The PR Campaign of Anadolu Sigorta Anadolu Sigorta is a Turkish insurance company founded in April 1st 1925 bt the initiative

of the founder of modern Republic of Turkey, Atatrk, and under the leadership of Ibank, Turkey's first national bank. Anadolu Sigorta has been restructured in 2002 and this reconstruction was very successful and led a significant financial growth. Anadolu Sigorta lists its missions: lead the sector, help create a broad public awareness of insurance in Turkey, implement a customer-focused approach to service, increase its financial strength to international standards, and enhance the value of their company. The company started to give more importance to publicity in order to achieve its goals. Until 2008 the advertising campaigns were not strong enough to reach most of the target audience and also to attain a better profitability. In 2008 Anadolu Sigorta made a deal with the advertising agency TBWA and the agancy started a new campaign. The campaigns name was Ne Gerek Var? which means whats the point?. This title is summarizing the general thought of the society towards insurance. People historically believed that nothing will happen to them thus insuring any asset was pointless. Unlike the other insurance companies the campaign was not limited to television, radio and newspaper. The campaign also gave importance to public relations. TBWA/ISTANBUL worked with Lobby PR in this project. The goal was to diminish the idea, Nothing will happen to me, or at least make people question it. Actors suited as robbers, flood victims and fire victims, played their scenario in two malls (stinye Park, Capacity) and on two very crowded, popular streets of Istanbul (Nisantasi, Bagdat Street). They were shouting out loud Dont say that this wont happen to you! to put the name of the brand into minds. They took everyones attention around and made the campaign and therefore the brand even more effective. Turkish people like the visuals that they feel close and can make empathy. That is why this campaign became very effective. This can also be told based on the prize the campaign won and of course, the sudden jump on revenues followinf the
1

campaign. The campaign was being remembered easily and it was unlike the other campaigns thus provided a big success for the company. However, the question was whether this innovative and yet succesful approach which included resembling of crime scenes in public and to make people realize how simply they are exposed to risks ethical or not. To answer this question, first we must define ethics and its role in media. The Ancient Greek philosophers examined virtue, and adapted them on every single part of human life. Aristotle, formed his idea especially on moderation and temperance. (Pg. 12) Moderation should be in every field of human actions, which will direct the individuals to the endings with moral decisions. Another side of Aristotles idea is practical wisdom. Practical wisdom depends on the actions of a particular individual. If the particular action is achieved through the middle state, the individual can be counted as having practical wisdom. Middle state expands itself in the quote of Aristotle, the mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect. (Pg. 13) Fifth-century China, was the emerging point about virtue and mean. Confucius reformed the belief in superior person by identifying superior human. The character description of super human was benevolent, kind, generous, and above all balanced, observing the mean in all things (Pg. 14) The described characterization leads virtue as a mean between extreme decisions. In a more depicted view, Aristotle by using the quote Extreme oppressions demands extreme resistance. (Pg. 13) precluded some actions and strictly mentioned that indicated actions should be considered away from moral decisions. The moral decision depends on the balance and harmony, the virtues action is the one between all extreme points. Media ethics derives from all virtues which Aristotle and Confucius modelled. If we look at this campaign from the perspective of Aristotle, we cannot say that it is ethical because the technic that is used is a little extreme. There are no moderation. Even though these incidents happen often, the method is pointing at it directly and even though it
2

grabs the attention it does it in an extreme, disturbing way. According to Confucius who thinks similar with Aristotle who also gives importance to mean and balance we can say that the campaign is far from its mean point and it is being pushed to the edge of too much. The campaign cannot be in a relation with a superior person which Conficius has defined. If it is looked at the qualities of a superior person this kind of a person would not want to push people to the edge in order to be remembered. So the campaign is not ethical for neither Aristotle nor Confucius. Immanuel Kant, the eighteenth century philosopher, derived ethics by Categorical Imperative. The main idea underneath was what is right for one, is right for all (Pg. 15) The ethical decision should taken, only if used universally. Act only on that maxim, whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law (Pg. 15) The main concern in Kants philosophy was to generalize the law to all human beings. Also Islams Divine Commands consist of justice, human dignity and truth are unconditional duties (Pg. 16) which is similar with Kants ideas. But as we look at the campaign there is no common right and justice for all. On the contrary doing this campaign may be right in order to being noticed but everyone has the access to the places where the campaign is done. So while the adults are understanding the concept the children may only be afraid of it. The content is not considered enough to be equal. Because something like this may be interesting for a group of people but the others may not enjoy it. The children, some women etc. So the campaign is not in a position where justice can be talked about. Because the effects, the reactions, the received message might change from one person to another. Some may even cannot get the message because they are too afraid to get closer of listen to them. This also does not give a chance to be understood by all equally.

