Log into my Internet Site

Marketing is often a discipline, which evokes many different connotations. Depending on the knowledge, background and ignorance of the person questioned, a spectrum of answers, ranging from selling to producing consumer led products, will be given. An encompassing definition comes from the English professional body the Chartered Institute of Marketing (CIM): "Marketing is the management process for identifying, anticipating, and satisfying customer requirements profitably" (Wilson & Gilligan, 1997, pg.3).

Ask for a definition of ethics and the list will be of similar standards, but, is generally the code of values, beliefs and morals which helps human beings choose between right and wrong in the eyes of a very judgmental society. Whose 'servants' must conform to the same set of written and unwritten values, in order to be regarded as 'ethical'. In the fifth Century (BC), Greek philosopher Socrates first identified the systematic study in to ethics, with Aristotle arguing that ethics are moral virtues which are acquired by practice

Ask for the two 'marketing' and 'ethics' being put together and the ambiguity will be immense. I offer my thoughts that ethical marketing/marketing ethics, is creating consumer led goods which entirely satisfies the consumer, whilst satisfying the stakeholders of the company, whilst serving the moral codes of the society in a correct and decent manner. The American Marketing Association (AMA) see their 'Ethical responsibilities' as: "Marketers must accept responsibility for their activities...serve and satisfy all relevant publics...not knowingly do harm...being honest" (www.tri-media.com/ama.html) (See appendix 1)

In the past, Marketing was not this, but the discipline has moved on from being product-led and selling-led, to being a principle led by the consumer and committed to creating long-term relationships. This is shown through the transition from Philip Kotler's 4.P's (Price, Place, Promotion and product) to a notion of relationship marketing (led by Evert Gummerson) (see appendix 2). There are now increased pressures on the marketing department, brought about due to consumerist pressure groups (which are now more widespread and stronger than ever before), which clearly won the right (amongst other things) to know the true benefits of a product. Greenpeace successfully changed manufacturers attitudes to whale-derived ingredients, which are now not widely used in products and now most paper based products, use recycled based paper. An increasing number of organisations/companies have a department specifically tailored at speaking to consumer groups, as marketing 'hits-back' at consumerist jibes, Lever Brothers is a successful example of this. Ethical issues rise because of conflicts between personal moral beliefs and the way organisations behave. Marketing is bound by the corporate goals of the organisation and such may mean that an unsafe product is put on sale, unfair (stealing) tactics towards the competitor's knowledge or some other knowing deceitful strategy -such as 'covering-up' some horrific story.

An example of marketing often termed 'unethical' is personal selling. There is now an increase in customer-personal selling interfaces, and salespeople are seen as unethical as it is often believed that salespeople, generically, put pressure on the customer to purchase. Although there is now the added benefit of the 'cooling-off' purchase time, in which an agreement can be revoked. For example, every consumer is aware if you go into an electrical outlet to buy a product the salesperson will inform you of the 'added value to the product of an extended warranty'. One feels that such is simple information but if tactics are employed which pressurise consumer's to take out the warranty, the marketing portrayed by the salesperson is thus unethical. It is also unethical that manufacturers should sell sub-standard products, which require the safety net of the extended warranty. Although as previously stated there is often anything up to a month to revoke on the warranty contract taken out and so consumer are protected against salesperson pressure.

Marketing ethics has been in corporations' minds for what Thomas Dunfee, (of the Wharton School, Pennsylvania, USA), believes for 10 years. The review (if not 'witch-hunt'!) of marketing, is in full motion, with the public now been appreciative that marketing is simply not a drain on company resources, but now a fundamental and rewarding area of the company, which can do multiple things. Marketing must now be seen as an art form, a professional discipline in the same vain as accountants or lawyers, in which the consumer is now getting what it wants, rather than what the company wants to sell to them. Surely this in itself, shows that the 'reformed marketing' discipline, is ethical (see appendix 3). Although the mention of profits (not always seen as ethical) is still addressed, surely the accountants would not be happy with a balance sheet in the red! It is now believed that consumer have 'grown up' to marketing, and companies are in business to make profits after all it is profits, which keeps the company and innovation flowing. At the end of the day, irrespective of the size, role, or product/service of the organisation, it will have staff, who will have families to look after. Without the 'profit', such would end up being a drain on the States welfare system (if they had to be made redundant), now what is ethical. But what is unethical are companies, which aspire to achieve abnormal profits, restrict lower prices from competitors or do not produce new products, produce sub-standard products in order to make profit on extended warranties or out of warranty claims.

