Advertising - Announcement Cards
Code Citations: [3(a)(1)] [3(a)(2)] [3(a)(3)] [3(a)(4)] [3(a)]
Case Citations: NONE
John Jones, P.E., and Richard Roe, P.E., decide to open a consulting engineering firm to specialize in the practice of mechanical and electrical engineering, expecting to offer their services to other engineers, architects and direct clients. They propose to make the availability of their services known by the mailing of an announcement card to prospective clients in their general geographic area. They have requested advice whether such an announcement card is ethically permissible, and, if so, for guidance as to size, style, content, format, and distribution.
1. Is Jones & Roe's announcement card ethically permissible?
2. What are the ethical guidelines Jones & Roe should follow for such announcement cards?
It will be first noted that none of the Code sections or subsections dealing with the advertising of engineering services makes specific reference to the use of announcement cards. The basic provision of Code 3(a) prohibits the advertising of professional services by engineers, but this flat statement is not literally true in view of the following subsections which permit certain forms of announcements to prospective clients, even though referred to as "means of identification . "
Taking the view that the Code must be read in its entirety and as a whole, we hold to the concept that Code 3(a), in total, restrains only those forms of promotion of services which are of a degree and type which amount to a "commercial" approach to the offer of services, e.g., a display advertisement, a neon sign, a billboard, etc., as distinguished from those forms of announcement to identify the engineer or firm and indicate its areas of expertise and availability.
Thus the Code permits a variety of means for this purpose, short of "commercial" advertising. Even though announcement cards, as such, are not pinpointed as an acceptable method of making services known to prospective clients, we believe it is a reasonable interpretation that they may be used as being consistent with similar methods of announcement, such as brochures, professional cards and business cards, and particularly in view of the language in subsection Code 3(a)(3) allowing "... other factual representations..."
With regard to the request for guidance on the format, style, size, etc. of announcement cards, we do not believe that hard-and-fast criteria are necessary or desirable. We note that the normal announcement cards as utilized in other professions generally are of a modest size (perhaps 6" x 4") and carry only basic factual information of name, address, names of principals, fields of practice and telephone number. For general guidance to those desiring some guideline, however, we show the following sample of an ethically acceptable announcement card.
Similar announcement cards may be used to announce change of location of a firm, an association or promotion of an engineer in the firm, etc. as a practical means of rapid communication.
With regard to distribution of announcement cards, we believe that the control stated in Code 3(a)(3) with regard to brochures is applicable; that they not be indiscriminately distributed. While there is not a definitive statement of "indiscriminate" in the Code itself, we believe that it means that the announcement should be sent only to those as may reasonably be expected to have some potential interest in utilizing the services of the firm, in contrast to a sweeping or wholesale distribution to those whose possible use of the firm is remote or unlikely.
(SAMPLE)
JONES & ROE ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES
123 Main Street
Anywhere, Columbia
John Jones. P.E. and Richard Roe, P.E., announce the opening of an office for the general practice of mechanical and electrical engineering.
Phone (999) 123-4567
1. Jones & Roe's announcement card of the type indicated is ethically permissible.
2. The ethical guidelines for Jones & Roe are set forth in the discussion above.
Board of Ethical Review
William J. Deevy, P.E., William R. Gibbs, P.E., Joseph N. Littlefield, P.E., Donald C. Peters, P.E., James F. Shivler, Jr., P.E., Louis W. Sprandel, P.E., Robert E. Stiemke, P.E., Chairman.
*Note-This opinion is based on data submitted to the Board of Ethical Review and does not necessarily represent all of the pertinent facts when applied to a specific case. This opinion is for educational purposes only and should not be construed as expressing any opinion on the ethics of specific individuals. This opinion may be reprinted without further permission, provided that this statement is included before or after the text of the case.
[Disclaimer]