This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
SOCIETAL MARKETING AND MORALITY
Submitted BY Ch. Prasanna Kumar Meinam Bhopendro Singh Naga praneeth Sanjana Talluri Silpa 10308 10330 10203 10342
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Theory and practice of societal marketing ............................................................................................... 4 Moral bases for marketing ....................................................................................................................... 6 The link with neo-classical economics: fostering self-interest ............................................................... 7 The Harvard tradition: marketing as satisfaction of self-interest ........................................................... 7 Societal marketing and Moral responsibility .......................................................................................... 10 Difference Between Social Marketing and Societal Marketing................................................................ 13 Companies Employing the Societal Marketing Concept: ........................................................................ 15 McDonald's: ....................................................................................................................................... 15 Coca-Cola:......................................................................................................................................... 16 NIKE-"Just do it: ................................................................................................................................. 17 Conclusion: ............................................................................................................................................ 18
Societal marketing emerged in the early 1970s, promising a more socially responsible and ethical model for marketing. While the societal marketing concept has attracted its adherents and critics, the literature on societal marketing has remained sketchy and underdeveloped, particularly with respect to its underlying (and largely implicit) moral agenda. The societal marketing concept is an extension of the marketing concept, rather than a fundamental reconstruction of marketing theory. While acknowledging the use of the societal marketing concept in practice, this use is problematized with respect to a number of critical moral issues. In particular, the question is of who should and can decide what is in the public¶s best interests, and elucidate the moral deficiencies of the rational-instrumental process upon which marketing decisions are frequently rationalized. Attention should be refocused away from prescribing what ³moral´ or ³societal´ marketing should be, and towards developing an understanding of the structures, meanings and discourses which shape and explain marketing and consumption decision making and sustain its positive and negative impacts on society. The dominant model of marketing, based on the notion of consumer sovereignty, assumes that the role of the marketing process is technical rather than moral in nature ± its purpose is to translate demand into production, not to legislate on what demand or production might be ³good´. This is largely the marketing ³science´, as derived from the Harvard University economic school of thought and subsequently presented in major textbooks, and as traditionally taught in business schools. Later, constituencies critical of marketing emerged and grew in power and influence while many marketers became defensive about such developments, the upshot of this was a series of attempts (both theoretical and practical) to address these criticisms. Philip Kotler was central to these efforts to incorporate social and moral concerns into marketing ³science´, and his contribution can be bracketed in two ways. First, he proposed an extension of the marketing technologies into non-business arenas. Thus, in prompting marketers to benefit society by considering the marketing of social ideas and causes, the notion of social marketing was introduced by Kotler and Zeltman. Second, in association with other ³reconstructionists´ ,he argued that the marketing concept and its technologies must be tempered, and ultimately revised, by adopting a more explicit social orientation. Thus, the societal marketing concept (SMC) was born.
Kotler¶s initial definition of societal marketing called for marketers to provide in addition to the basic elements of the marketing concept ± customer satisfaction and profitability ± a third element, which he called ³long-run consumer welfare´. By doing so, Kotler was acknowledging the argument ³what was good for individual consumers might not be good for the society´. This lack of concern for social welfare was clearly illustrated by: the incidence of pollution and congestion as a result of individual car purchase; poor nutrition due to a reliance on junk food; excessive waste resulting from throw-away convenience packaging; and health problems due to the consumption of harmful tobacco and alcohol products. The key assumption here was that consumers¶ immediate ³desires´ were in some ways distinguishable from their longer-term ³interests´. According to Kotler, while marketers had been successful in satisfying the former, the emergence of consumer advocate groups and other voices critical of marketing suggested that, thus far, they had been unsuccessful in terms of the latter. Societal marketing thus promised a fundamental reconstruction of marketing, suggesting the possibility of a more ethical marketing approach, which embraced rather than excluded public concerns. SMC is based on different and arguably more solid moral terrain than the marketing concept, the concept raises some fundamental, perhaps irreconcilable, difficulties. Rather than attempting to articulate what societal marketing ³should´ be (and why), academics would be better advised to research decision-making processes in relation to the production/consumption contexts in order to understand the different moral bases which are drawn on in enacting and rationalizing real marketing decision making. The theory and practice of societal marketing will form the basis of a more extended examination of the moral basis of societal marketing.