Ethical issues are very much open to interpretation and not always evident in 'everyday' life. The number of grey market goods entering the UK, is perhaps not fully ethical, but Tesco consumers were not reeling ethical debate when they obtained cheaper 'high-branded' products for less than half the price, but Tesco competitors would mention the ethical debate. What surely is unethical is the fact that manufacturers such as Levi, have banned such products from being sold, and thus helping to establish the fact that marketing can not always be 100% ethical. This is despite still making a profit on the goods entering the grey market and keeps the price to the consumer high. Therefore are consumers and retailers unethical and then ethical when it suits them or suits their pocket or reputation to be such.

It is often felt that by being fully ethical would be expensive and could lead to missed opportunities. Ethics should encompass the whole 4P's (Price, Place, Promotion, Product) strategy, but if all companies were ethical, would toyshops like to lose their revenue on toy guns, or the computer industry with its violent games (Kingpin) or the film industry with its horror films. The notion of ethics is open to great interpretation, what is ethical for one may not be for another, what is ethical in one country may be unethical in another country (such was shown through the film: "Clockwork Orange", which was only banned in the UK). It is my belief, my ethic, that if you find a product, service or even a marketing campaign against your morals, you simply do not decode the information. Leave the toy gun in the toyshop and ask your child to play with something more suitable, leave the computer game on the shelf and turn off the horror film. What is unethical, is that society should brand those people who like such things, just because they do not conform to their set ideology (this is unethical). The basis of ethics is found in human development, God created us all uniquely, and that is the way we stay, but ethics are there to protect the consumer from big business exploitation. Sometimes big business is only being ethical because it thinks that is what the market is attracted to. Therefore to make a sustainable profit, they will need to reveal an ethical stance and thus could be regarded as nothing more than 'Ethical Capitalism'.

An example of such is shown through Hank Walshak. Hank, like many, used to buy children candy, produced in the shape of a cigarette (and packaged in a cigarette-style packet) to reincarnate the smoking sensation (when he was younger). Such is unethical marketing, using a child tool (the candy) to create a need for a product (cigarette) in later life, which is illegal (and thus surely unethical?) to sell to children. Other products which have served to allow children to imitate adult behaviour, because of 'clever' advertising, is children's soft drinks shaped like alcohol bottles, such is the number of underage drinkers buying the alcoholic-type beverages, which are produced to look like soft drink (such as Castaway). It is wrong when a marketing spokesman is asked his reasons for the use of such adult packaging for children drinks he responded with "a container is a container" showing a complete lack of ethical knowledge or care towards the up bringing of tomorrows society. Surely another example of unethical behaviour is that of the Coca-Cola Company, who mass-produces its fizzy drinks, a great amount to children and its advertising and corporate colours are appealing to children such as creating the 'red' Santa Claus. Yet it knows its content contains a large amount of sugar and caffeine, which it knows can damage the health of children. But due to seductive and 'child-friendly' marketing communications and appeal, children often say they want a 'Coke' (as the generic name for a cola drink) as a drink.

Seductive advertising is often brandished unethical. McDonalds, the fast food giant is often seen as unethical as it aims it's advertising at children, whom it is clearly aware will irritate ('pester power') their parents to go to buy a burger. Such is the case in the United States, that when parents ask their children to get ready for dinner, they get their coat and shoes on and say when are we going for a 'Happy Meal', the child meal of McDonald's. With the new breed of marketing managers, such problems should be addressed. However advertising to children works, and that is why some products have been banned from television in between children based programmes. Children in the UK are watching more adult orientated programmes and are becoming more exposed to adult orientated advertisements. They (children) are regarded has 'growing older, younger'. Children are not has sceptical has adults and often enjoy imitating behaviour of adults, following advertising into their assimilable minds. Such is the market for toy vacuums, irons, cars and make-up items. Children's minds absorb a great deal and often 'grabbing' marketing can be remembered from an early age. Marketing to children is aimed specifically at 'working on' the gullible and unaware/trusting state of children, who unlike adults have not yet learnt to 'switch-off' from receiving information.

