The Concept of Marketing Commodities in a Consumer Market - Case Study Example

 'Marketing Ethics' is an Oxymoron: The concept of marketing commodities in a consumer market had long drawn the criticism of ethicists. On a broader perspective, the inherently weak moral imperative of capitalist culture makes this outcome inevitable. Across the world, more so in the advanced societies, marketing strategies have attracted much flak and condemnation from the judicious sections of the society. The United Kingdom is no exception to this rule as well. What follows is an exposition on how the term “Marketing Ethics” is an oxymoron and a contradiction in terms. This is done by citing prominent marketing and advertising campaigns of the last few years across the world (Benady, 2003). It has long been a trend in the marketing industry to employ popular celebrities to endorse their products. A very prominent example is the 1998 campaign headed by Television personality Joan Lunden, who also suffered from allergies. Claritin employed Lunden for allergy controlling products. Likewise, Bob Dole was seen endorsing for Viagra as he himself was suffering from and erectile dysfunction. This trend had now snowballed into big phenomenon with more celebrities pitching an ever-expanding array of prescription drugs on popular mainstream media. But this begs a lot of questions concerning ethics. For instance, celebrities are perceived as more trustworthy and credible than a model. But if the product being endorsed does not result in stated outcomes or does not perform as per the initial claims, the role of its endorsers (celebrities) need be questioned. According to a noted industry analyst, “Celebrities do grab people's attention in many cases more than a happy, active couple on the beach just after they've taken their drug. The question is whether that breakthrough component will fade as more and more well-known faces are seen promoting different products. Also, there is the risk that endorsers come off as aggressively pitching a drug rather than discussing a condition” (Neff, 2002). A case in point is the drug Vioxx, which attracted several consumer lawsuits after being pitched for sale by Olympic gold medallist figure-skater Dorothy Hamill. The ethically concerned are pushing for a legal framework in which the endorsers are also made equally liable along with the business corporation (Krebsbach, 2006). Another area of concern regarding ethical marketing practices is the presently fashionable marketing technique that tries to reach consumers in such a way that they might not even realize they're dealing with an advertisement. And quite rightly, this is raising the ire of critics such as Commercial Alert. As marketing messages get embedded and ingrained into “new, apparently casual conversation and unbranded commercial websites, new legal and ethical questions about when marketing should be labelled as such are emerging fast” (Marks, 2005). This recent development poses a risk for gullible internet users, for whom the credibility of a claim made online is difficult to assess (Marks, 2005). In spite of a few regulatory efforts on part of the governing authorities, the situation remains tense. Recently advocacy group Commercial Alert “called on 305 book editors not to review what it said was an ad, not a young-adult novel. If such deals become commonplace, Gary Ruskin, executive director of the group, said he'll ask the Federal Trade Commission to require prominent disclosure on books” (Benady, 2003). This episode is the most recent of many marketing tactics that attracts disclosure questions-especially for global marketing brands such as P&G, as it indicates an increasing willingness on part of marketers to try non-traditional and non-ethical tactics (Marks, 2005). Cigarettes are one of the most heavily advertised commodities in the industrialized world. Ever since the beginning of the 1980’s, an increasing proportion of those marketing budget is dedicated to what is “probably the most sophisticated consumer marketing databases in the business world”. Here is a brewing concern for ethicists, as tobacco usage is proven to lead to many terminal and irreversible illnesses. The following passage written by a reputed social commentator exposes the unseemly practices employed by tobacco companies to push their profits: “Tobacco advertising is no longer just the province of multi-million dollar ad budgets pushing the Marlboro Man, Joe Camel's phallic face or the women in the Virginia Slims' ads who have "come a long way." It is equally the province of direct marketers, pushing free packs to targeted prospects and mailing slick magazines--published by tobacco companies--to influence the behaviour and retain the loyalty of tens of millions of smokers” (Hoffman, 2006). Many companies interweave social issues with their advertisement campaigns to show they care about issues and causes dear to the general public, from illnesses such as AIDS to the environment to funding educational institutions. No one expects brands to go un-noticed in these campaigns, but too much “brand bull-horning” has left the public with sentiments of suspicion and disillusionment. They have come to the conclusion that it's more about selling the product than about working for the cause. This is a blatant violation of public trust. It is also a cheap way of gaining publicity for their products. Such marketing strategies are despicable and need to be curbed by the authorities concerned. Another marketing concept that is undermining public health and well-being is the drive for impulse purchases. Many supermarkets make lots of profits from chocolates, sweets and other snacks that are displayed near the checking counter. But all along, they are cognizant of the health undermining effects of such foods. But a reluctance to abandon such practices had forced government health authorities to make stricter regulations. The Food Commission has restarted the initiative first undertaken in the early years of the last decade calling for retailers to "chuck snacks off the checkout". Quite rightly, they claim that supermarkets are putting temptation in the way of consumers and their family by encouraging impulse purchases of fat-rich and sugary products that are harmful for health in the long run (Hoffman, 2006). Food Commission nutritionist Annie Seeley says: "Seventy per cent of confectionery is bought on impulse. Retailers know that putting snacks and soft drinks at the checkout where people queue increases sales substantially. But parents say this manipulative marketing technique leads to family conflict when children pester for the products and parents have to say 'no'." Some of the leading supermarket chains in the United Kingdom are guilty of this practice. For instance, Safeway and Marks & Spencer are found by a study as the worst offenders in placing