Theory and practice of societal marketing
Kotler introduced SMC as an academic concept in the mainstream marketing literature. This is not meant to suggest that social concerns and/or the consumer¶s long-term interests had been entirely absent from the marketing literature before this, but rather that an explicit orientation towards them had not been incorporated into the marketing orthodoxy promulgated by mainstream textbooks and journals. Social concerns of one kind and another had clearly been of
consequence to various marketing practitioners prior to the introduction of Kotler¶s concept. However, although there is evidence to suggest that some marketers may at times have acted in certain consumers¶ interests long before this (for example, firms such as Kellogg¶s, Nestlé, Merck, Johnson & Johnson, and various others have all long-declared intentions to promote healthy, nutritious, safe and/or socially valuable products), Kotler¶s views of mainstream marketing may be seen as being justifiable in the context of a long history of disreputable marketing practices, the criticisms of the consumerism, and a regulatory environment predicated on caveat emptor. Kotler¶s main emphasis was on setting out the type of products that might or might not be appropriate to a societal marketing orientation. By defining product benefits in terms of short-run consumer satisfaction and long-run consumer welfare, he claimed that there essentially are four types of products. They are: 1. (1) Deficient products, which he said offered neither short- nor long-term benefits; 2. (2) Salutary products, which had were low immediate appeal but high long-term consumer benefit; 3. (3) Pleasing products, which gave high immediate satisfaction but could cause harm in the long term; and 4. (4) Desirable products, which combined immediate satisfaction with long-run benefit. These are shown in Table I. Kotler suggested that, for the implementation of the SMC, deficient products should be deleted from the product range altogether; salutary and pleasing products should undergo product modification in order to move them towards the top right-hand quadrant; and the development of desirable products should be the ultimate aim of marketing efforts. With the passage of time, the concerns of the SMC had moved beyond ³long-term consumer welfare´ to embrace more specifically ³society¶s wellbeing´. Thus, ³the societal marketing concept calls upon marketers to build social and ethical considerations into their marketing practices´. Societal marketing has become a central concept in contemporary marketing theory. Indeed, if the contribution of the SMC is to be found in its widening of attention away from the satisfaction of individual desires to longer-term social and individual interests, the continued
preoccupation of marketing texts on customer satisfaction and profitability suggests that the SMC has yet to have anything more than, at best, a marginal impact on the traditional principles of marketing theory. Certain elements of societal marketing theory have, however, been taken up. For example, some elements within the marketing academy have acknowledged (often without reference to the SMC) that marketing should embrace a more social and ethical agenda .Indeed there is considerable evidence to suggest that many firms have succeeded to some extent in combining social and economic goals through their marketing activity. For example, at one level, we might think of the numerous cases of cause-related marketing reported in the literature, such as American Express¶s Charge Against Hunger programme, which saw the company donating 3 cents to the hunger-relief organization Share Our Strength every time someone used the card. Perhaps more significantly, we might think of Menon and Menon¶s (1997) ³enviropreneurial´ marketers, who have been argued to have achieved fundamental environmental improvements in their products at the same time as impressive economic success. Similarly, Crane (2000a) reports on ³social mission companies´, which have (not always successfully) attempted to combine product marketing with social cause campaigning. Abratt and Sacks have even gone so far as to cite alcohol firms as societal marketers, given their attempts to promote responsible drinking.
Moral bases for marketing
First it is important to demonstrate that there is a link between the SMC and morality. While Kotler did not manifest a relation between societal marketing and morality, his shift from the traditional to the societal marketing concept indexes a shift in the moral plane from a focus on psychological to one based on ethical egoism.
