Assessing Student Knowledge About Disabilities and Filling the Gap: Including Disability and Accessibility Content Into the Advertising Classroom

Abstract

Persons with disabilities make up at least 15% of the population, yet advertising has, until recently, virtually ignored this audience. We report findings from a survey with 126 students enrolled in advertising classes to gauge awareness, knowledge, and perceptions of disability and advertising. Results show that the majority of students were largely unfamiliar with terminology and with web accessibility guidelines; only 22% learned about disability in any class. Students believed they had some knowledge but indicated that they would like to learn more about disability and advertising for their careers. Students perceived that the advertising industry does not make enough effort to consider disability in advertising. However, they listed brands (e.g., Nike, Apple) that were doing a good job with respect to disability. Results suggest that more content related to persons with disabilities and accessibility should be included in advertising curriculum; ideas and resources are shared.

Keywords

disability accessibility advertising education survey advertising students

Introduction

For a long time, advertisers did not consider people with disabilities (Timke, 2019). Now, Josh Loebner, an advertising professional who is blind and an expert on disability and advertising, argues that “Disability in advertising is a key emerging and evolving topic that is critical and important for students, faculty, professionals and consumers to understand and act on” (Loebner, 2021). Yet, there is limited research on disabilities in advertising focusing on representation (e.g., Houston, 2019) or how people with disabilities respond to advertising (e.g., Houston, 2021; Kaufman-Scarborough, 2001). Increasingly, scholars and professionals across fields are concerned with usability and accessibility through inclusive design (e.g., Ludi et al., 2018; Patrick & Hollenbeck, 2021); some advertisers are beginning to address accessibility by including audio descriptions (e.g., P&G, Roderick, 2017). There is also a small but growing body of research related to disabilities relevant for advertising education (Ellis et al., 2021; Haller, 2021; Loebner, 2021; Timke, 2019), but we do not know what our students, as future advertising professionals, know about accessibility, disabilities, and inclusive design in advertising. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to (1) review this topic in the advertising education literature; (2) gauge awareness, knowledge, and beliefs about disability and advertising among students who are studying advertising; and (3) provide resources for advertising educators to incorporate disability and accessibility content into their classes.

Understanding Disability

Definition and Scope

“Disability is complex, dynamic, multidimensional, and contested” (WHO, 2011, p. 3). The term has been measured and defined in multiple ways (Loebner, 2021), which makes quantifying the number of persons with disabilities difficult. In some cultures, write Mitra and Yap (2021), “the word [disability] and the notion do not exist” (p. 13), with many countries not measuring for disability. Across 41 countries, the median share of the adult population with any functional disability stands at 12.6% (Mitra & Yap, 2021). In the U.S., disability status has been tracked on the American Community Survey since 2008; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that 26% of adults have some kind of disability (CDC, 2022).

Historically, the medical model of disability presented a narrow definition that focused on health impairments or medical limitations in need of interventions (Officer & Groce, 2009). Disability activists and scholars re-framed disability and broadened the concept to focus on structural, societal, and environmental perspectives, which present disability as a mismatch between society and the person (“social model”; Oliver, 1990). This concept of disability helped shape and fuel the disability rights movement, which led to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 (Heller et al., 2019). These models are often presented as being dichotomous. A newer, compromise model—the “bio-psycho-social model” —adopted by the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) and the World Health Organization for the World Report on Disability (2011) includes the interaction between person and environment. Thus, disability could be defined as “an interactional notion, one that results from an individual with a health condition interacting with the environment” (Mitra & Yap, 2021, p. 13). In the legal aspect, the ADA defines a person with a disability “as a person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activity” ADA National Network, 2022).

Persons with disabilities are heterogenous; everyone may experience a disability at some point in their lives whether temporary, situational, or permanent (WHO, 2011). Typically, a physical impairment or wheelchair is associated with the word disability, yet there are also disabilities where there may be no physical signs or cues that are noticeable, referred to as “invisible disabilities” such as “learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating and working” (Adams et al., 2010, p. 459) as well as other chronic health conditions.

There has been much progress as a result of the disability movement, including the interdisciplinary field of disability studies (Ellis et al., 2019); attention to invisible disabilities (e.g., Invisible Disabilities Association); development and popularization of concepts critiquing the idealization of neuro-normativity (e.g., neurodiversity: idea that brains are wired differently; Milton, 2020) and ableism, which celebrates a certain “perfect” self and body that is essential (Campbell, 2001) or assumes ablebodiness in society so that persons who do not conform to ablebodied stereotypes are viewed as “less than” (Chouinard, 1997). Calling out these assumptions in promotion of invisible disabilities, neurodiversity, and defying ableism expands our views of disability and persons with disabilities. We were interested to know if students had been exposed to disability in class and whether they were aware of these ideas.

