Interpretation (e)

Before the 1980s, most engineering codes contained provisions severely limiting advertising and price competition by engineers in private practice. Since then, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued decisions relaxing such restrictions in advertising and competitive bidding. Advertising can help a potential client become more knowledgeable about the services engineers provide, and competitive bidding may benefit the public by lowering costs for professional service. Canon 2 interpretations do not provide a standard of what constitutes “unfair” competition in advertising and competitive bidding.

If you are an engineer in private practice and you wish to advertise your service, what should you do? Examples of proper advertising, together with the interpretation of the NSPE’s Board of Ethical Review. These two cases address the appropriateness of giving calendars and pencils imprinted with the names of engineering service providers to potential clients.

Consider the following situation. Alfred is a sole practitioner in search of a new advertising slogan. He hires Francy, a professional marketing executive, to help him out. Francy suggests that Alfred market himself as “The Everything Engineer” in his promotions. But Alfred is concerned the slogan implies that he can do everything; that is, that he is competent as an engineer in all disciplines, contexts and areas. This might be misleading. On the other hand, there are no limits placed on a practitioner’s ability to practice several disciplines in several contexts. Should Alfred use this slogan for his campaign? Are there any other relevant factors that Alfred did not think of? Can Alfred market himself as “The Everything Engineer?”

Alfred should not use the slogan “The Everything Engineer” for his advertising campaign. This slogan does imply that he has prior professional experience in all areas of engineering, and would be in violation of Interpretation (c) which states engineers “shall not misrepresent or exaggerate their degrees of responsibility in or for the subject matter of prior assignments.”

See also the discussion below relative to interpretation (g) [plagiarism] and its applicability to this interpretation.