....for long enough to extract money from it” –a flawed definition of marketing that seems, nonetheless, to drive the actions of more than a few who seek to engage in what ought to be the honourable endeavour of trade (first published in NZBusiness Magazine July 2005)
In the past few weeks we have seen two significant convictions resulting from prosecutions brought by the Commerce Commission for what is the cardinal marketing sin of attempting to deploy bunkum to baffle brains.
Following the recent successful prosecution in the High Court for the weight loss product “Body Enhancer”, the Advertising Standards Authority has even been moved to issue a reminder to advertisers about relevant advertising codes of practice which require that advertising meets a high standard of social responsibility for products and services in this area.
The ASA reminds us that “Advertisers must be able to prove any claims they make about a product, and ensure that wording in the advertisement is not likely to mislead or deceive consumers, nor exploit any lack of knowledge.” What that means, in plain English, is that advertisers must not attempt to use bunkum to baffle brains.
In even simpler terms, it means that a product must do what you claim it does.
I am saddened that there are demonstrably still more than a few marketers around who seek to dupe their most valuable (nee, only valuable) asset – their customers. Of course, the long term effect of these dishonest operators is simply to make consumers more distrustful of marketing in general and advertising/promotional activity in particular.
This is bad for all businesses.
Another of this shameful society of scoundrels is a Hamilton firm that for 10 years (!) has been selling a water treatment device which, it says, energises H20, making it permanently resonate with the cosmos.
Pardon?
The Grander Living Water System, it is claimed by its New Zealand distributor, Ecoworld, will improve humble drinking water by “restoring its power of resistance and self purification by transforming molecular clusters into smaller more energetic groups and making oxygen more readily available”
Say what?
Remarkably, this water filtration system has been marketed in this country for 10 years and can cost up to $13,000.
Hello?
Finally, Judge Merelina Burnett, in her reserved judgment, saved us all from this tyranny of untruths by finding that scientific tests had shown there was no measurable difference between water treated with Grander Living Water technology and plain old tap water. The company had demonstrated, said Judge Burnett, “a significant level of willful blindness and negligence. Amongst its, content, promotional material contains inconsistencies, quackery and pseudo-science” The judgment said Living Water was purported to have been energised in a secret process guided by divine inspiration by Austrian naturalist Johann Grander who implanted a range of vibrational frequencies into it.
Crickey.
I am intrigued that there seems to be an inverse relationship between the outrageousness of the claim and the willingness of consumers to believe it. Although, for all I know, nutty as the world is becoming, Herr Grander and his loyal followers and distributors in the Waikato might actually believe this stuff themselves.
But does marketing need to be “ethical”?
Or is it, in fact, just the reality of the commercial jungle that we have to live with an army (or maybe an odd regiment or two) of unscrupulous, greedy charlatans who seek to arrest our intelligence for long enough to extract money from it?
According to experts, marketing is viewed as human conduct and is subject to academic analysis and public scrutiny. Ethics is the study of the moral principles that guide that conduct.
Historically, there have been two points of view on the study of ethics in marketing: The first is "Let the buyer beware." From this point of view, the rights of the seller are central. A company has little regard for consumers’ needs and wants.
The other point of view is "Let the seller beware." Here, customer satisfaction is taken to an extreme. No matter what the customer does, it is ok.
Which position is correct? How do we resolve the inevitable conflicts brought by these competing viewpoints?
Nowadays, most ethicists believe that Relationship Marketing is a reasonable practice leading to positive relationships between buyers and sellers and where the core objective is for the needs of both buyer and seller to be met. In fact, marketers must be aware of ethical standards and acceptable behavior beyond just the seller/buyer relationship. This awareness means that marketers must recognise the viewpoints of three key players: the company, the industry, and society.
Since these three groups almost always have different needs and wants, ethical conflicts are likely to arise. And when these conflicts do arise, it is the role of a truly market oriented company to bring reasonable care to bear on ensuring that the needs of all stakeholders (company, industry and society) are properly understood and effectively met.
And at a micro level, that means that if you are going to claim that your oscillating sprog bracket is going to revolutionise the performance of your nitrous powered nano-second discombobulater then it had better well do precisely that - not simply because the law requires it but because no company can operate in isolation of the wider community of which it is a part.
Scallywags – take note.
We’re watching you.
Brian H Meredith
Comments
Post has no comments.