Brands offer identity, a sense of character, and give the ability to 'fit-in' and branding works on the psychological and so "extremely powerful" (Smith P.R, 1993, pg.482). Children want, what their friends have got, who wanted what they saw in marketing communications, and so children conform to peer pressure and not just branding pressure. The child's bedroom is a shrine to brands, littered with the latest in-fashion brands. Children are also exposed to marketing in school, which is "blatant commercialism" (Unerman, 2000). Parents are more interested in the lack of books in schools, such the popularity for Walkers Crisp's 'Books for School' campaign, which helps consumers to think that buying Walkers Crisp's will help their school obtain much needed resources and so are the ethical crisps purchase. Through endorsements (for example David Beckham and Brylcreem) by people the target audience can relate to, will convince them to purchase, perhaps even if they do not really need the product, such as deodorant in the bottom drawer of a 10 year old boy.

The major benefit of marketing to children is the fact that they are getting what they wanted, and marketing is helping to create the consumerists of the future. However, marketing may be the tool of companies, which creates the initial need for a product, which is bought by parents ('pester power'). These products become out of date (and usually quickly in the case of training shoes) when the peer groups, idols, say so (this is usually when the manufacturers decides there is a need for product enhancements) and so parents have to withstand the cost of buying the replacement.

Much has been made globally about the marketing of pop music sensation Britney Spears. She could be somewhat applied to the soft drink packaging debate. Some believe the image displayed by Miss Spears' marketing team, is that of an 'innocent teenager, acting out in adult ways'. This some believe is wrong as it is portraying adult actions and adult mannerisms in a child form, which could be damaging to the children to whom Spears' music is targeted. It is unethical the way the pop star is portrayed and once again fails to help the notion that marketing can be a professional body. However her marketing team, must have produced a product the consumers want as her albums have sold millions, yet you still believe the Spears' girl is nothing more than a tool for her marketing team, much like the candy cigarette or the toy gun. A means for children to imitate adults, in a hope (the companies), that they gain their trust and loyalty at an early age, which will be retained in later life. Banks do a similar role, through its advertising to children, with many free incentives to open an account, is not in a hope to give the child a means to control its own money, but in the knowledge that they believe they will retain the child throughout its life. Therefore one believes that advertising aimed at seducing children is unethical on the grounds that children are still developing and should not be forced into thinking in a certain way. Also unethical is marketing, which promotes an adult product in a child seductive manner, or a child product with a clear empathy on adult behaviour. For such a reason all computer games are now age-coded much like the video classification to help to prevent seduction.

Due to marketing communications (especially advertising) consumer need is now created. Is it ethical that consumers buy products they do not really require or forced to buy more than one? Following the need created by the company. Computers are still a luxury item, but there are now an increasing number of households with 2 or more computers in the household. Television occupation in households in the UK is 97%, with 64% of all households having two or more television sets (based on figures found for 1994). Marketing has created the need for a higher degree of physical luxury than we perhaps need. It is surely not ethical that businessmen drive £20,000 motor cars, when one of £6,000 would be just as adequate: "Ah, but that is not good marketing, not the correct image", said one businessman when asked. So really it is unethical to purchase anything we do not really need or above basic need satisfaction. "Not always obvious are the pernicious effects of materialistic consumerism, in which the exultation of the individual and the selfish satisfaction of personal aspirations become the ultimate goal of life" (Pope John Paul, 1999, as found on www.oneworld.org). In 1997, the Public Relations head (Frank Mankiewicz) of a large organisation admitted: "big corporations are scared of the environmental movement", further displaying that the consumer movement has certainly changed the minds of companies and are becoming more ethical in outlook.

Both the United States and the United Kingdom is an Eden for marketers. The leading bodies of each country (AMA and CIM) reveal a very detailed and copious code of ethics revealing that ethics do exist and do belong in marketing. Stronger regulations (often set up by the government) such as product safety, distribution and advertising laws promote the need for ethics in marketing. With today's prominence on ethical issues the company if it can prove it is ethical, can reap the long-term rewards such as cosmetic group Body Shop or retailer Benetton Group, gain profit from displaying their ethical position. In a more competitive market place, which is now global in approach leads to them, having a competitive advantage. Perhaps even the latter allows it to become so embroiled in its ethical affiliation, that it allows much of its advertising to be driven by the ethic mechanism. Even Benetton, fails to be 100% ethical, following the banning of its advertisements, which revealed computerised visions of babies injecting themselves, in a pose to imitate drug taking. This was in a bid to prevent children from trying out drugs, and shocking the adult world into non-drug taking, much like it has done with its 'On death row' images, whilst grabbing the attention of the consumer. One may examine the overall essence of such a position of a company like Benetton, and why it holds such a moral masquerade, when it is a company in the textile industry. One may feel that it is doing this as a means of forcing the consumer into buying Benetton, because it is the ethical thing to do. If that is the case, is such a vision of Beneton (which receives free advertisement over the discussion of its 'shock' marketing tactics) unethical, despite the textiles group declamation that it is in-fact ethical.

