Marketing Ethics and New Year's Resolve

A colleague of mine once opined that it was for the best that she was not blogging for Aquent because she had very strong opinions about the ethics of marketing. For example, she didn't think it ethical to market to children and would feel compelled to voice her views on this subject and others.

I was reminded of her comments whilst reading this list of resolutions for marketers. I was struck by their ethical nature beginning with first: "You will not market anything that doesn't warrant it." And while most of the following resolutions focus on things like keeping an open mind, seeking out direct experience (such as speaking with consumers rather than surveying them with questionnaires), and avoiding jargon, they end on a call for "honesty." You can read the last two for yourself: "11) You will not deny the negative impacts of your business," and, "12) You will market in a style predicated on honest information and conversation enhancement rather than selling and hype."

This emphasis on honesty stands in marked contrast to the words of Barry Ornstein of Hill Holiday Connors Cosmopoulos which can be found in the article on marketing to children invoked above, "We are in the business of manipulating people, and the question is, are we going to manipulate them in a good way or a bad way?"

Reading that quotation, I was stuck by at least two questions. First, is there really a good way to manipulate people? "Manipulation" is generally considered "coercive" and "coercion" is usually considered "bad." If marketing and advertising are by nature manipulative, then they are always already ethically suspect or lead to ethical conundrums such as "honest manipulation."

Which brings me to my second question: Are marketers really in the business of manipulating people? I think that resolution #12 answers this question for us. There would be no need to call for honesty over hype if marketing weren't frequently full of the latter. At the same time, if it weren't possible to market with honesty and accountability, resolving to do so would be pointless.

Ethics only make sense when people have choices. Marketers have choices because, Mr. Ornstein's views notwithstanding, they are primarily in the business of influencing behavior. Although that can certainly take the form of manipulation, it can just as easily take the form of persuasion. If the latter consists of making people aware of their options, objectively presenting the pros and cons of each, and inviting them to make a decision based on their particular needs and interests, then we're about as far from manipulation as we can get.

Of course this raises a third question: Is that still marketing?