Consumer sovereignty: The world is becoming unbalanced by critics such as Professor Michael Thomas, who asserts that consumer freedom of choice is “a dishonest invention” of marketers, a device merely for justifying their manipulations”.

I do not believe that this is the case.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, there was a growing consciousness of the problems that mass consumption brought with it and a movement was formed which quickly found its chroniclers. Books such as Charles Reich’s, “The Greening of America”, Theodore Roszak’s, “The making of a counter culture” and Alvin Toffler’s “Future Shock” were published then. The message articulated was basically that the people could no longer be thought of as “consumers”, or some aggregate variable in the grand marketing design. Feelings such as these led to a view that capitalism presents an unacceptable face, promoting, as it does, an acquisitive, and materialistic society. As one of the more visible manifestations of such activity, marketing has been singled out for attention, for it surely plays on people’s weaknesses and, by insidious means, attempts to persuade the consumer to do things, without which their lives will be incomplete. This argument deserves close examination, for it confuses needs with wants. But, even worse, it involves the notion of the defenceless consumer, a characterisation that any scrupulous marketer must reject.

No matter what `marketing’ is performed, the consumer is still sovereign as long as he or she is free to make choices – either choices between competing products or the choice not to buy at all. Indeed, it could be argued that by extending the range of choices that the consumer has available, marketing is enhancing consumer sovereignty rather than eroding it. It should be noted, too, that although promotional activity may persuade an individual to buy a product or service for the first time, promotion is unlikely to be the persuasive factor in subsequent purchases, when the consumer is acting from first-hand experience of the product.

Hugh Davidson’s research into the values and vision of 125 continuously high=performing enterprises in all sectors in the USA and UK (The Committed Enterprise, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2002) shows that even mighty multinationals get their just desserts when they ignore the power of the consumer.

Marketing ethics

Several specific issues have formed the focus of the debate on the ethics of marketing including:

• The contribution of marketing to materialism.
• Rising consumer expectations as a result of marketing pressure; and
• The use of advertising to mislead or distort.

Marketing, it has been suggested, helps to feed the materialistic and acquisitive urges of society, and in turn feeds on them itself. Implicit in such criticism is the value judgement that materialism and acquisitiveness are in themselves undesirable. The argument is that marketing contributes to a general raising of the level of consumer expectations. These expectations are more than simple aspirations: they represent a desire to acquire a specific set of gratifications through the purchase of goods and services. The desire for these gratifications is fuelled by marketing’s insistent messages. Further, if the individual lacks the financial resources with which to fulfil such expectations, then marketing inevitably adds to a greater awareness of differences in society and to dissatisfaction and unrest among those in this situation.

The counter-argument here is that marketing itself does not contribute to rising expectations and thus to social and economic disparity; it merely makes people aware of, and better informed about, the differences that already exist in society. In this respect, it can be claimed that its effects are beneficial, since it supports, even hastens, pressures for redistribution. It can also be argued that materialism is not a recent phenomenon correlated with the advent of mass marketing.

Advertising

Much of the criticism levelled at marketing is in fact directed at one aspect of it: advertising. Advertising practitioners themselves are fully conscious of this disapproval, which includes the propositions that advertising:

• Makes misleading claims about product or services
• Uses hidden, dangerously powerful techniques of persuasion.
• Encourages undesirable attitudes
• Works through the exploitation of human inadequacy; and
• Thereby has adverse social consequences.

Advertisers themselves would point to the fact that advertising in all its forms is heavily controlled in most Western societies, by self –imposed codes of practice, by direct legislation and, at one remove, by statutory obligations imposed on broadcasting organisations. It cannot by itself achieve sustained patterns of repeat purchase.

The debate about the ethics of marketing also often confuses marketing institutions with the people who work in them. However, it seems a grave error to criticise the institutions because of the practices of a small number of unethical marketers. It is clear, for example, that there are advertisers who engage in deceptive practise designed to mislead and possible defraud consumers. Nevertheless, the institution of advertising can be used not only to inform consumers about potentially beneficial new products, such as new energy-saving technologies, but also to promote non-profit community services, such as theatres and state education. This argument can, of course, be applied to all marketing activities.

Consumerism

Closely connected with the issue of the ethics of marketing is the issue of consumerism (in the sense of the existence of a consumer movement and consumer activists). Ironically, this movement is pro-marketing; it wants the marketing approach to business implemented in a sincere rather than cynical spirit. The cynical implementation, which consumerists claim has been too widely practiced, is no better than high-pressure salesmanship or misleading puffery. The sincere implementation of the marketing approach entails respect for each individual consumer served. Better marketing has always emanated from a deep understanding of consumer expectations combined with their right to be informed and protected and their right to quality of life.

The marketing of children’s toys provides an example of customers, consumers and company objectives all being satisfied by careful business practice. The successful toy companies of today are those which inform parents that their products are not particularly dangerous, not coated with lead paint, and not destroyed an hour after they are first pressed into active service.

Marketers take the right steps

Our thanks are due to all those who warn us that ‘marketing’ does not necessarily mean ‘good marketing’ or even ‘honest marketing’, and can be ‘mismarketing’ in practice. This is an important issue, but my contention is that successful marketers and marketing institutions have already absorbed the message, embraced the notion, and taken the steps.

By Professor Malcolm McDonald,
Chairman, Brand Finance, Plc

Email: m.mcdonald@Cranfield.ac.uk
Web 1: http://www.brandfinance.com
Web 2: http://www.cranfield.ac.uk