Jim - Although I do think we have a responsibility to enhance society instead of tear it down, in this instance, I wholeheartedly agree with you. The article complains that parents have to argue in the grocery aisle with their kids about what to buy.

A little sweet snack now and again isn't inherently harmful. It boggles the mind that parents look to government to solve their own reluctance to say "no" to their kids.

That this is even being discussed and seriously considered just reveals that there's a problem elsewhere, IMO.

Jim,

As marketers we have a responsibility to make the world a better place to live by ensuring we communicate the value of our products and services. Frankly, a hamburger tastes darn good and has nutritional value. That doesn't mean we should eat a dozen of them at a time.

It's not by job as a marketer to intrude on the personal responsibility of parents, kids and health education to state the obvious point: Gluttony is stupid, greedy and unhealthy, in all of its forms.

Now you've got me going, Jim. When I was a kid, we learned right from wrong first from our parents and second from school. In today's world it seems as if everyone else is to blame for everything bad we do--our parents hold no responsibility or blame, we hold no responsibility or blame for all the bad stuff we do. So there you go! It's their fault (whoever they are).

Yeah, I'm STILL mad about his one. I'm glad I'm not the only one. Ridiculous.

Let's define marketers as the top executive running the company that is marketing and promoting a product. From the standpoint of who finally purchases the product, I totally agree that the parents or the adult individual is responsible for the ultimate buy. However, unhealthy food has always been available and it is the responsibility of each of us to investigate and determine if we want to consume the product. If it can undermine your health , the individual has the choice to select a healthier product.
What urks me is that the corporate world tends to be more inclined to be bottom line focused with little or no social responsibility. There are many issues similar to chil obesity that can be addressed that have a significant detrimental affect on the individual and overall society. In addition to obesity there is smoking, alcohol and gambling, not to forget drugs. Corporations should set aside a portion of their profits to research the long term affects of their product on society. Why does McDonalds, KFC and other companies finally remove trans fat from their ingrediants when these oils should never have been included to begin with. I'm sure the American public would rather eat healthier without sacrificing taste and pay a little more to avoid such harmful oils.

"I'm sure the American public would rather eat healthier without sacrificing taste and pay a little more to avoid such harmful oils."

Funny that you should mention that... The other day my wife complained to me that McDonald's fries didn't taste the same since they started tinkering with the recipe.

A free and open marketplace makes dedicated corporate research into the effect of a product on society, outside of a process designed to monitor continuous feedback, superfluous. If it has a negative impact, in a responsible society, sales will decrease. If it has a positive impact, sales will increase.

If the assumption that we live in a responsible, civil society is wrong, then God help us all. What we put or don't put in our foods, or how we market it, is the least of our worries. Neither government nor corporations can compensate for the poor decision-making capabilities of the people themselves, since government and corporations must draw from those same people for their authority.

I hear you. It's likely how lawyers feel with their lame rep or car salesmen feel with theirs. It comes with the territory; unfortunately.

I'm all about socially responsible, make-the-world-a-better-place programs, transparency and the like. But getting into this field I knew what I was getting into. And, like any field, we are unfortunately linked to the lowest common denominator. Kinda like when you asked me about selling ice to eskimoes last week. Would I do it? Not in this life. Do I know that the a vast population sees marketers as evil-doers? Yep. It does give we who do good (not evil) an opportunity to shine, tho. But it is an uphill climb at times. Sigh.

I do find it odd that we've banned cigarette ads but pollute the airwaves with McD's and all other fatty stuff that, I think, ends up killing just as many (not to mention all the gas commercials that kill the planet). Ya know?

Absolutely agree - the consumer makes the final choice about whether or not to buy a product - but let's not forget that as marketers we spend a great deal of time talking about how to make the consumer want to buy our product. And let's face it, if what we did didn't work, we wouldn't be doing it. Is it our fault? Not ultimately. Is there plenty of blame to go around? Definitely. I know that I as a marketer wouldn't take a job with McDonalds, or a cigarette company, etc. Saying, "The consumer can make their own decisions," while true, is still just a way of trying to shirk responsibility. The point is, what kind of decisions are we encouraging them to make?

Jim,

H. L. Mencken said "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." When marketing, what are your assumptions about the intelligence of your target market?

As marketers, we have to take responsibility for the enormous influence we can have over certain segments of the population. Arguably, we have too much influence. Arguably, we are too good at what we do.

Are you, as a marketer, proud of the messages you're creating for your customers? Are you proud if your target customers do what you ask of them? The mark of a socially responsibible, highly effective marketer is the pride they have in their work and the end result of their influence.

There's nothing inherently immoral about having Big Macs in moderation. Thus, nor is there anything inherently immoral in marketing the product, so long as gluttony is not encouraged (and it isn't).

That said, McDonald's doesn't have an ethics problem, but a P.R. problem (this sounds like a job for...). ;)

Glenn asked..."Are you, as a marketer, proud of the messages you're creating for your customers? Are you proud if your target customers do what you ask of them?"

My answers? Yes. Yes. Thank you for giving me new questions, Glenn. What I always ask is this: "Is it advancing? For the profession, my markets, this medium and we marketers." That's my barometer. I don't need an account badly enough to buy a BMW, I do need my soul.

Glenn said... "Are you, as a marketer, proud of the messages you're creating for your customers? Are you proud if your target customers do what you ask of them? The mark of a socially responsibible, highly effective marketer is the pride they have in their work and the end result of their influence."

The answer from me is "yes I do" Glenn. However, that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The fact remains that all marketers cannot be sociably responsible, nor do some even care to be.

Again, the question at hand is more about the individual's social responsibility to make their own decisions. And furthermore, not wanting the government to interfere and start blaming the marketers instead of its constituents. That's too easy, and unfair.

"The fact remains that all marketers cannot be sociably responsible, nor do some even care to be."

Yes, some don't care to be. I agree...to say all "cannot" be is interesting. Their hands aren't tied (at least I don't think they're forced into 250k+ salaries). I think the subject this post addresses is excellent, Jim. I just want to ensure we're being objective to ALL sides.

Yes consumers carry their own decisions and yes, marketers carry some blame, too. It's not either/or Jim. Far from it. To believe a minor (like a teen) doesn't fall prey to some of the not-so good ad tactics is just not true. It's just not. To say an adult eats Big Macs and falls prey--that's a different story. There's no question in my mind that this group here practices noble messaging/etc. but I just want to ensure we're being objective. And believe me, I'd like to not be blamed for all the world's ills either, Jim ;-).

A great blogpost. You know, it is blame the marketers on the company front also. Not just from society. We marketers are the favourite punching bags in case of intra company matters also. If samples and other promo inputs have not reached, it is not the despatch dept. or supplier at fault, it is the marketer for delaying in giving the request. In case of non supply of sales stock from the production dept. blame the marketer for not giving the correct sales or demand forecast. The debate goes on and on marketers will always be punched soc-soc-soc-soc. www.pharmaceuticalshealthcare.blogspot.com

Think we need to step back a bit to see some wood from trees.

Food for thought re: marketing

If we marketers worked in a famine-ravaged country and started advertising delicious meat, dancing about a stage, pretty much everyone's tongue is going to hang out.

Desire is raised - by Marketing - in a major (unnatural) way. Demand could well rise to dangerous levels as to cause riots and resentment.

So, let's not kid ourselves that Marketing comes with little or no responsibilities. It very much does, and we need to be aware how powerful we can be and carry out our work with that in mind... responsibility needs to be very much front of mind.

mark.