but that would depend on what the message was. To me, the larger risk  with subliminal messages is that they could (in theory) be used to sell  something else entirely. Here’s  what I mean: Let’s say somebody made a tampon commercial and employed  subliminal advertising techniques, but the hidden messages promoted  cigarettes. This would mean people were being pitched an unrelated  product without their knowledge. They could not choose to avoid (or even  consider) the embedded message, because they would not know the message  was being delivered. That destroys the tacit relationship between the  advertiser and the consumer. It does not allow the viewer to  contextualize what they are experiencing. It  would likewise be unethical if a commercial used subliminal advertising  to besmirch a competitor (Tampax shouldn’t use subliminal messaging to  claim that Kotex was racist) or to directly target children. But viewed  purely as an advertising technique for mature consumers — and assuming  the creator’s unconscious messages reflect the intent of its conscious  messages — I don’t see subliminal ads that differently from regular ads.  The traditional ethical guidelines would still apply. Link to the original article - http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/02/magazine/get-out-of-my-subconscious.html?_r=0&module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=Magazine&action=keypress&region=FixedLeft&pgtype=article

Particularly the advertisements for alcoholic beverages brands in India. Brands like Kingfisher, Bacardi etc. cannot post advertisements in television regarding alcohol. So they instead market it as music cd's. Everyone knows its alcohol but then they intelligently disguise as music cd.

A2A. The following adverts were the first ones that came to mind when reading your question.  All adverts are from the UK http://Wonga.com and many similar firms constantly advertise 'pay day' loans to people who have bad credit history or very little income, with ridiculously high percentage repayments.  The adverts are very tempting to those who are struggling in the increasing gap between rich and poor.  These people often find the repayments impossible to pay back, pushing them further and further into debt.. I find it disgusting that they are permitted to do this. We seem to be bombarded with advertisements from betting companies.  It seems that every neighbourhood that's made up of people at the lower end of the economic spectrum has a betting shop nearby.  The adverts are aimed at the most desperate people in society to take advantage, and  big profits from them.  If I find this very unethical. Injury and accident compensation adverts annoy me.  As I see it, they are trying to find any injury you may have had and bend the truth in order to put the blame on someone else.  In my opinion this is why insurance is so overpriced these days, and why everyone is so wary about health & safety for fear of being sued.  I would say the compensation culture is to the detriment of our economy, crippling for small businesses, and (assuming I'm right in suspecting many claims are in some way exaggerated)  promoting an unethical, dishonest culture of getting something for nothing. With childhood obesity rising every year, I find it unethical to promote fast food adverts specifically targeted at children.  Adults can make their own minds up, so I see no problem with advertising to an adult audience.  But corporations worth billions should be more responsible about who they target in my opinion.

Thanks for the A2A.In my opinion, any advertisement which sounds comparative is unethical. There are some brands out there which are investing lots of dollars to tell people how better they are as compared to others in the same space. They feel that people will instantly switch to their brand & forget about the brands they've been using till now. This rarely happens. When they're comparing, what they're actually doing is using their competitor as a benchmark. So, people feel that if you're using that brand as a benchmark, then obviously it would be worth going with.What they should do instead of comparative advertising is position themselves such that people perceive them in a way they want them to perceive.

For me, it would have to be Beneton's 'Unhate' campaign. It was a worthy cause, and the concept was also good. But the executions can make you reel a bit, especially this one - involving the Pope! It had to be recalled, since obviously the Vatican objected! Read more here: http://www.ethicsingraphicdesign.org/un-hate-or-unethical/

McDonald's and Obesity (2002). A class action lawsuit filed against the McDonald's Corporation claimed, among other things, that the company's approach to advertising highly processed food caused obesity and other problems, including hypertension and diabetes. U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet decided that consumers cannot blame McDonald's if they choose to eat at its fast-food restaurants. "If a person knows or should know that eating copious orders of supersized McDonald's products is unhealthy and may result in weight gain," Sweet [wrote], "it is not the place of the law to protect them from their own excesses." He dismissed the case, thus providing a victory for McDonald's.Portions of the case were later reinstated by a federal appeals court that gave the plaintiffs an opportunity to support their claim by focusing on deceptive advertising. The plaintiffs again failed to convince the judge of McDonald's culpability, and the case was put to rest. The case, however, resulted in a "supersized" amount of bad publicity for McDonald's.Source: http://www.managementparadise.com/article/1426/ethics-and-unethical-practices-in-advertising

Refer to the link attached: -  https://in.finance.yahoo.com/news/ad-wars--cadbury-perk-vs-nestl%C3%A9-munch-170450268.html I think one should showcase good qualities of one's product in their advertisements. But, in this case, both the manufacturers are making spoof of other's product which looks very derogatory.

No one should ever be made to feel like they are not good enough. This is one example of an ad which does exactly that. What a pity.

Here are some examples of unethical advertisements i found to be interesting...