Disability and Advertising

Advice to advertisers is to design with representation and inclusion in mind. It is estimated that one in four people have some kind of disability in the U.S., but there are few advertisements that show this; therefore, people assume that there are few people with disabilities (Loebner, 2021). As with other audiences, persons with disabilities like to see themselves reflected in media; however, it is important to do this right. For a long time, the advertising industry virtually ignored people with disabilities. A study of magazine ads revealed that less than 1% contained any mention or inclusion of people with disabilities (Parashar & Devanathan, 2006). Nearly 20 years later, ability-integrated advertising is improving in the U.S., in terms of quantity and quality. Prime-time commercials including images of disability (Nielsen Insights, 2021), diverse depictions of differently abled people as major characters (Farnall & Lyons, 2012), and positive portrayals of empowerment and pride (Haller & Ralph, 2006; Loebner, 2021) are more common than ever before. Nevertheless, negative portrayals with the medical model of disability (e.g., “Supercrip” stereotypes; Haller & Ralph, 2006; tokenism, othering; Loebner, 2019, 2021) continue in the media.

Despite the size of this potential target audience, historically, people with disabilities felt left out of advertising and, as a result, ignored messages while also being keenly aware of and supportive of advertisements with positive images of disability (Hardin, 2003). Interviews with people with color deficiencies revealed that they were indifferent and frustrated by advertising that was not accessible to them (Kaufman-Scarborough, 2001). Houston’s (2021) interviews with visually impaired women revealed insights about how advertisers reflect their identities as a woman and a woman with a disability, which challenges advertisers to consider an intersectionality approach to identity and targeting.

Since the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics does not measure disability, it is unknown how many people with disabilities are working in the advertising industry (Loebner, 2019), but the “Nothing About Us Without Us” movement invites people with disabilities into the process of message creation (Loebner, 2021). In our research we were interested in students’ perceptions of disability in advertising and the advertising industry.

Inclusive Design and Accessibility

Ensuring that everyone can access communication messages adheres to the idea of considering all abilities in the design process (Patrick & Hollenbeck, 2021). The inclusive design approach uses the social model of disability where there is a perceived mismatch between audience needs and product or service offerings. Design in this sense goes beyond graphic design (Ellis et al., 2021b) to include product designers and creatives who employ a process where inclusive design is factored into all creative work. For example, Tommy Hilfiger’s “Tommy Adaptive” features designer clothing adapted to hide medical devices or fasten with Velcro; Guide Beauty and Kohl Kreatives offer all-inclusive beauty products with braille, audio guides, and more (“All-Inclusive Beauty,” 2021); Google Creative Lab won the 2019 Cannes “Design Grand Prix” for their “Creatability” campaign of accessible music tools; and Ikea received the “Health and Wellness” award for their “ThisAbles” campaign, which featured affordable product modifications for all users. Accessibility in advertising should be part of marketing and communications, such as the McDonald’s Happy Meal app, which shows users how to enable accessibility settings for larger text, high-contrast, or dyslexia-friendly font. We explore what students know or have learned about accessibility and their level of personal exposure or use of accessibility tools.

Public Policy and Law

There are good business reasons, along with ethical and legal ones, for brands to employ inclusive design principles. In the U.S., accessibility is covered in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which is a civil rights law that “prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in employment, state and local government, public accommodations, commercial facilities, transportation, and telecommunications” (ADA.gov, 2020). Title III provides anti-discriminatory and accessibility standards for public accommodations and services operated by businesses and commercial facilities. It ensures the “right to effective forms of communication” mandating that “businesses take steps necessary to communicate effectively with customers with vision, hearing, and speech disabilities” (ADA.gov, 2020). The American Federation for the Blind points to the ADA Accessibility Guidelines (an appendix to Title III) which provide specific guidance for public accommodation. Title IV relates to accessibility in Telecommunications. As explained by the Dreamscape Foundation, a non-profit organization dedicated to accessibility advocacy, Title IV includes digital communications with guidelines for web accessibility and requirements for closed captioning. The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.0) provide a standard for Web accessibility internationally. As of 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice has considered these web guidelines as the “gold standard” of ADA website compliance. If brands’ websites are not compliant, they are at risk for lawsuits, as was the case for Domino’s Pizza, which was successfully sued by a blind person who could not order pizza due to Domino’s web accessibility issues (Domino’s Pizza v. Guillermo Robles, No. 18–1539; Higgins, 2019).

Gap and Research Questions

Thus far, disability, advertising and accessibility, and public policy were reviewed. But what do students who study advertising know or think about these topics? To our knowledge, this is the first study to assess students’ knowledge and beliefs about disability and advertising. We focused on these questions:

RQ1

What is the level of familiarity or knowledge of disability and (web, advertising) accessibility among students?

RQ2

What is the level of knowledge about and desire to learn more about accessibility, disability, and advertising?

RQ3

What are students’ attitudes toward and beliefs about disability and advertising/branding in the industry and accessible design?

RQ4

What is the level of exposure to material about disability in classes?

RQ5

What is the frequency of students’ personal use of accessibility features/tools?

Method

Participants and Procedures

To address our research questions, an online survey was conducted with 126 undergraduates from a “participant pool” consisting of students enrolled in advertising courses at a large university. The majority of students were advertising majors and received extra credit for participating in the 15-minute survey. The study was approved by the university institutional research board and ethical procedures were followed (e.g., informed consent, anonymity).

