I read last week that advertisers - the Army being the example cited - may be censured for painting an incomplete picture of the product or service on offer. The Army, it seems, along with promises of a first-class training, a useful trade, and the chance to see the world, would also be obliged to mention that it might be the last job you ever do. Now, call me thick, but on two counts I did have to pick myself up from the floor thoroughly shell-shocked. ................................................................................................................................. For one - and surely I hardly need mention this - isn't the primary role of a soldier to put him or herself into the line of enemy (or in some cases, friendly) fire? Otherwise one may as well become an aid worker (although I'm not convinced that sounds any safer, these days). So it would be rather stating the obvious to run a recruitment campaign on this basis... and surely not misleading to anyone but the most recently arrived Martian to take for granted that the audience knew the implications of taking the Queen's shilling. ................................................................................................................................ Secondly, and more salient from a marketing perspective, is the naive understanding it shows of the motivation of an advertiser. Why would anyone stump up the cash for an ad that positively unsells their product? (Okay, some people do this unwittingly, but that's another story!) Of course, we all get taught in Kommunications Kindergarten that our messages must be legal, decent, honest and truthful... but nowhere did I come across a requirement to write a comprehensive essay detailing all the pros, cons, benefits and risks. It would be the stuff sleeping draughts are made of. ................................................................................................................................ In some parts of the world firms are obliged to state the odds of winning if you take part in one of their sales promotions. (Not a bad idea, as it flushes out the paper tigers.) But imagine if organisations were forced to include in their advertising your chances of not surviving the product experience. 'Go green. Cycle to work. It's 50% more dangerous than driving.' 'Take up golf - you're only 300% more likely to be struck by lightning.' 'Used Car. Nail. Positive death-trap.' ................................................................................................................................ While we'd all enjoy the imposition of such regulations upon prospective politicians and standing Government ministers, to expect marketers to shell out for so-called 'balanced' advertising is incomprehensible. I suspect throughout the million-odd years or whatever it is that Homo sapiens has been around, there's been an unwavering tradition to use benefits in order to sell. There's also a long-established principle of caveat emptor. It's the real world.