An empirical examination of three machiavellian concepts: Advertisers vs. the general public

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-laden concepts of manipulation, exploitation, and deviousness, advertisers are perceptually as ethical as the general public. The research also clarifies some of the differences between ethics and Machiavellianism.John P. Fraedrich is an Assistant Professor of 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 completed dissertation was entitled Philosophy Type Interaction in the Ethical Decision Making Process of Retailers. O. C. Ferrell is the Distinguished Professor of Marketing and Business Ethics in the Fogelman College of Business and Economics at Memphis State University. Dr. Ferrell is the author of articles in the Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of Business Research, 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, 6th ed., Marketing Strategy and 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 of journals including the Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of Retailing, and the Journal of Advertising.