Measures

Familiarity With Disability

The survey asked students’ (1) familiarity with key concepts; and (2) knowledge or personal experience with people with specific disabilities. The terms were associated with disability studies and the disability movement (e.g., ableism: Bogart & Dunn, 2019; invisible disabilities: Ysasi et al., 2018; neurodiversity: Milton, 2020). Other questions were based on previous research conducted with undergraduate students in computing programs (Ludi et al., 2018). Familiarity was gauged on a 5-point scale (1 = not at all familiar; 5 = extremely familiar; Hardesty et al., 2002). Radio button options were used to indicate either a) knowledge of or b) personal experience with each case. See appendix for full survey.

Familiarity With Web/Advertising Accessibility and Frequency of Web Accessibility Exposure

We were interested in students’ level of familiarity with web/advertising accessibility guidelines. Familiarity was gauged on a 5-point scale (1 = not at all familiar; 5 = extremely familiar; Hardesty et al., 2002). We showed a restaurant website with an accessibility menu, including how the website would change if visitors chose options (e.g., “contrast”). Participants were asked to rate frequency in response to statements related to exposure or use for self or others: (1) “How often would you say that you have seen an ‘Accessibility Menu' such as this one on other websites you browse?” (2) “How often do you think that you would use one of these features on the ‘Accessibility Menu' for your own internet browsing?” and (3) “How often do you think that other people would use one of these features on the ‘Accessibility Menu' for internet browsing?”

Attitudes and Beliefs About Disability and Advertising Industry and Accessible Design

Students were asked their perceptions of the advertising industry and disability: “To what extent do you believe that the advertising/marketing industry makes an effort to consider disability in advertisements?”; “To what extent does the advertising industry consider visible or physical disabilities in creating advertisements?” and “To what extent does the advertising industry consider invisible disabilities?” on a 5-point scale where 1 = very poor and 5 = excellent, which is a scale used to assess general perceptions (e.g., health: Hays et al., 2015; performance of a bank: Colgate et al., 2000).

Two questions were asked about representation of disability in advertising on a 7-point agreement scale where 7 = strongly agree (“I think advertising could help normalize disability by featuring disabled people from all walks of life” and “I would like to see advertising that featured disabled people as equal to able-bodied people”). The two items were highly correlated, r = .76 and Cronbach’s Alpha = .86, so a mean variable was created (M = 5.55, SD = 1.29).

Three items related to students’ perceptions and attitudes about accessible or inclusive design (“Good accessible design is not just good for people with disabilities - it is good for everybody,” “I think we should design products and advertisements with everyone in mind,” and “I think accessible advertising is good for everyone”) on a 7-point scale, where 7 = strongly agree. Cronbach Alpha = .75 showed good reliability so a mean score was calculated with these three items (M = 5.65, SD = 1.11).

Perceived Knowledge and Desire to Learn About Disabilities

We measured perceived knowledge and desire to learn more by asking students to indicate their agreement (7-point scale) with: “I feel like I know enough about accessibility and inclusion for people with disabilities” and “I wish I knew more about accessibility and inclusion for my career.”

Awareness of Brands Known for Inclusive Design or Disability Advertising

Top-of-mind awareness of brands associated with disability was assessed with: “Please list any brands or companies that you can think of that do a good job of representing people of all abilities or you think design their products or advertising with disability mind,” with the option to explain.

Student Use of Accessibility Tools

Accessibility tools were drawn from web accessibility guidelines (W3C: “tools and techniques”) and an accessibility e-book (“Modern Marketing”, 2019).

Results

RQ1: What is the level of familiarity or knowledge of disability and (web, advertising) accessibility among students?

About 30% of students were very or extremely familiar and 33% were not at all familiar with ‘invisible disabilities’ (M = 2.54, SD = 1.39); 30% were very/extremely familiar and 43% were not at all familiar with neurodiversity (M = 2.25, SD = 1.35); 38% were very or extremely familiar and 35% were not at all familiar with ableism (M = 2.77, SD = 1.54); and 43% were very or extremely familiar with and 14% were not at all familiar with inclusive design (M = 3.2, SD = 1.25). See Table 1 for definitions and results.

Table 1.

Advertising Students’ Familiarity with Disability Terms.

