Is marketing evil?
As I write my second book, in one chapter I'm describing how people think when they buy Light Scrutiny products (one of the four categories of products and services, characterized by the amount of scrutiny the buyer applies to the purchase). I'm listing the three questions people ask themselves when buying a Light Scrutiny product:
- Do I want this?
- Can I afford it?
- Is there any reason I shouldn't buy this?
I note in the book how the answer to the last question is usually related to self-discipline:
If I buy that bag of chips, I'm not going to lose any weight today.
If I take that trashy magazine home and read it, I probably won't get around to the more important things I need to do today.
If the buyer exercises her self-discipline, she won't buy that bag of chips or that trashy magazine. The company that sells chips will make one less sale. The publisher who crams his magazine with gossip about celebrities will sell one less magazine. And the buyer will go home, sticking to her diet resolutions and getting her projects finished.
The buyer wins, the seller loses.
One question that keeps popping into my mind as I work on this chapter is the struggle that all ethical marketers wrestle with: Is marketing evil? Is it wrong to sell potato chips and celebrity gossip - things that people only buy when their self-discipline fails them?
I wouldn't do it myself. But, this is a personal choice. I never have sold anything that didn't help someone in some way. I left the trashy products to others. I can't speak for anyone else.
What's been rewarding about my marketing and selling career is that there are plenty of products and services out there that really do help people. I'd even go so far as to say that the majority of products and services sold are beneficial to their buyers. One of my clients sells villa vacations in the Caribbean and Europe. I've interviewed the people who rent those villas, for $3000 a week and up, and have found most of them are self-made business people who are looking for a way to get away with the family and enjoy privacy in a beautiful setting. This is good. It's good for the person who rents the villa, for the person's family, for the villa owner and managers, and for the people who live and work in the community where the villa is located.
I've worked with thousands of entrepreneurs. Every single one got into their business because they believed they could solve a problem. In their own way, they are making the world a better place. If they are successful promoting that product or service, they contribute to the health and well-being of fellow human beings.
It's important to note that in a market-driven society, no one is being forced to buy a particular product or service (except for those purchases required by government regulation). The consumer holds all the power in the buying/selling relationship.
This is why I continue to feel good about marketing, and why I don't think that marketing is inherently evil.
I can't say the same for certain products, though.
Comments
re: Is marketing evil?
I would agree without reservation that choice (a/ka a free market) is an enormously good thing, and that marketing ultimately helps the best companies and products win over the bad stuff.
My problem is that I have a somewhat darker view of marketing *people.* All too often, they run into troubling ethical dilemmas and (from the customer's perspective) make really bad choices. Much of the time these bad choices consist of less than full disclosure of information the customer would want to know to make a reasonable decision.
Examples are everywhere. Telephone offers that hide the hefty early termination penalties in mouse type. Rebates that come only after hell freezes over. Complicated technology products with unresponsive tech support. Aggressive discounts (e.g., store brands) that the vendor expects to eliminate once he has dominant market share.
Marketers can feel okay about themselves because the things they're pitching--cell phones, anti-virus software, canned peas--tend to be good, useful products. But the information that the marketer conceals may be a source of real damage and pain to the customer. Our awards for Web tech support make us a magnet for heart-breaking stories about people who bought PCs and software that the vendors said included "award-winning support," and then refused to help customers with problems.
The ethical problem--and I think many marketers feel this at some point--is not whether it's okay to sell trashy magazines and fattening food. The problem is how much information is it honest to hide from the buyer to make a sale?
Of course, that's a classical issue of divided loyalties. As you (correctly) argue, the marketer should be "the voice of the customer." But the marketer's paycheck is earned by being the voice of the company. That paycheck will stop very quickly if the marketer starts writing copy that says "Caution--our customer service sucks."
Which may be why so many marketers are strangely reluctant to spend time talking to customers. They don't want to hear the bad news about why customers are unhappy. Rather than address the ethical problem of divided loyalties, most marketers seem to prefer denial.
Jeffrey Tarter
Executive Director, Association of Support Professionals
ASPonline.com