The link with neo-classical economics: fostering self-interest
From a moral perspective, marketing was informed then by two positions: a ³reformist´ position, which maintained that marketers should work in the overall interests of society by aiding the State regulation of the marketplace (Wisconsin) and a laissez-faire view (Harvard) that one should entrust morality to the actions of individuals, who, by ³freely´ (of regulation) pursuing their rational self-interests, would thereby set in motion the ³hidden hand´ of the marketplace and thus ensure the best possibility for ethical outcomes.. Adam Smith¶s classic text, The Wealth of Nations (1793). In his chapter on the Division of Labour, Smith considers how, of all the different species, man is reliant on others for his sustenance. However, he should not rely on the benevolence of others for this but rather: He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind proposes to do this: give me that which I want and you shall have this which you want is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their selflove, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages ecological and consumer concerns (among others) could best be addressed through economic actors seeking to fulfil their own desires in the marketplace.
The Harvard tradition: marketing as satisfaction of self-interest
From our earlier discussion of morality in marketing, it can be argued that a dual approach to morality and marketing persisted through the course of the twentieth century. Those from what we might loosely describe as the ³Harvard´ tradition embraced the psychological egoism inherent in Smith¶s (1793) writings. The message was simple: the proper locus of morality is vested in economic agents, each acting, either narrowly or widely, in his or her own self-interest,
untrammelled by the power of State intervention. As we will demonstrate in more detail, this view underpins various descriptions of the ³market orientation´ offered by marketing academics and the idea of the ³marketing concept´. On the other hand, those who follow in the ³Wisconsin´ tradition are sceptical of the ability of the market to regulate itself, and instead insist that, where necessary, the State must intervene through legislative and other programmes. As we shall see, both of these traditions have influenced each other ± in particular the threat of imminent legislation has influenced the psychological egoists, who have tended to respond with calls for marketers in firms to be more zealous in following marketing-led precepts and principles and in implementing the marketing concept more fully. Kotler¶s (1972) development of societal marketing can be interpreted within this context as part of the response to increasing social discontent and imminent legislation. As such, Kotler¶s development of the SMC represents an attempt to shift the moral basis of mainstream marketing from the psychological egoism advanced by earlier apostles of the marketing concept (based on serving consumer desires) to a form of ethical egoism (based on satisfying long-run consumer interests and welfare). This was meant to suggest not so much that consumers¶ ³desires´ were irrational, but more that (at least according to Kotler, 1972, p. 54), because marketers were so successful in making their products immediately appealing and gratifying, consumers ³cannot resist´ these temptations in the economic realm of consumption, and seek therefore to ³express their discontent as voters´ ± thereby precipitating regulatory action. A second possibility is where the firm tracks the social concerns of consumers. A number of firms have done this in recent years, the companies preceded an ethical branding initiative with extensive surveys ascertaining the importance to customers of various potential issues which could be addressed by the firm, such as animal welfare, the environment, fair trade, and the supply of weapons. These surveys have subsequently fed into (societal) marketing decision making. Clearly, this approach is strongly based on egoism, for it rests on the assumption that the firm will benefit by addressing only those causes identified as important by one¶s customers. A third possibility also focuses on consumers, but in this case ostensibly allows customers themselves to directly ³decide´ which products should continue to be produced through their purchase decisions. Of all the possibilities discussed, this follows most closely in the liberal tradition advocated by Adam Smith. In this view the ³hidden hand´ of the market intervenes to