Term	Definition	Familiarity
Invisible disabilities (sometimes called “hidden disabilities”)	“An invisible disability is a physical, mental, or neurological condition that can’t be seen from the outside. But it can impact someone’s movements, senses, or activities, according to the Invisible Disabilities Association. Some examples of invisible disabilities include autism spectrum disorder, depression, diabetes, and learning and thinking differences such as ADHD and dyslexia. Invisible disabilities can also include symptoms such as chronic pain, fatigue, and dizziness.” (Understood.org): https://www.understood.org/articles/en/understanding-invisible-disabilities-in-the-workplace	30% of students were very or extremely familiar and 33% not at all familiar (M = 2.54, SD = 1.39)
	“Hidden disabilities are physical or mental impairments that are not readily apparent to others. They include such conditions and diseases as specific learning disabilities, diabetes, epilepsy, and allergy. A disability such as a limp, paralysis, total blindness or deafness is usually obvious to others. But hidden disabilities such as low vision, poor hearing, heart disease, or chronic illness may not be obvious. “https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/hq5269.html
Neurodiversity	“Neurodiversity is a viewpoint that brain differences are normal, rather than deficits. Neurodiverse people experience, interact with, and interpret the world in unique ways. This concept can help reduce stigma around learning and thinking differences.” https://www.understood.org/articles/en/neurodiversity-what-you-need-to-know	30% were very or extremely familiar and 43% were not at all familiar (M = 2.25, SD = 1.35)
Neurodiversity
Ableism	Disability studies scholar Fona Kumari Campbell’s (2001) definition focuses on its dehumanizing role: “Ableism refers to a network of beliefs, processes and practices that produces a particular kind of self and body (the corporeal standard) that is projected as the perfect, species-typical and therefore essential and fully human. Disability then is cast as a diminished state of being human (p. 44).” Other Conceptualizations focus on the “othering” of disabled people: Ableism is “ideas, practices, institutions and social relations that presume ablebodiedness, and by so doing, construct persons with disabilities as marginalised . . . and largely invisible ‘others’” (Chouinard, 1997, p. 380)	38% were very or extremely familiar and 35% were not all familiar, (M = 2.77, SD = 1.54)
Ableism	The term ableism has become increasingly popular over disablism, especially among American disability studies scholars and disability rights activists (BBC news Ouch Blog, 2014)Good discussion of term in Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewpulrang/2020/10/25/words-matter-and-its-time-to-explore-the-meaning-of-ableism/?sh=26a9525f7162
Inclusive design	“The actual or perceived match between the user and the design object. Inclusive design does not reject users because of who they are, but instead works with excluded users to create solutions that work well and benefit everyone” (Patrick & Hollenbeck, 2021, p. 362). See also definitions across academic fields in Patrick & Hollenbeck, 2021, p. 362)	43% were very or extremely familiar and 14% were not at all familiar with inclusive design (M = 3.2, SD = 1.25)

When asked about awareness of different forms of disabilities, the familiarity levels were higher overall. About 75% were very or extremely familiar and only .8% were not at all familiar with visual impairment (M = 4.07, SD = .98); about 80% were very or extremely familiar and .8% were not at all familiar with color blindness (M = 4.23, SD = .91); 74% were very or extremely familiar and 5% were not at all aware of dyslexia (M = 4.05, SD = 1.13); and 89% were very or extremely familiar and .8% were not at all familiar with deaf or hard of hearing (M = 4.4, SD = .78). We also asked if students had knowledge or personal experience (related to self or others) with different disabilities. Students reported personal experiences with various disabilities: low vision (23%), blindness (6%), deafness (20%), autism (25%), learning disabilities (29%), dyslexia (18%), ADD/ADHD (40%), intellectual disabilities (20%), and motor/movement disabilities (17%).

We asked students about their familiarity with practices in advertising and web accessibility. With respect to “Compliance rules for web accessibility”, (M = 1.92 SD = 1.5), 51% were not at all familiar and 14% were very familiar. On “Accessibility checkers”, (M = 1.78, SD = 1.0), 54% of students were not at all familiar whereas 8.9% were very familiar. Lastly, when asked about “accessibility considerations in advertising”, (M = 2.08, SD = 1.0), 36% were not at all familiar and 9.7% were very familiar.

With respect to a restaurant website with an accessibility menu, 46% indicated that they had never seen an “Accessibility Menu” on websites (M = 2.01, SD = 1.29); 42% indicated they would never use the menu (M = 2.22, SD = 1.36) even though they believed that “other people” would use the accessibility features once a week (21%) or every day (23%); (M = 3.99, SD = 1.61).

RQ2: What is the level of knowledge about and desire to learn more about accessibility, disability, and advertising?

Only 33% of the sample agreed (agree, moderately agree, strongly agree) with the statement, “I feel like I know enough about accessibility and inclusion for people with disabilities” (M = 3.62, SD = 1.14). This is in contrast with 83% of the sample who agreed with the statement, “I wish I knew more about accessibility and inclusion for my career” (M = 5.44, SD = 1.22). See Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Advertising students’ self-efficacy about disability knowledge and advertising. Note: Mean scores on 7-point scale where 7=strongly agree.

RQ3: What are students’ attitudes toward and beliefs about disability and advertising/branding and accessible design?

We explored how students felt about disability in the advertising industry. In response to the question, “To what extent do you believe that the advertising/marketing industry makes an effort to consider disability in advertisements?,” the most frequent response was “poor” at 48%, with only 15% of students believing that the industry does a good or excellent job (M = 2.57, SD = .88). Next, students were asked the extent to which the advertising industry considers visible or physical disabilities in creating advertisements. Here, the most frequent response was “poor” (44%), and only 17% of students believed the industry does a good or excellent job. The students were also asked about invisible disabilities. The most common response here was also “poor” at 40% with 12% agreeing that the industry does a good or excellent job. Overall, students did not believe that the advertising industry is currently doing a good job of considering this population.

Two questions were asked about representation of disability in advertising. Overall, the majority (75%) of students indicated that advertising should feature more people with disabilities in advertising (M = 5.55, SD = 1.29). Students’ perceptions and attitudes about accessible or inclusive design showed high agreement (M = 5.65, SD = 1.11), with the most frequent response being “strongly agree” (21%).