Business activity is now more critically analysed than a generation ago, practices are now under close scrutiny and business ethics is an issue at the forefront of the minds of more informed consumers. A survey in 1988 indicated that the public rated the honesty of top business people critically, with only 17% offering the indication of 'high' (Chisnall, 1995 Pg.358). Chisnall also offers the thought that the concept of business ethics is "virtually an oxymoron" (1995, Pg.358). He also offers a 'conforming' example, through the John Lewis Partnership store group, whom in Chisnall's opinion is an ethical organisation and also run efficiently -which some used to believe not to be possible. Consumers are becoming more 'green' in approach and as such environmental and ethical issues are now a central enigma for marketing managers to consider. The rights of consumers (often thought to be the real essence of ethical marketing) were first defined by the United States President J. F. Kennedy. In 1962, President Kennedy identified four 'rights', the right to safety, the right to be informed, the right to choose and the right to be heard. If marketing, as it should, promotes this, then it should be deemed ethical, but if marketing limits this (for example advertising by knocking the competitors, thus limiting choice) should be and is regarded as unethical. Many organisations now have a fully developed and integrated Code of Ethics. Both the AMA and the CIM have their own code of ethics in order to better serve the more 'aware' consumer. Consumers are regarded more aware due to their quality of life, increasing complexity of technology and marketing, stresses and strains of the political system, organisational size and the influence of writers such as Galbraith, Packard and Carson (as identified by Holloway, Hancock and Kotler). The increase knowledge of the consumer is discussed as: "We have a more litigious society and more people read to take up arms against offences, imagined or real, committed by business..." (Wind and Main, 1999, Pg.57)

Marketing is the art of discovering and satisfying the need of the customer and can never be truly ethical all the time. Take as an example the bread industry (see appendix 4). Consumers will argue that high price (often valued as leading to higher profits) is unethical, but on the other-hand regard artificial ingredient as unethical. The high price organisation, may not include any artificial ingredient and so will argue that the higher price is down to increased production costs and so ethical on natural product grounds. Whilst the artificial ingredient product manufacturer, will say that costs are kept lower and such cost benefits are passed onto the consumer and therefore ethical. From your background, knowledge, taste and financial situations will often confirm what is ethical and what is unethical. It is often regarded that McDonald's is unethical due to their abnormal profits, but they do employ thousands of staff worldwide and millions enjoy its product. Also a recent example is the disloyalty fee banks were thinking of charging for ATM (Automated Teller Machine) transactions. Such is clearly unethical, as how can the banks warrant this charge (far and above the process cost), when they gain massive profits anyway. Barclays, was said to be looking at charging £2.50 per withdrawal, but the cost involved was only a matter of 30p, why should Barclays make £2.20 profit. Will such be passed onto the customer, certainly not when it is the customer it is taking it from, but will go to add to their anomalous (unethical) profits.

So in conclusion, marketing ethics is not always a contradiction in terms. It would be impossible for the organisation to be ethical all the time, to all consumers. Such is shown in the bread example. Ethical issues are now becoming a method of producing value to the organisation at all stages and frequently producing profits. As oil-company Shell showed that a brand associated with negative issues could negatively affect the organisation's performance (through lost sales and opportunities). Whilst the Co-op bank has reaped wonders for sales with its ethical stance (another example would be the Body Shop). Marketers need to take the ethical debate seriously, and it must not be treated in an isolated manner, but must be integrated and consistent with brand image. There has been a shift in consumer thinking from the trusting of the brand to the integrity of those behind the product -consumers are now looking behind the brand façade and are looking for brands they can trust in. Every organisation is presently making a conscious decision as to what sort of ethical stance it is to take. As Alan Mitchell says: "Ethics have gone up the business agenda in recent years and are a potentially powerful influence on consumer decisions." Ethical issues are becoming a powerful problem, which if handled correctly can reap rewards for both the organisation and the consumer. Not only is it difficult for the organisation to be fully ethical but also ethical consumption is also difficult and not often applied all the time. But also ethics should not be seen purely as a 'problem'. An organisation could use such to gain differentiation from its competitors based on the ethical debate.