create the best solution. Hence, a fall in demand for products deemed by consumers to be socially undesirable will result in them leaving the market, and equally a demand for socially desirable products will result in such products being successfully marketed. While this ignores Kotler¶s original distinction between consumers¶ short-term desires and long-term needs, as well as the question of whether consumers truly have the degree of sovereignty necessary to ensure such an outcome, this has clearly been a dominant assumption of much of the existing ³green´ marketing theory and practice. Indeed, freedom to choose is seen as the ultimate repository of ³goodness´ by the free market economists, suggesting a passive role for the marketer. The fourth possibility evident in current marketing practice is where the State will make the decision as to which products should be provided, and how they should be marketed. We have also recently seen the case in Europe of the farming industry refusing to self-regulate the sale of beef products, prompting government action banning the sale and import of beef in a number of European countries. Here we see echoes of Kotler¶s fears concerning increased regulation in response to insufficient self-regulation. However, there are few industries that passively accept any form of regulatory encroachment, and lobbying remains a potent force in resisting further regulation of marketing activities. For instance, following a 2000 British Medical Association report linking anorexia with depictions of excessively thin fashion models in the media, the fashion industry successfully argued against the establishment of even a voluntary code proposed by the UK Government to regulate fashion ads. This would suggest that the Wisconsin model of societal marketing, whereby marketers actively work with the State in ensuring social welfare, is still rare in practice. Finally, firms might respond to the demands of pressure groups and the media in deciding their marketing strategies. In response, all the major UK supermarkets eventually responded with selfimposed bans on GM ingredients, whereas the supplying companies such as Monsanto relied on internal constituencies to determine a stance of no-change. In a sense they do, for the former appear to have embraced a certain level of openness to, and acceptance of, the views of society organizations that the latter have not. However, we must also recognize that each is still rooted in egoist principles the supermarkets considering social welfare in order to avoid a loss of consumer trust Monsanto seeking to foster acceptance for a product technology that would have enormous consequences for their subsequent economic performance.
Societal marketing and Moral responsibility
The first of these linked concerns is that the concept¶s insistence on the role of the individual moral agent veils the social context and in particular the imbalance in size and power relations between individuals and corporations. However, what is veiled by the above is not simply the fact that marketers often work for corporations involving hundreds, thousands and indeed hundreds of thousands of people but, more importantly, the implications which this has for the exercise of individual moral responsibility and action. While one can accept the idea that the individual is a moral agent, such agency is easily ³floated´ within such groupings where the individual is a mere cog in an enormous wheel. Within marketing, the floating of individual moral responsibility is further exacerbated, as marketing decisions frequently involve people from agencies which are both internal and external to the organization, such as advertising, PR and through the line agencies. As Bauman notes, where the individual within the organization does experience a conflict of interest, their loyalties and sympathies fall usually on the side of their colleagues and not with those who are perceived to be ³other´ or external to the organization. A third concern is that managers are mainly called upon to adopt ³socially responsible´ behaviors for the same reasons as those for which they are called on to adopt the marketing concept, i.e. profitability, which is the measure of ³self-interest´. The rational-instrumental approach that is involved in the calculation of marketing costs and values is adiaphoric in that it renders decisions morally neutral. The adoption of the SMC may thus equally result in the adoption of moral behaviour on the part of a firm which can clearly see that to act in the interests of others is to act in its own self-interest. On the other hand, where its own self-interest is not clearly served, there is no call for such an approach. The key issue is that it effaces the ³face´ of the ³other´ and so facilitates the treatment of this ³other´, whether human or not, as an object. Even where corporate marketing decisions have resulted in ³moral´ outcomes, evidence suggests that the managers involved seek to deliberately downplay, avoid or reframe any moral meaning such as to ³amoralize´ the marketing process. Hence, whether all marketing decisions are
³really´ constitutive of a rational-instrumental process, or are in fact also shaped by organization culture, careerist competition, personal creativity or whatever else, the dominant rationality of the modern organization imposes the need to justify and frame actions only in those terms. Thus, the marketing decision-making process tends to exclude, degrade and marginalize morality, since the rationalization of marketing action effectively separates and removes marketing ³practitioners´ and ³consumers´ from moral considerations and moral action. Even if marketers are apparently unwilling to acknowledge or embrace moral sensibilities and, moreover, are largely unaware of the terminology and theory of societal marketing, this does not mean that marketing decisions do not have ³societal´ outcomes, or even that many firms have not sought to incorporate aspects of societal marketing into their decision process. Although there is only limited empirical evidence attempting specifically to locate