An open-ended question asked students to list any brands that do a good job of representing people of all abilities or in design of products or advertising with disability in mind. For this question, 11 students left it blank and 38 said they could not think of any or did not know. One student wrote, “When I think about advertisements and marketing that is inclusive and considerate, not one single ad comes to my mind which is not a good thing” and another wrote, “Before now I wasn’t aware of what brands were doing to include disabled people.” Some people listed several brands; the most frequent answers were Nike (19) and Apple (14) followed by Dove (4), Target (4), Asos (3), Google (3), Adidas (3), Microsoft (2), Aerie (2), P&G (2) followed by others with a single mention. See Table 2 for open-ended responses.

Table 2.

Advertising Students’ Perceptions of Brands Doing a Good Job with Disability (Excerpts from Open-Ended Data).

Brand	Explanation
Aerie	I have seen multiple posts from Aerie highlighting people with disabilities
Aerie	Have very diverse models, including those with visible disabilities in their advertisements
Apple	Have features to make using their product more accessible. Apple especially has a lot of features to help with different kinds of disabilities
	For instance, if you use iPhone or Apple watch or any Apple products, you will find out there is an accessibility setup that helps people better use the product
	Apple offers many features on their products that make it easier for individuals with disability to understand
	They can promote the accessibility features they have on their devices
	They have a lot of features of brighter, bigger text
Asos/Benefit	I think these two brands are good at representing people of all abilities because in recent campaigns, they have begun to be more inclusive with their advertisements. Both Benefit and Asos have included models in their campaigns that have physical disabilities alongside those who don’t have a visible disability, which I think does a good job showing that they are becoming more open
Microsoft	Microsoft is known for features they have for accessibility
Nike	I think that I think this brand does a good job because in the past week I have seen 2 Nike ads; one where a kid in a wheelchair was able to personalize a shoe where it looked like he had laces but it was really velcro and easier for him to put on, the second was a deaf person signing that anything is possible while wearing all Nike
	I only mentioned Nike because they were the only major brand that stuck out to me that advertised a shoe that was designed for people with disabilities. But also anyone abled or disabled would be able to enjoy the shoes
	The Nike GO FlyEase shoes were trending on Twitter a year ago with people making fun of the shoes, being for people that are “lazy”. Someone later mentioned that shoes like the Nike GO FlyEase are geared towards those with disabilities that have a hard time putting shoes on. So what may seem “lazy” to someone, can be seen as a great innovation for someone that is unable to perform what looks “easy” (like tying a shoe)
	Nike is the only company I thought of that has been doing all sorts of campaigns to ensure the representation of people from all walks of life, especially people with disabilities
	Features people with physical disabilities in a product category that is known for advertising with those who are physically able
	I think they use people with many different bodies and abilities, especially when it’s the olympics/paralympics time
	They raise awareness for quadriplegic’s and more with their slogan “just do it"
	I recall seeing a wheelchair advertisement a while back
	Showcase paraplegic athletes
	Nike has highlighted some athletes with disabilities
Starbucks	Has a store in Washington state where entire staff knows sign language
Toyota	Toyota has some products that assist disabled individuals when driving.
Verizon	I think I remember seeing a Verizon ad interviewing people and families of all walks of life, races, and abilities

RQ4: What is the level of exposure to material about disability in classes?

Only 22% of the students indicated that they had learned about disabilities in a class (e.g., educational psychology, media studies, recreation/sport/tourism, special education, speech and hearing, kinesiology, informatics, advertising and society, and journalism). The remaining 78% indicated they did not learn about disability or could not remember.

RQ5: What is the frequency of students’ personal use of accessibility features/tools?

Students indicated high agreement with use of spell/grammar check and subtitles/closed captions (82% agreed that they used a spell/grammar checker: M = 5.61, SD = 1.4, 73% indicated they would watch social media/TV content with subtitles/closed captions: M = 5.09, SD = 1.77). 45% of students agreed they would like to adjust colors on the web to increase legibility (M = 4.24, SD = 1.68) or preference to “adjust the font style or size while reading on mobile devices/the internet”; on this question, 40% agree/moderately agree/strongly agree, with 11% indicating they strongly agree; (M = 4.03, SD = 1.70). Less commonly used tools related to the “talk (speech) to text” feature of phones or computers or the “read-aloud” function. See Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Advertising students’ use of accessibility tools. Note: 7-point scale, where 7 = strongly agree. Questions were phrased in terms of use.

Discussion of Results and Ideas for Including Disability into Advertising Curriculum

The results of our survey of students in advertising courses reveal that there is not much familiarity with disability or accessibility issues on the web or advertising. Only 22% of the students indicated that they had learned about disability in their classes, and of those, only a handful mentioned advertising classes (e.g., Advertising and Society). The results found here mimic the observations that Professor Haller has had in her classes when she introduces accessibility assignments; she reports that “many admit that they have ‘never, ever thought about the access needs of blind people for media’” (Haller, 2021). Students in our survey indicated a desire to learn more for future advertising careers; that they used several tools to enhance accessibility and aid learning (e.g., spell/grammar check, subtitles) in their own lives; and that they also agreed that accessible (inclusive) design was good for everyone.

Survey results suggest that there is room for improvement in the advertising industry with respect to disability and accessibility. Our sample of future advertising professionals found that the majority did not believe the industry was doing a good job and thought more representation of disability in advertising was needed. However, more than half of the students were able to recommend at least one brand they felt was doing a good job on disability, with the most common brands being Nike and Apple. Furthermore, many students were able to articulate why these brands fared well on disability, citing commercials or products that showed the benefits of disability inclusion for brands.

