Elaine, great post. We all have to be reminded from time to time taht copywriting does matter.

To answer your question, yes marketing trickery and no it is not trickery. Depends who is doing the marketing.
In the case of the wine test, it would be trickery to make the wine in North Dakota and sell it under the label saying it was made in California.

In the case of the menu, it is not because it is just a better why to describe beans.

The more relevant question is “Are you willing to be deceptive a marketer?” I think most are not, but it only takes a couple to make us all look bad.

Elaine,

A very thought provoking post. I definitely think that marketing can be used for good and bad. Often times, bad marketing is in the form of false claims (“our chicken is the best in the world”). No one wants to be told what is best for them and no one really believes the claims anyway.

Good marketing lets the consumer “discover” for themselves what they already believe or what they long to believe. If I stop and think about it, do I really believe that if I purchase a Toyota Prius that I am solving the world’s energy problems? Of course not. But the marketing of the Toyota Prius (down to its easily recognizable shape), leads me down a path that I want to go down – “I want to be part of the solution to the world’s energy problems. Buying this Prius shows that I care and I am doing my part.” I have discovered on my own how to be a part of the solution and it reinforces my belief that I am smart and eco-friendly consumer.

Elaine, enjoyed your post. To answer your question I'm not sure it's trickery. It's marketing.

In how many blind wine tasting contests has Trader's Joe's two buck chuck won over much more expensive brands? Plenty. It's not the wine, it's the packaging and perception of the wine. Remove those two things and two buck chuck usually fares well.

Malcolm Gladwell, in Blink, talks about "sensation transference", where people transfer sensations or impressions about the packaging, to the product itself. He says, "often the product is the package and the product combined."

Very true. Years ago, my sister worked for a not-very-ethical catering company. They'd pour budget brand vodka into Absolut bottles and watch as people would come up, demand Absolut, take a sip of the drink (which was made from budget vodka poured out of an Absolut bottle) and swear they could taste the difference and how much better it was.

That's the power of marketing.

@Harry: Copywriting is important but it doesn't exist in vacuum. It's got to be combined with the right design in order to have impact. Packaging too, is very important.

All good points.

Harry, I agree that falsehoods in advertising would be true trickery.

Bill, your point underscores the emotional element of marketing. Consumers can feel: good, important, rich, altruistic, etc. IF they purchase a particular product or service. It's based on what we, as marketers, tell them they can feel. Is that trickery or are consumers just gullible?

Paul, I agree that it's all about marketing and packaging. If we stripped away all the bells and whistles, what's left? The raw product itself. It's utilitarianism, but no fun, right?

In essence, isn't "marketing" a way to engage consumers to make them believe what we want them to believe? If we were poker players, we could equate it to bluffing - meaning that no matter how good or bad a product or service is, we're trying to convince the end-user to buy it anyway.

Elaine,

Short trick: Marketing communications is only trickery if it isn't true.

Lewis, I guess it's a question of semantics. The American Heritage Dictionary cites that trickery is: "The practice or use of tricks; deception by stratagem."

So, what is deception? If we run a beer spot implying that drinking that brand will get guys the "hot" girls, is that deception?

If we advertise diet milkshakes indicating that people can lose weight and look as amazing as the model in the spot, is that trickery?

No product can truly change someone's life that drastically, yet if we evaluate marketing copy, it often attempts to persuade the consumer that anything is possible. What do we call that?

Elaine,

Using your examples, that's worse than trickery. Those are flat-out untruths and that is unethical in my book. I would fire the marketers who created those lines and scenarios because they can't be trusted. At the end of the day, we should create great products and services that stand on their own, and marketing should be about telling and showing consumers why they might consider buying those products.

Seriously, who is swayed by an ad showing a man drinking lite beer (do real men drink lite beer?) surrounded by beautiful women. I visit taverns frequently, and I've not met such consumers. On the other hand, wines must show their origin, and as a wine collector, I am confident than wine from California is better than wine from North Dakota (unless the grapes are grown in California, Oregon or Washington).

In all fairness, Lewis, does that mean that all these types of TV spots are untruths?

By the way, I read the sample chapter of your new book. Way to go!

Elaine,

"Whether we believe in what we market or not, is marketing simply a form of trickery and behavior manipulatation?

What do YOU think?"

What I think is this: deliberate deception and manipulation will always out. Subtle tricks are harder to detect than overt deceptions, of course. But today's consumers are smart. They might be fooled for a while. . .we all know about the power of perception. But what happens when a few savvy people catch up to the lies? What happens when the perception fails to meet real expectations? The news spreads like wildfire thanks to WOM. The speed of the Internet, ie, social media sites, email and bloggers can change perception pretty quickly. They can kill a brand that is marketed deceitfully pretty quickly. I think marketers ought to be very careful in this day and age of saturated media coverage. There just isn't anywhere to hide.

