This post will discuss some ethical debate that has taken place across the world for many years now, but has become particularly pervasive in more recent times. These are the times of the ethical consumer.
If you read my first post you may have seen that I am currently reading the popular anti-corporate book, No Logo, by Naomi Klein. The book was praised for being a call-to-arms against consumer society, by offering a scathing critique of the moral integrity of modern marketing, particularly the branding paradigm of the 1980s onwards. Branding is seen as being the 'selling of lifestyles and dreams' if you will, as opposed to the old model of the clunky manufacturer like Ford producing products to fuel the domestic economy. This, she argues, has had negative influences on jobs and the over-reliance on the service sector, which, during the 1990s -when the book was first published- was comprised of under-paid, over-worked employees stuck in dead-end jobs. This is of course seen overseas as well as in the west with sweatshop labour under less democratic governments, hence union-busting and other unlawful practices etc. All of these criticisms are of course true but other, more covert and insidious criticisms are also made and continue to be made.
These criticisms are grounded in notions of marketing and persuasive communications being manipulative, damaging and presenting messages inappropriate for certain audiences e.g. preying on the naiveté of the elderly or young children and even promoting certain ideologies e.g. the celebrity-obessesed culture and associated health issues of eating disorders such as Anorexia Nervosa, especially amongst young girls. I bring these up since it seems awfully arbitrary to attack a field on these abstract notions -e.g. manipulation- which leads me to my main point. The degree to which Marketing as a field is perceived to be harmful is very broad. Personally, I would draw a spectrum between the perception of it being completely benign and completely malign, both of which -in my humble opinion- are equally absurd and myopic.
The first assumes -for example- that because people have freewill they can decide for themselves and that the wider socio-cultural issues of not fitting in etc. are non-existent. Companies spending billions of £s, $s etc. on persuading folk doesn't do anything. If that were the absolute case, companies would not bother to have marketing functions if they were not doing something but, then again, there is the old advertising adage: "Half of my advertising budget is wasted, trouble is, I don't know which half." The notion of freewill is laughable -especially given certain markets such as children. The case of children is that they are impressionable and not rational. Marketing as a discipline thrives off of irrationality and irrational purchases. When consumers are already irrational the job is much easier. I would point you to a documentary, The Corporation (2003,) in which marketing to children is discussed and the fact that ad budgets exceeded $10 billion per annum at the end of the 1990s. Since marketing is so pervasive across every part of the developed world, there are countless technologies, messages etc. being implemented. Toy companies utilise the latest in media technology, hone the material with psychologists and other child development theorists. These people are not just present to provide age-appropriate, educational products; they are there to ensure companies make a return to their shareholders. This is a major issue for marketeers who are still accused of manipulating children, although regulation has become much tougher over the years. In short, the microcosm just presented is a resounding example of controversial and often morally-questionable marketing. The Randian idea of personal responsibility does not work when faced with insurmountable odds from an external source.
Now, some may argue not from freewill but the perspective of "companies are people too! Why are you denying our right to free speech?" This excuse is petty and any marketer using it is giving the profession a bad name. Yes, logically speaking, this is correct. But the gaping hole is in the power you wield. Companies like Apple, with capital reserves of over $100 billion, have far more speech power than any normal person on the street. Using this excuse is akin to the millionaire fraudster who stole £500 million from a bank, claiming the beggar who stole a £10 note from an off-licence to be equally immoral. In all, the Marketing Fetishists are merely ideologues, taking an idea and sticking to it like fly to flypaper, hypocritically viewing themselves as exempt from their own criteria e.g. personal responsibility not extending to the companies they view as "people too." With this, we will move onto the next camp: The Marketing Antagonists.
This position posits that marketing is inherently evil since it breaks certain key tenets such as freewill. Yes, to a certain extent, marketing relies on the manipulation of people's freewill, much like any other form of persuasion in our daily lives. Having said that, charities also use marketing tactics that often play on emotions and as a result, they raise cash for good causes: Is that evil too? If you accept manipulation to any extent and for any cause to be unethical all the time, then marketing as a profession is doomed! However, it would also mean that humans in general are awful since we all try to persuade, it's a natural part of communication. Adopting this idea is equally closed-minded since there is a grey area and also keep in mind: Marketing, like science, is neither good or evil inherently, but rather it is the purpose to which it is put and the motives of those implementing its tools, that can have good, evil and indifferent motivations and even from these motivations, results contrary to what is expected can arise, should plans go awry.
In conclusion, marketing is merely a system that -according to the CIM- anticipates, identifies and satisfies consumer requirements profitably. However, bodies such as the CIM, AMA etc. all have set out ethical guidelines and practices in order to bring moral structure and integrity to a profession that has, for too long, been rife with unscrupulous practice, morally-bankrupt ideals and an ethically tone-deaf aesthetic. This is beginning to change, falling in line with other profession such as doctors, teachers, engineers and other professional archetypes of our 21st century society.
Please give feedback on this essay if you wish and I hope you found anything in this useful. If you would like to know more, please feel free to get in touch.
No comments:
Post a Comment