Overall, our results indicate that advertising classes could include more content related to disability or advertising to increase students’ knowledge. It is unknown how much content or where or when advertising educators are discussing these issues currently, and it is recommended that disability “should take a more prominent place in advertising education” (Liu et al., 2021). We recommend that core courses in advertising present opportunities to discuss these topics; for example, creative courses could present ideas about representation. Timke (2019) and Ellis et al. (2021a) provide excellent discussions and many examples of disability and advertising. Instructors should inform students about best practices in accessibility and advertising design, including web accessibility guidelines (see Nelson’s and Timke’s contribution in Altstiel, Grow, & Jennings, 2022, pp. 194–195; plus Haller, 2021). Understanding the needs of all consumers and uncovering new opportunities with inclusive design are relevant for account planning courses. Advertising and Society or law classes provide a chance to explore the ethics, law, and public policies around accessible advertising. There are also disability and media courses. The Association of National Advertisers has a “people with disabilities” category in its Multicultural Excellence Awards, and the American Advertising Federation includes people with disabilities within several of its Mosaic award categories. But there isn’t much support or resources related to disabilities in educator organizations. For example, there was a Media and Disability Interest Group for the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (1990) but it was discontinued in 2007 due to lack of interest. The National Communication Association has a Disability Issue Caucus (1997-present), but none of the other academic organizations provide a forum for disability. Our study has some limitations including a small sample size from only one university, and we did not measure for the students’ year in college. We encourage faculty in other institutions to assess the awareness of issues surrounding accessibility and advertising among their students, conduct a review of the content in advertising curriculum, or teach content and then test students’ learning and attitudes. It is the authors’ belief that all students could benefit from thinking about ability and accessibility, and there are a number of ways that instructors could include such content into their existing courses (e.g., videos, discussions, case studies, in-class assignments). See Table 3 for ideas and resources.

Table 3.

Resources and Ideas for Including Disability and Accessibility in Advertising Classes.