Utilitarism emerged in England, as a focus on pleasure. What is right and wrong designed by the amount of pleasure and pain. Preventing pain and promoting pleasure was the cardinal element in the traditional utilitarism. The modernization of utilitarism brought the concepts of friendship, knowledge and health, which are introduced as higher truths as pleasure. The total amount of higher feelings and concepts gained, designated the right and wrong. In order to come up with an ethical action, provide a definite guideline for aiding our ethical choices. We would ask how much benefit and how much harm would result in the lives of everyone affected (Pg. 19). This quote should be underlined. This question leads to the main position in which pleasure is maximized and the pain is minimized. The greatest happiness all together is one side of the main principle. (Pg. 18) The other side includes the amount of humans who gain. As it is seen Mills Principle of Utility is mainly concerned of; seeking the greatest happiness for the aggregate whole (Pg. 18). According to Mills principle the campaign does not provide happiness. It is not preventing the pain it is using it. It may be painful to see this campaign for a real flood or fire victim. Or a person who has been robbed before. Maybe a person who passes by has lost a relative or a close friend from a flood or from fire. Reminding the pain only makes it worse. They are not considering these kinds of people and putting them in a painful situation. Even though nobody around that person has not affected by something like this but the thought of it also gives pain. Most people think about their relatives, childrens, friends first. Then they consider themselves. Yelling out and scaring people about a sensitive situation will only give people pain. Ofcourse people will remember it everyone remembers painful things and this will only be benefitial for the company not the other people. The notion of fairness and the concept of justice was analysed by the Veil of Ignorance of Rawls. In society, everyone do not have the same social equality. The women are always seen as the more emotional and fragile side. It is easier to affect them. Because of this
4

reason Rawls, underlines that the weak ones should be protected. This protection occurs behind an invisible line as original positions. In the original positions, everyone is equal even in political and social statuses. The best decision for the majority marks ethical decision. Rawls ethical ideas depend on the least advantaged group. As to protect them two ideas were highlighted. Everyone has liberty and humans should not discard their liberty in any situation. The second idea is for the protection of the least advantaged ones. The second principle involves all social goods other than liberty and allows inequalities in the distribution of these goods only if they act to benefit the least advantaged party. (Pg. 21) In this campaign the bad guys like the robbers and the fire, flood victims who looked frightning were created by only the male employers. They mostly prefered to tend towards females who are more emotional and are affected more easily. They were scaring them in order to be remembered. But this is not ethical for Veil of Ignorance of Rawls. Instead of protecting the emotional, fragile ones the public relations company is using their weeknesses. Also they are not considering the children who may enter the place they are doing this campaign. Because they are doing it in popular places in weekends which means the percentage of children would be very high. They can also be easily scared because they are very young. So there are no protection among them either which means the campaign is completely unethical for Veil of Ignorance of Rawls. The religion, Islam, decrees to care and love each other. Believer or non believer, everyone knows by heart, nation has their roots on traditions of love and respect. Person as Ends, stresses the ethics of religion. Not only Christianity but every religion had their religious emergence by the notion of love. Judeo-Christians underlined this notion to love all men everywhere alike and crossed the personal expectations. (Pg. 22) Love should be the basis of personal actions without expecting a self interest.

