“It is clear that marketing has not always had the best interests of society at heart,” says Howard Moodycliffe, director at 33 Interactions and an experienced marketer. “However, the advent of the ‘always connected’ and always ‘on’ consumer, and the explosion in social media, is forcing marketing to explore and step up to its moral responsibility to both the consumer and the environment.

“Gone are the days of one-way brand communication,” claims Howard. “It’s all about conversation now, and consumers have found their voice.

“This can only be a good thing. Marketers who understand this and adapt will, in the long run, deliver the best results for their organisations, stakeholders and consumers.”

Marketers face tremendous moral pressures in carrying out their roles. They exist at a pivotal point in the process of creating and delivering products and services to customers and, as such, their professional activities are intrinsically involved in critical social issues such as human health and the environment.

Take fast food for instance. Many of these products are just plain bad for your health. Yet marketers were, and are, party to formulating such products. To make matters worse, it is standard practice for them to be aggressively targeted to children and to those on a lower income.

These customer segments have clearly been exploited.

So, why invent such evil products when companies’ energies could just as easily gone into inventing healthy products? One answer is that the products and their processes cost less money so the companies’ shareholders make more money.

“As marketers we know that human beings are driven by irrational, unconscious fears and desires,” says Howard. “These can be used to manipulate consumers to buy products that they don’t need. Saying that, we also understand that people buy based on what products can do for them and how they make them feel. Responsible marketing plays to the latter.

Certainly, McDonald’s now has healthier options and great CSR programs but, seriously, the programs are all about the burger and no spin or repositioning can convince me otherwise. The programs are excuses to operate, not reasons to operate.

McDonald’s CSR programs are admirable, but they are a smoke screen. CSR applied in a truly meaningful manner would see fat-laden hamburgers and sugar-filled soft drinks not served or totally revamped (and McDonald’s aren’t even the lowest common denominator when it comes to fast food). It would also see children not targeted as aggressively as they are.

For example, my son is a nipper at a surf club. McDonald’s sponsors surf life saving (great; nice one). The kids are given certificates with McDonald’s branding and coupons for free McDonald’s food. Result: the kids get used to McDonald’s being a normal, standard, fully okay meal.

So, from a business point of view the sponsorship is a smart move. It positions the company as a ‘life saver’ (when nothing could be further from the truth), it gets more paying customers into the restaurants and it establishes a pattern of patronage in young people McDonald’s no doubts hopes will continue long term.

But the focus on children to generate more income from the sale of junk food? Pernicious, in my view. Surf Life Saving Australia should never have accepted the sponsorship.

“If fast food is to be marketed authentically, in a positive manner which benefits the relevant company and the wider society, then fast food itself has to change…and to be fair, this is happening,” Howard says.

“You cannot produce and market a fat-soaked burger or bucket of fried chicken whilst having the best interests of society at heart. Yes, fast food may provide an affordable meal for those with a low income…but does it really need to be unhealthy? I don’t think so.

“We’re seeing most fast food chains adopting new healthier menus, or at least giving their customers the option to choose healthier alternative menus. And Australia’s fast food industry has recently agreed to a voluntary code to govern the way it markets products to children. Why this code only applies to children and not society as a whole is questionable…but it is a start.”

Armies of marketers are deployed in further extending fast food companies’ reach, contributing to new product development and increasing their profits. Is there any questioning of the status quo going on here? Do marketers’ stand up to the onward march towards societal obesity and poor health these companies are driving us – especially “children from poorer families” – towards?

It looks to me like there is a nutritional underclass developing that sees fast food as the norm and fresh, ‘real’ food as the treat or, even, the ‘freak’.

Surely there is some moral conflict going on here for marketers? How do they stand it? I seriously empathise with their situation, but you can also argue they made a choice of who to work for (or with – as this applies to agency as well as in-house practitioners).

Companies peddling products that damage human health generally purport that they are not meant to be a staple, but a treat. Yet these same companies are laughing all the way to the bank. I can’t recall seeing any advertising messages predicated on the notion of ‘moderation’.

And sure, in moderation, these products probably won’t do you much harm. And surely there should be freedom of choice. I like a pack of crisps as much as anyone and wouldn’t be thrilled if they were outlawed. But how do you induce a balance, a moderation?

“Being a capitalist, a large part of me does say ‘give the market what it wants’,” says Howard. “However, an increasingly vocal part of me says ‘provide products and services which society needs and promote activities and experience which will benefit the environment.’”

The clock can’t be turned back, and Howard is one marketer who is aware that his industry could be accused of abusing its power, “to create culture, values, assumptions and beliefs.”

“I’m sure a healthy fast food culture could have grown in place of the current one. It was not the grease and fat that the society desired. It was, and is, the lifestyle, convenience and ‘coolness’ marketing has pedalled around it.”

Marketers, all too often, are the devil’s handmaiden when it comes to companies moving into a contentious commercial space. Is making money the be-all and end-all? Do we really have to exploit every single opportunity to take advantage of the gullibility that human beings so clearly possess?

But it’s easy to get on a moral high horse. These products did not appear overnight. They evolved in tandem with society. They are, partially, a result of the culture of society. Howard, however, takes a more strident view:

“Pre-social media, marketing’s power was that of creating culture, not simply reflecting it. Many of the values, assumptions and perspectives we have grown up with were woven into society’s fabric by marketers.”

Also, fast food companies reflect society’s obsession with the quick and the easy (which is analogous to many other aspects of contemporary culture, from film to fashion to politics).

Many of us (me included) probably have shares in all of the companies and industries named in this article through our superannuation. Many of our financial investments are interconnected. The human being in western democracies whose financial welfare is not positively impacted on by one or more of these companies, directly or indirectly, is a rare one.

But marketers are in the engine room of these companies and these products’ production, whilst their promotion is directly attributable to them. The moral onus on them seems to me to be far higher than on those who do not work in the marketing function. Do they have any influence? Are they using that influence to better balance commercial outcomes with social benefits and equity?

If so, from where I stand, many of them are failing dismally.

Tweet This Post