corporate practices directly within the discourse of societal marketing, there are, as we have already acknowledged, burgeoning literatures on green marketing, cause-related marketing, and ethical marketing among others, which illustrate the wide array of corporate marketing practices aimed at achieving a positive social impact. There is thus ample evidence to show that social concerns have impacted on various aspects of marketing activity. Many firms have changed product formulations to improve environmental performance others have attempted to develop communications campaigns stressing corporate social responsibility while others have attempted to incorporate charitable donations into their marketing campaigns. These are just a handful of the many examples of how such issues have been translated into marketing. However, the above developments do not deflect us from our main argument; to say that social issues can be and have been incorporated into certain marketing activities does not mean that societal marketing is necessarily a more moral or ethical approach to marketing. As we have outlined, the concept is conditional, can result in different outcomes, has no clear location for moral responsibility, and is rationalized in a way that renders its object morally neutral. However, we must stress that our intent and approach in this paper are largely theoretical. There is a need to supplement existing research by asking what forms of discourse inform those decisions which result in the production of such ostensibly ³socially responsible´ offerings such
as green products and ethical investments. Evidence suggests the latter, with the green marketing literature in particular showing clear evidence of campaigns based more on extending choice, and with little resort, if any, to moral reflection concerning which products should be marketed, and whether certain products should be marketed at all. Moreover, it is one thing to say that societal concerns have been incorporated into marketing practice, but it is quite another to suggest that this means that these concerns are viewed as intrinsically moral in nature, or that they are granted some form of moral status that is in any way different from, or above, conventional marketing concerns of profitability, customer satisfaction, customer relationships and the like. Even the marketing of ostensibly ³ethical´ products does not, and perhaps cannot, ensure that those involved in the marketing process feel any sense of responsibility or duty to society when dealing with such products. This suggests that societal marketing, as it is enacted in practice, may be less a moral transformation of marketing and more a minor adjustment or extension to the existing technicist ³scientific´ marketing paradigm. Societal Marketing is actually an offshoot of the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility and sustainable development. This concept urges companies to do more than having an exchange relationship with customers, to go beyond delivering products and work for the benefit of the consumers and the society.
Following are the three examples of Societal Marketing Concept:
1: Body Shop: Body Shop is a cosmetic company found by Anita Roddick. The company uses
only vegetable based materials for its products. It is also against Animal testing, supports community trade, activate Self Esteem, Defend Human Rights, and overall protection of the planet. Thus it is completely following the concept of Societal Marketing.
2: Ariel: Ariel is a detergent manufactured by Procter and Gamble. Ariel runs special fund
raising campaigns for deprived classes of the world specifically the developing countries. It also
contributes part of its profits from every bag sold to the development of the society.
3: British American tobacco Company: BAT is a British based Tobacco company. It was
found in the year 1902. BAT is involved in working for the society in every part of the world. It conducts tree plantation drives as part of its societal marketing strategy.
Difference Between Social Marketing and Societal Marketing
Societal marketing concept is evident when an organisation determines consumer needs and wants and then integrates all activities in the firm to serve these needs while simultaneously enhancing societal well being (McColl-Kennedy, Kiel, Lusch & Lusch, 1994) ³Social marketing is the adaptation of commercial marketing technologies to programs designed to influence the voluntary behaviour of target audiences to improve their personal welfare and that of the society of which they are a part.´ Andreasen, (1995) Societal marketing is the business driven, profit orientated way of changing the world as a means of developing revenue based product. Societal is about the direct benefits for the organisation (profit) and secondary benefit for the community. Social marketing is about changing behaviours for the benefit of the broader society. Social marketing is about the social gain, target market¶s gain, and the flow of benefits where profit may not actual exist, or if it does, then it¶s just an incidental secondary benefit for the campaign. societal marketing is any form of marketing that takes into consideration the needs and wants of the consumer and the well-being of society. Basically, societal marketing is marketing combined with social responsibility.
