When funny goes wrong: The ethics of pranks in marketing
Viral marketing is the goal of most brands to reach a wider audience. For some, a prank may seem like the perfect opportunity for them to grab their consumers' attention. However, these jokes—if not planned carefully—can backfire quickly, and even damage a brand's image.
Take it from the local food brand Taragis, which stirred online debate over accountability after a man allegedly took its April Fools' joke seriously. The man followed the rules of the contest and had the brand's logo inked on his forehead in exchange for P100,000.
After receiving various messages from social media users claiming that someone—later identified as a Facebook user named Ramil Albano—took it to heart and executed it, Taragis asserted that the promotion was just a prank and should not be taken seriously. This caused many social media users to feel sorry for Albano and offer financial backing.
The following day, the takoyaki store gave in to the promised reward. However, on Saturday, April 6, Taragis admitted that the April Fools' "tattoo disaster" was scripted and elaborately planned.
Owner Carl Quion said they thought of the idea as early as April Fools' Day in 2023, with Albano as their pre-select beneficiary, hoping to create some noise for his food brand.
“Ang plano ay kumuha ng isang tao na kayang magsakripisyo sa gagawing act na ito,” he said.
Quion was aware of the negative effects of their marketing stunt, but he said it also led to good as people came together to help Albano in their own ways. According to him, it also made the brands that offered help get more attention.
“Hindi ko naman sinasabing naging perpekto at napakaganda ng dulo nito. Siguro, mayroon pang ibang mas maganda pero at least nagawa kong subukan," he added.
Publicity vs. exploitation
Speaking to PhilSTAR L!fe, Marc Rondera, a professor from the Department of Humanities at National University-Manila, said that the Taragis marketing stunt was a form of exploitation as it "took advantage of the vulnerabilities of a person to gain something out of their suffering or disposition."
"They utilized the timeliness of the April Fools' Day to justify the deceptive nature of their campaign, but that does not remove the gravity of the exploitation. The owner's explanation is written to appear as an apology, but it was actually just a description of their project," he said.
As an ethics professor, Rondera was personally "bothered with the lack of accountability and remorse with the gravity of Quion's action."
"He used the vulnerabilities of Mr. Albano (being a father of a differently abled person and a person with dire need of money for survival) to gain traction with his marketing stunt. The act itself was demeaning, having a permanent tattoo of Taragis's company logo on someone's forehead, defacing Mr. Albano. He used Mr. Albano as a tool for material gain," he continued.
Joby Valderama, a marketing specialist, also echoed the same sentiments. According to him, while Taragis' marketing plan was successful in creating buzz, it has failed to build a dedicated customer base.
"Publicity is still publicity; the positive part is that they achieved their goal, which was to make their brand noticeable," he said.
"However, the fact that other businesses extended their hands to assist the 'victim' is concerning because it may lead to scamming and false information. Taragis appears to believe that negative marketing is still positive marketing, which is why they followed through with the strategy." Valderama continued.
Potential consequences of unethical marketing
Meanwhile, Dr. Ron F. Jabal—chairman and CEO of PAGEONE Group, who also discusses ethics in the PR practice as a professor of public relations and reputation management—identified the core challenge in marketing campaigns as striking a balance between effectiveness in grabbing attention and promoting the product, and avoiding tactics that could mislead or harm consumers.
"Stunt such as this can undermine trust in the brand, product and the people running the business and eventually harm consumers who may be misled into purchasing the product based on false premises or inauthentic appeal to emotions," Jabal said.
While sensational marketing campaigns generate short-term attention and excitement, Jabal said they can also have long-term consequences for the brand's reputation.
"If consumers perceive the stunt as gimmicky or inauthentic, it can damage trust and loyalty towards the brand, leading to negative word-of-mouth and decreased sales in the future," he said. "Ethical marketing prioritizes building genuine connections with consumers based on trust, credibility, and integrity, rather than relying on flashy tactics that may backfire in the long run."
I am sure that there are moral standards in branding and marketing, but capitalism hinders anyone from controlling how a business would earn money. Earning money above all, ethics comes last.
Similarly, Valderama believes that pranks, as a form of a marketing campaign, should always value the consumer's authenticity so that distrust and other potential risks can be avoided.
"When a prank is faked or staged without disclosure, it creates a perception of deceitfulness and damages the authenticity gained by the business itself," he said, adding that campaigns that use humor risk insulting specific sectors of their audience can result in backlash, criticism, and reputational damage or can foster cultural insensitivity, overstepping boundaries, and misinterpretation.
"Humor is subjective; what one person considers humorous may offend another. These kinds of risks might pass by but will never be forgotten," Valderama expllained.
Jabal, likewise, amplified the responsibility to ensure that campaigns do not harm consumers physically, emotionally, or financially.
Why authenticity matters
Rondera believes that the responsibility of a brand owner and marketer is to present the truth to its audience.
"The underlying thought here can be applied in any profession. It is mutual respect with one another, which the owner of Taragis failed to do. He concealed it with how his demeaning act 'helped' not just the victim, but even other content creators," Rondera said.
While staying authentic is vital for a marketer, communication media ethics and law professor DC Alviar said today's marketing world also requires a critical-thinking audience.
"Critical thinking has become one of the most important virtues of responsible netizens. I share their view that Taragis is a case of 'sorry but not sorry. It needs to explain a lot, and we need a lot of time to examine it, considering its sinister online presence," Alviar said.
For him, Taragis' marketing stunt contradicts its claim that it led others to join "bayanihan." He warns people to be cautious about blindly helping out on social media.
"We understand pranks are everywhere but since we are a generous and caring people, we seriously take the advancement of bayanihan and other Filipino values—and even try to take them to higher levels—rather than the deterioration of these values," he said.