Elaine, I don't see marketing as trickery. I see it as the application of research into the motivators that govern the majority of people in a particular group toward a particular item. When a consumer purchases a product or service that has been "dressed up," then they are rewarded with a warm fuzzy feeling. They haven't been tricked any more than we all are every day by people who present themselves with makeup or fine clothes.

This example shows how important it is to understand that we are responsible for what we sell. We might be good at getting people to consume something or engage in a certain behavior, we must be comfortable living with the consequences.

Nice post, Elaine. It reminds me of the Pepsi Challenge taste test that they used to conduct at a water park when I was a kid. The Coke was always flat and hot while the Pepsi was packed full of carbonation and ice-cold.

I'm enjoying this exchange. It's engaging.

James, I like your analogy to makeup or clothing. We try to look our best to our "audience." I suppose that's what marketing is, too. Making a product or service look its best so it's attractive for purchase or behavior change.

Cam, I agree with you. We must stand behind what we market and face the consequences. But in reality, is it naive to think that every marketer actually believes in what s/he is selling?

If you market potato chips for a major food corporation, is it selling out? Surely, it contributes to obesity in the world.

If you market wine, beer, spirits or bars, aren't you contributing to alcoholism?

You get the picture. There may be something behind almost any product that could be negative. I know of a major drug store chain that's a subsidiary of a major tobacco company. Where does that leave the drug store marketer?

"Cam, I agree with you. We must stand behind what we market and face the consequences. But in reality, is it naive to think that every marketer actually believes in what s/he is selling?"

I think it would be. But I don't know of anyone who believes that. Do you?

"If you market potato chips for a major food corporation, is it selling out? Surely, it contributes to obesity in the world."

In moderation, they certainly don't. Same goes for the alcohol example and alcoholism.

Now, if their method of selling potato chips objectively encourages gluttony (or alcoholism) or otherwise targets those who are especially prone overconsumption, then I'd certainly say they're culpable.

At some point people do have to take responsibility for their own actions. Not every bad decision people make is the fault of marketers, even though whatever it is that was misused may have in fact been marketed at some point.

Whenever I make a purchase I do a lot of research on the Internet and look for reviews. I don't rely on one particular review but try to see if there is a pattern. This helps pick good products and services.

What do I think? I think I'll have some of those traditional cajun beans with rice!

No, seriously, marketing is NOT trickery when it's done ethically. I am reminded of a phrase frequently uttered by Maxwell Smart in the 60's sitcom Get Smart: "If only he had used his genius for GOOD instead of evil!". That's what professional marketers should be doing... making products and services sound their best WITHOUT deception... or optimally position them vs. the competition (worked great for that #2 car rental firm!).

Hi Elaine,
I think marketing is not trickery per say but people take advantage of the consumer ignorance to entice them in acquiring their counterfeits. An example is where in branding people try to find names that are similar to top brand. Say someone comes up with sany for sony. In most cases consumers are not so critical on the brand names. On the other hand not even do copy rights protect us from such bad products as it doesnt consider this a replication of sony products as they dont rhyme. This is common with asian products duplicating major brands.(most common in africa). This in the end becomes trickery.

Thanks for these additional comments. I must admit, I chose a provocative topic and played devil's advocate to see where it would lead. I think this type of dialog keeps us grounded and focused on the professionalism of our work.

I don't know if most of the people who posted comments are in marketing profession. I am just a consumer and it is very sad to see how consumers can be manipulated to buy products. Of course this manipulation would not be possible but for the biases of the consumers and their psychological preferences. Manipulation is not trickery in our dictionary, but it is downright sad to see customers buying products because some smart marketer wrote two extra flowery words about a product.
Excellent article Elaine - I share your feeling!

Thanks for your comment, Venkat. You bring valuable consumer insight to our dialogs. We need that.

Perhaps you're right and the better term is "manipulation" rather than trickery. Most marketers here will likely disagree with any terms that smack of "untruth." But, no matter what we call it, it has existed forever.

I'm not sure I'd call it sad. It's human nature to be vulnerable to peer pressure, trends, and the need to look or feel important, smart, classy, rich, etc. Even the most confident and secure of us make purchases based on marketing angles.

I'm a marketer and I admit that when comparing two labels of similar products, the one with the most description usually wins me over. And I write for a living!

As we say in French, "C'est la vie."