As Judeo-Christians examines love and love related ethics, also feminist scholarship examines love based ethics. Differentiated from Person as Ends, feminist ideology stresses upon nurturing, caring, affection, empathy and inclusiveness (Pg. 23) Although the basic notion stresses avoiding of pain, care is the main notion in feminist scholarships. The love based on ethical notion stressed out because ethics of principle as ambiguous and unstable (Pg. 23) One-Caring and Cared-for holds their roles the one-caring is motivationally engrossed in the cared-for. One-caring has the role to protect and to grow up the cared-for. Noddings stresses When all goes well, the cared for actively receives the caring deeds of the onecaring(Pg. 23) Noddings develop the idea of care, and designates the relationship of onecaring and cared-for in depth. Engrossment, motivational displacement, and reciprocity are three stages which occur during the relation between one-caring and cared-for. One-caring engrossed in the needs of others and in the motivational displacement, one-caring forms empathy and witness the moving forward of the cared-for. In the last stage, reciprocity, points out the growth of the cared-for in the eyes of one-caring. (Pg. 24) But this campaign does not impose this idea on the contrary it makes people suspicious of the others and this holds people back from loving or trusting others. One-Caring and Cared-For is not an issue. Because there is a company which does not care about more emotional or weak people. So as it is looked from these kinds of peoples side they are not Cared-For. Yelling Dont say nothing will happen to me! is not a sign of careness. It is just about giving fright in order to be remembered. So also according to these theories and philosophers this campaign was unethical. If we think about what public relation is, being completely ethical would probably affect that public relation campaigns success in a negative way. As we look at the roles of public relations it is not very possible to be very much ethical in order to da a great job. The roles of public relations can be summarized as: building awareness and a favorable image for a company or client within stories and articles found in relevant media outlets, closely monitoring
6

numerous media channels for public comment about a company and its products, managing crises that threaten company or product image and building goodwill among an organizations target market through community, special programs and events. The part which is most important is building awareness among the society. In order to build awareness, uniqueness is an important fact. If a campaign which is not interesting is done it will not grab much attention. The campaign has to surprise people in order to get the societys interest. If it does not contain anything which will excite them, they will be bored and may not even remember the campaign at all. Giving fright is a kind of excitement. Even though it may not be ethical it will help the campaign and the brand remembered which is the main purpose of public relations. Aristotle, and Confucius stresses the middle state, temperance and harmony. Temperance and harmony could make the campaigns of public relations forgettable. Going to a little extremes may help for the success in order to be remembered. But also going to edges too much would give harm to the campaign, the company and brand. It can be said that the proper amount would be the middle state of the extreme which may be too much according to Aristotle and Confucius but will be in a good place in order to grab attention and be remembered. Kant and Islams Divine commands on the other hand, supports the idea what is right for one, is right for all (Pg. 15) and justice, human dignity and truth are unconditional duties (Pg. 16). Even though this cannot be the fact for the campaign taking risks is needed in public relations. Nothing can be right for everyone. Sometimes in order to be noticed you cannot consider everyone. But frightening people can be interesting for just an amount of people, everyone will not be interested in being scared of course. Especially if the children are also considered the interested group will get smaller. The others will also remember it but will not remember as something that they are interested in or find successful. While Mill and Rawls, emphasizes pleasure gained and the equality of people as the least advantaged part. The least
7

advantaged part is the children and may also be women who are more emotional and easily affected. Not protecting them and using their weakness is not ethical and even though it will make them remember like this it is not right. Those people go to those streets and malls without a clue and get scared and disturbed without any reason other than a campaign which they even might not need. This is not a right thing to do. In Person as Ends as Judeo-Christian model and Noddings love based ethics, highlights the care and love relationship of public and media. In this campaign there is a lack of love and careness. This does not make it easier to love and care for the others on the contrary they will be suspicious of the others. Because the campaign also points at robbery. Also they do not care about the emotional people or children, on the contrary they use their weakness. So it will not be excepted from them to be an example in caring. This campaign may be successful and remembered, also sometimes it may not be ethical very much in order to be like this, but I think people, their thoughts and feelings should be more considered. Even though it may only be a campaign for the company and the brand in order to be realised, nobody has the rights to disturb people without them knowing about it, in a popular place, in an unexpected way. Asl Zeren

Clifford,G.Christians, Et.Al. Media Ethics: Cases and Moral Reasoning. 7th Edition. New York: Pearson, 2005. www.anadolusigorta.com.tr www.tbwa-istanbul.com www.lobby-pr.com