Class Material or Assignment	Content/Learning	Resources
Introduce the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Focus on parts III and IV.	Gain awareness and knowledge of the ADA.	https://www.ada.gov/cguide.htm#anchor62335
	Students could see if the principles of ADA are covered in signs in commercial businesses.	https://adata.org/factsheet/ADANN-writing
Introduce ideas about web accessibility and guidelines.	Learn and practice applying principles of web accessibility by analyzing content.	Web accessibility. https://www.w3.org/WAI/fundamentals/accessibility-intro/https://blog.hubspot.com/website/web-accessibility-guidelines
Have students pick brand websites and using the guidelines, check their accessibilty. Encourage them to discuss how they would improve the websites.	Students could use the free accessibility checker with a brand (or university) website of their choice.	Accessibility checker (AI and websites). https://accessibe.com/ace?utm_source=adage&utm_medium=paid&utm_content=adage_link&utm_campaign=tofu
		Optional: Watch demo from this website: https://accessibe.com/?gclid=Cj0KCQiA8vSOBhCkARIsAGdp6RQQtaK-iB9k3ZSCLbledgsup2t1-00p16jrjkZiBLH32bzu8e5HbRkaAuFvEALw_wcB
Show students how audio description (AD) works in advertising and “lowers the barriers for the blindness community to participate in the current media viewing culture” (Haller, 2021)	Gain awareness of accessibility features for people with vision impairments.	Haller, B. (2021). Making media more accessible through an audio description Assignment. Advertising and Society Quarterly, 22 (4).
Have students analyze the examples in Haller, 2021 and find other advertising examples on youtube with AD. Then ask students to select an advertisement on youtube and write an AD for it.	Learn about audio descriptions and practice writing them.
Discuss legal issues related to web accessibility. Go through example case and documents. Discuss implications for web communications. Search other restaurant websites and apps: do they offer accessibility?	Example: Domino’s pizza was successfully sued by a blind person who could not order pizza because of Domino’s web accessibility issues. The court ruled in his favor because the “alleged inaccessibility of Domino’s website and app impedes access to the goods and services of its physical pizza franchises—which are places of public accommodation” (Domino’s pizza v. Guillermo robles, no. 18–1539; Higgins, 2019).	Legal case: Domino’s Background: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/07/dominos-supreme-court.html
		Documents/Press: https://www.microassist.com/digital-accessibility/dominos-pizza-guillermo-robles/
Introduce ideas of inclusive design.	Use NikeFlyease as a case study.	Read: Patrick, Vanessa M., and Candice R. Hollenbeck. “Designing for all: Consumer response to inclusive Design.” Journal of Consumer Psychology 31, no. 2 (2021): 360–381.
Talk about brand positioning and design.	Ask students to review the product website. And show the news story in class. Talk about the idea behind the design and the product positioning now. The idea about a shoe that works well for people who have a disability and beyond.	Use Nike Flyease as case study. https://www.nike.com/flyease
		From Nike on the process: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTRsiWa79rY
		Nike shoes - inspiration https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eltDLMaBY2g
		Positioning for all https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1D5zVxLSC_c
Designing for all abilities.	Show Cannes 2019 award winning campaigns	Google Creatability - 2019 Cannes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5-bHJqtQS0
		ThisAbles - 2019 Cannes winner (Ikea) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loPEF4STBQc&t=67s
		Behind the scenes: ThisAbles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eUvSitBo_E
Overview of accessible marketing.		Microsoft “modern marketing is accessible marketing” (50-minute webinar) https://about.ads.microsoft.com/en-us/insights/webcasts/modern-marketing-is-accessible-marketing
Designing for all abilities.		Roy, Elise (2016), “When we design for disability, we all benefit,” TED talk; 13 minutes, available here: https://www.ted.com/talks/elise_roy_when_we_design_for_disability_we_all_benefit?language=en
Introduce terms, definitions related to disability and show depictions in advertising.	Define key terms, and representations of ability in advertising	https://muse.jhu.edu/article/736400
		Timke, Edward. 2019. “Disability and advertising.” Advertising and Society Quarterly, vol. 20 (3). Project MUSE, doi:10.1353/asr.2019.0024
Accessible advertising (example: Audio descriptions for vision impaired)	Show examples of advertising (P&G) that is accessible to people with vision issues.	https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gblFm6fkR_A
Apple and accessibility.	Brand highlights accessibility features with people of all abilities.	https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB4cjbYywqg
Importance of and details about web accessility.	Show video (creative/technical director). Discuss and debate issues of creativity and aesthetics with accessible design.	https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxGH2ljFIOw
Importance of and details about web accessility.		Accessibility in the advertising industry \| Arnaud Tanielian (18-minute video)
Short videos about disability definition, context, representations.	Show video on disability in advertising (videos 1 and 2), workshop, video 3 on accessibility in advertising.	Loebner, Josh. “Key concepts in advertising: Disability.” Advertising and Society Quarterly 22, no. 4 (2021).
		https://muse-jhu-edu.proxy2.library.illinois.edu/article/845381
Short industry-related readings about disability and accessibility.	Assign for student readings.	Safian-Demers, Emily (2020, August 7), “Q&A: Christina Mallon, Head of Inclusive Design and Accessibility, Wunderman Thompson” retrieved from https://intelligence.wundermanthompson.com/2020/08/christina-mallon-head-of-inclusive-design-and-accessibility-wunderman-thompson/
		When it comes to inclusion, we must stop overlooking accessibility
		Hannah Frankl/September 2020 https://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/future-of-marketing/management-and-culture/diversity-and-inclusion/marketing-accessibility-guidelines/
		Vikas Khorana, How to put accessibility at the forefront of marketing (2020, December 7) https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2020/12/07/how-to-put-accessibility-at-the-forefront-of-marketing/?sh=3ea777107831
Federal Trade Commission “Clear and conspicuous” disclosures.	Introduce importance of ‘readability’ for public policy (e.g., disclosures) – Show FTC guidelines and ask students to see if disclosures in advertising adhere to the guidelines.	FTC guidelines (1970): https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/288851/701021tvad-pr.pdf
		Additional reading (FTC disclosures in digital media) https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/press-releases/ftc-staff-revises-online-advertising-disclosure-guidelines/130312dotcomdisclosures.pdf
		Fact sheet with activity: https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/games/off-site/youarehere/pages/pdf/FTC-Ad-Marketing_Devil-In-Details.pdf
Is social media accessible?	Ask students to make up their own “accessibilty checklist” after learning about accessibility and then ‘check’ which social media are most accessible.

Scholars might investigate what advertising educators know or teach with respect to disability and accessibility. Researchers could also provide ideas on how to make classroom content more accessible and how to help students with various abilities in group projects (e.g., see Geske, 2018). Evaluating the accessibility of existing advertising content and exploring potential barriers to adopting accessible advertising are additional ideas. We hope our study inspires others to consider this area of research and that our resources are useful to educators.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Michelle R. Nelson

Appendix

References

ADA.gov . (2020, February). A Guide to Disability Rights Laws. A guide to disability rights laws. https://www.ada.gov/cguide.htm#anchor62335

Adams

Blumenfeld

W. J.

Castañeda

Hackman

H. W.

Peters

M. L.

Zuñiga

(2010). Readings for diversity and social Justice (2nd ed.). Routledge.

All-Inclusive Beauty : Disability visibility in the beauty industry (2021, October 21). The Daily Newsletter. https://cassandra.co/DAILY/page/95?sort=asc

Altstiel

Grow

Jennings

(2022). Advertising creative: Strategy, copy, and design. Sage Publications.

Bogart

K. R.

Dunn

D. S.

(2019). Ableism special issue introduction. Journal of Social Issues, 75(3), 650–664, https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12354

Campbell

(2001). Inciting legal fictions: ‘Disability’s’ date with ontology and the ableist body of the law. Griffith Law Review, 10(1), 42–62. https://www.griffith.edu.au/

Centers for Disease Control . (2022). Disability impacts all of. Vol 6. https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/disabilityandhealth/infographic-disability-impacts-all.html

Chouinard

(1997). Making space for disabling differences: challenging ableist geographies. Introduction: situating disabling differences. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 15, 379–390.

Colgate

M. R.

Peter

Danaher

P. J.

(2000). Implementing a customer relationship strategy: The asymmetric impact of poor versus excellent execution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 28(3), 375–387, https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070300283006

10.

