Negative
ads are common in politics, but uncommon in commercial ads.
n1.
Negative ads are very common in political campaigns.
Why so many?
Historically, such verbal attacks have always existed in all societies.
Traditionally, the Latin term is used for such personal attacks: ad hominem ("toward the man)."
Legally, in the United States, the Constitution's 1st Amendment ("freedom
of speech") gives special protection to political speech, allowing for such criticism, attacks, and arguments against government officials
or other politicians. Such freedom is based on the ideals of 18th century Enlightenment
writers that "truth" is best reached by allowing the free flow of ideas,
that people are smart enough to make the right choice if all sides were heard. Not all countries have as much freedom. In England, the Official Secrets Act prohibits much more political speech. In other countries (e.g. Russia, China), the party in power totally controls
the press and restricts all critics "for the common good."
Even in the USA, there are always issues in which any current administration will use ad hominem attacks to charge that dissenters and critics are being unpatriotic. For example, the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) is always being damned as unpatriotic because their mission is to defend these 1st Amendment rights of many unpopular fringe groups (Nazis, KKK, anarchists, segregationists, extremists, minorities, and various crazies) to espouse ideas which most people abhor.
Ethically, negative attacks are not intrinsically bad. In a free and democratic society, political opponents, and others (a neutral
press), should expose the problems and weakness in others to allow citizens
a free and informed choice.
But, alas, rational and ethical "fair fights" are often rare.Negative
ads are common in politics. Usually, when we think of negative ads, we mean
unethical smear attacks, mudslinging, scare tactics, dirty tricks, rumors, libel,
and slander. Even when not endorsed by the party or the candidate, many
front groups and unauthorized individuals often launch such smear attacks.It
would be nice if rascals wouldn't do such things. But, rascals exist. As citizens,
we have to try to sort out the true from the false, the valid criticisms from
the invalid.
Logically, ad hominem attacks are often side-issues, diversions
away from the main issue.
Comparative ads do exist, but they are relatively rare.
In the past (a generation ago), Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulations had
forbidden them. But, these rules were changed to allow comparative ads which
can substantiate their claims. Typically, comparative advertising is used by
the runner-up in a category, challenging the leader: for example, Coke,
by Pepsi; McDonald's, by Burger King. Some business people defend comparative
advertising as healthy competition, beneficial to the consumer. (For any
current comparative ad campaigns, see: AdAge.com)
However, the most common reasons for few negative commercial ads are legal and
psychological.
Legally,
corporations have lawyers to protect them from libel and slander. Often the
simple fear of an expensive lawsuit deters others from criticism. Commercial
speech does not enjoy the same protection as political speech. You insult other
people at your own risk!
Psychologically,
among most advertisers, there's a general sense of "don't rock the
boat." They know that most people are vaguely suspicious anyway about ads,
so advertisers don't want to do anything to "undermine consumer confidence."