sweets at checkouts, often at toddler height. But the supermarkets themselves don’t admit their unethical practice but try to defend or deny it. Safeway chief executive says that the survey results are skewed unfavourably and claims it usually does not stock high-fat snacks and sweets at checkouts, except during the holiday season and during special promotions. Somerfield and Tesco are other supermarkets that fall in this category. While statements are being made by their public relations department to the effect that it is trying to display sweets on not more that a third of its checking counters, the reality shows a different picture (Hoffman, 2006). With the increasing proliferation of personal computers and the resulting better connectivity, electronic commerce is gaining ground. And with it arises issues of ethical marketing in the internet. Business to Business advertising is a particularly potent threat to gullible internet users. Here, users will be subject to “clever visual metaphors that advance the selling proposition, but advertisers must remember they walk a fine line between ads that are offbeat and off-the-mark”. It also indicates the desperation of the advertisers to “crash through the clutter with over-the-top imagery” (Hoffman, 2006). The following advertisement is a classic example from this category: “In an ad, seemingly borrowed from a Marx Brothers comedy, a team of white-jacketed scientists carefully inspect the foliage in a garden. The strange photo was choreographed to make the point that Chase Merchant Services is constantly combing the landscape for fresh, relevant ideas. At least the headline suggests a benefit: ``Where do you find the latest innovations in payment processing?” (Krebsbach, 2006) While the B-to-B unethical marketing phenomenon is seen across cultures, markets and brands, the public sentiment in the United Kingdom indicates some inclination to curbing this tendency. For example, the British society appears to be adopting a more ethical position given the vociferous reactions “garnered by violence, corruption and perverted sexual practices”. The conscientious agitation of a few people has now spread to national proportions as “campaigning politicians seize the opportunity to argue against immoral deeds”. Since advertisers claim to represent national sentiment, it is imperative that they “begin to identify these recent changes in public attitude and seek to adapt their practices to these changes” (Neff, 2006). Yet another disturbing tactic used by marketers to garner greater profits could be termed as “grief profiteering”. Business corporations are known to take advantage of the thin distinction that exists between altruistic and philanthropic endeavours. While projecting to the audience an image of self-less concern for public well-being, corporations have tried to market their products indirectly. A case in point is the RiskWatch software, which is an analytic tool for measuring security arrangements in large premises. After poor response to the software, its sales shot up in April 1999 “when two gun-toting teenagers killed 12 students, a teacher, and then themselves at Littleton, Colorado's Columbine High School” (Neff, 2006). That night, the chief executive of RiskWatch Caroline Hamilton fired off a press release calling for greater awareness of school security and sent it over a public relations newswire. This was immediately followed by several interviews in leading television news channels. While this led to a large increase in demand from many schools, Hamilton received a perceptive letter from a mother of one of the school shooting victim that accused her of “insensitivity and ruthlessness”. The letter continues thus: "I think you're a horrible person. How dare you try to make money off of innocent people's lives?" (Neff, 2006) This episode raises a crucial question - When a delicate and disturbing situation leads to a viable business opportunity, how can advertisers follow up without appearing exploitative? A leading British management scholar asserts “that companies first should pursue the new opportunity carefully and raise awareness of the issue without tying it directly to a sensitive incident. They need to set the stage by building awareness of their overall positioning among a horizontal audience”. Unless such ethical considerations are catered for, the reputation of marketers will continue to be negative in the eye of the consumer (Krebsbach, 2006). Ethical marketing is a phrase much bandied about, and one level, it appears a genuine concept. However, sceptics suggest that “brands seizing on the fad for an ethical bent are merely displaying a selfish reaction to consumer pressure, which, while dressed up in the guise of saving the earth, is simply intended to keep profits flowing” (Campbell, 1999). But in spite of all the criticism one can attach to the marketing industry as a whole, some corners of the industry is trying in earnest to change the status quo. However, unless the basic motive of marketers is modified, there won’t be any perceptible change in the prevailing situation. And the term “Ethical Marketing” will continue to remain an oxymoron. References: Neff, Jack. "Drugmakers up use of celebs in ads, risking an overdose or critics' ire." Advertising Age 73 (May 27, 2002): S4 Neff, Jack. "Disclosure debate hits novel ideas; Efforts to integrate brands into cultural and conversational spaces scare ethicists." Advertising Age 77.25 (June 19, 2006): 4.  Benady, David. "Sweet temptation leaves sour taste: supermarkets are coming under attack for displaying sweets at checkouts, despite making promises to the contrary. Is the lure of the impulse buyer too big a temptation for the supermarkets to resist?(News Analysis)." Marketing Week 26.44 (Oct 30, 2003): 23(2).  “This moral mood can't be ignored." Marketing (Oct 24, 1996): 3(1) Campbell, Tricia. "Sales Opportunity or Rank Opportunism?(how marketers should handle business opportunities created by tragedies)(Brief Article)." Sales & Marketing Management 151.10 (Oct 1999): 106.  Murphy, Claire. "Ugly business." Marketing (Sept 7, 2000): 32.  "Ethical marketing: Get your house in order." Marketing (May 23, 2007): 25.  Krebsbach, Karen. "The Soft, Secret Sell Of Online Street Hawking: Word-of-mouth marketing is valuable, say marketers, but the online practice is blurring the distinction between ethical and unethical conduct. Can bank marketers use this natural buzz?." US Banker 116.5 (May 2006): 30.  von Hoffman, Constantine. "Marketers quiet about their faith-based efforts: most keep efforts to woo people of faith at a low profile." Brandweek 47.34 (Sept 25, 2006): 9(1).  "Ethics of marketing: It's more than enough to make you sick." Marketing (Jan 23, 2008): 26. Marks, Raymond. "Insight - Ethics: Expert View.(Brief Article)." Marketing Week (June 9, 2005): 31. Read More