Ellis

Goggin

Haller

Curtis

(2019). Introduction: Disability and media—an emergent field. In The routledge companion to disability and media (pp. 1–1). Routledge.

11.

Ellis

Hall

Haller

Loebner

Mallon

Timke

(2021). Roundtable on disability and advertising, Part II. Advertising and Society Quarterly 22(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1353/asr.2021.0013

12.

Farnall

O. F.

Lyons

(2012). Are we there yet? A content analysis of ability integrated advertising on prime-time TV. Disability Studies Quarterly 32(1), 1041–5718.

13.

Geske

(2018). Creating inclusive groups in the advertising classroom. Journal of Advertising Education 22(1), 34–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098048218768587

14.

Haller

(2021). Making media more accessible through an audio description assignment. Advertising & Society Quarterly, 22(4), 50. https://doi.org/10.1353/asr.2021.0050

15.

Haller

B. A.

Ralph

(2006). Are disability images in advertising becoming bold and daring? An analysis of prominent themes in US and UK campaigns. Disability Studies Quarterly 26(3), 2006. www.dsq-sds.org

16.

Hardesty

D. M.

Carlson

J. P.

Bearden

(2002) Brand familiarity and invoice price effects on consumer evaluations: The moderating role of skepticism toward advertising. Journal of Advertising 31(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2002.10673663

17.

Hardin

(2003). Marketing the acceptably athletic image: Wheelchair athletes, sport-related advertising and capitalist hegemony. Disability Studies Quarterly 23(1), 108–125. www.cds.hawaii.edu/dsq

18.

Hays

R. D.

Spritzer

K. L.

Thompson

W. W.

Cella

(2015). US general population estimate for “excellent” to “poor” self-rated health item. Journal of General Internal Medicine 30(10), 1511–1516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-015-3290-x

19.

Heller

Harris

S. P.

Gill

C. J.

Gould

(2019). Disability in American life: An encyclopedia of concepts, policies, and controversies [2 Volumes]. ABC-CLIO.

20.

Higgins

(2019, October 7). Supreme Court hands victory to blind man who sued Domino’s over site accessibility. CNBC.https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/07/dominos-supreme-court.htmlHouston

21.

Houston

(2019). Featuring Disabled Women in Advertisements: The Commodification of Diversity? In The routledge companion to disability and media (pp. 50–58). Routledge.

22.

Houston

(2021). Polysemic interpretations: Examining how women with visual impairments incorporate resist, and subvert advertising content. Journal of Advertising 51(2), 240–255, https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2021.1895008

23.

Kaufman-Scarborough

(2001). Accessible advertising for visually‐disabled persons: The case of color‐deficient consumers. Journal of Consumer Marketing 18(4), 303–318. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760110392985

24.

Liu

K. R.

Mallon

Loebner

Timke

(2021). Disability, advertising, and design: An interview with KR liu and christina Mallon. Advertising and Society Quarterly 22(1), 2021. https://doi.org/10.1353/asr.2021.0015

25.

Loebner

(2019). Advertising disability and the diversity directive. In The routledge companion to disability and media (pp. 341–355). Routledge.

26.

Loebner

(2021). Key concepts in advertising: Disability. Advertising and Society Quarterly 22(4), 2021. https://doi.org/10.1353/asr.2021.0041

27.

Ludi

Huenerfauth

Hanson

Rajendra Palan

Garcia

(2018, February). Teaching inclusive thinking to undergraduate students in computing programs. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 717–722).

28.

Milton

(2020). Neurodiversity past and present - an introduction to the Neurodiversity Reader. In The neurodiversity reader. Pavilion, pp. 3–6.

29.

Mitra

Yap

(2021). The disability data report. Disability data initiative. Fordham Research Consortium on Disability. https://disabilitydata.ace.fordham.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/The-Disability-Data-Report-2021.pdf

30.

Officer

Groce

N. E.

(2009). Key concepts in disability. Lancet, 374(9704), 1795–1796, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(09)61527-0

31.

Oliver

(1990). The politics of disablement. Macmillan and St Martin’s Press.

32.

Parashar

Devanathan

(2006). Still not in vogue: The portrayal of disability in magazine advertising. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 37(1), 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1891/0047-2220.37.1.13

33.

Patrick

V. M.

Hollenbeck

C. R.

(2021). Designing for all: Consumer response to inclusive design, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 31(2), 360–381, https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1225

34.

Roderick

(2017, September 28). P&G rethinks advertising to make it more accessible. Marketing Week. https://www.marketingweek.com/pg-rethinks-advertising-inclusive/

35.

Timke

(2019). Disability and advertising. Advertising & Society Quarterly, 20(3). https://doi.org/10.1353/asr.2019.0024

36.

Visibility of Disability: Portrayals of Disability in Advertising. (2021). Nielsen Insights. https://www.nielsen.com/insights/2021/visibility-of-disability-portrayals-of-disability-in-advertising/

37.

What is the definition of disability under the ADA?

ADA National Network. (2022). https://adata.org/factsheet/ADANN-writing

38.

World Health Organization . (2011). World report on disability 2011. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/44575

39.

Ysasi

Becton

Chen

(2018). Stigmatizing effects of visible versus invisible disabilities. Journal of Disability Studies 4(1), 22–29.