Conversely, social marketing uses more traditional commercial techniques and strategies (focusing primarily on selling) to achieve goals for the greater social good. Social marketing campaigns can either encourage merit goods (Ex. Fund raising for Not-for-profit organizations) or dissuade the use of demerit goods (Ex. Non-smoking campaigns). Social marketing focuses more on the end result of the marketing (promoting a merit good) while societal marketing is more concerned with the marketing process in general and the marketing strategy used (using marketing techniques that take into account the well-being of society). A marketing campaign focusing on smoking cessation is an example of social marketing, but if the marketing strategies and techniques used in that campaign focus on increasing the well-being of society, that same campaign can be an example of societal marketing as well. Social marketing is the systematic application of marketing, along with other concepts and techniques, to achieve specific behavioral goals for a social good. Social marketing can be applied to promote merit goods, or to make a society avoid demerit goods and thus to promote society's well being as a whole. For example, this may include asking people not to smoke in public areas, asking them to use seat belts, or prompting to make them follow speed limits. The societal marketing concept is an enlightened marketing concept that holds that a company should make good marketing decisions by considering consumers' wants, the company's requirements, and society's long-term interests. It is closely linked with the principles of corporate social responsibility and of sustainable development. The concept has an emphasis on social responsibility and suggests that for a company to only focus on exchange relationship with customers might not be suitable in order to sustain long term success. Rather, marketing strategy should deliver value to customers in a way that maintains or improves both the consumer's and the society's well-being. Societal marketing should not be confused with social marketing. The societal marketing concept was a forerunner of sustainable marketing in integrating issues of social responsibility into commercial marketing strategies. In contrast to that, social marketing uses commercial marketing theories, tools and techniques to social issues. Social marketing applies a ³customer orientated´
approach and uses the concepts and tools used by commercial marketers in pursuit of social goals like Anti-Smoking-Campaigns or fund raising for NGOs
Companies Employing the Societal Marketing Concept:
McDonald's is the leader of the fast-food industry, with worldwide operations employing approximately 500,000 people in 11,000 restaurants and serving 22 million customers a day. At the time Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) approached McDonald's, its entanglement in controversy over its packaging frustrated the company. From EDF' s perspective, McDonald's leadership position, its problematic history of waste management, and the iconic value of waste management as an environmental issue made the company an attractive candidate for partnership. EDF saw significant opportunity for both environmental action and a major, high visibility, opportunity to test its innovative approach to environmental problem-solving through corporate partnerships. Plastic had been demonized by several environmentalist organizations. The use-and-dispose philosophy at the core of McDonald's business and its distinctive plastic clamshell sandwich boxes, which helped to make the company one of the largest single users of polystyrene in the United States, had made McDonald's a continuing target of ecology groups Throughout the late 1980s, McDonald's instituted and publicized a number of environmentally positive steps in its domestic operations. It reduced consumption, for instance, by using lighter weight paper in straws, paper bags and other items and recycled paper and cardboard packaging. In 1987, it switched from polystyrene blown with CFCs, the family of chemicals which destroy the ozone layer, to plastic foam that used hydrocarbon blowing. In 1989, the company instituted a pilot program in 450 New England stores to recycle its plastic clamshells. In April, 1990, it committed $100million, or one quarter of the company's annual building and remodeling budget,
to buy recycled materials for restaurant construction, remodeling, and operations under a program called "Mc Recycle "In 1989 and 1990, McDonald's bolstered its environmental management practices with a proactive public relations campaign. McDonald's also offered instore flyers to educate customers about the company's environmental management practices, policies, philosophies, and positions on particular issues such as rainforest beef and the ozone problem. Brochures on environmental topics, including packaging, were available from its public relations department. In addition, McDonald's worked with several different environmental and nonprofit groups (e.g., the World Wildlife Fund and the Smithsonian Institution) to coproduce elementary school materials on the environment. McDonald¶s positions itself as having concerns ecological and practical, social as well as economic. Second, McDonald's positions itself as one of a community of stewards of the earth. McDonald's defends its environmental record by listing specific actions that it has taken to manage waste and conserve resources by reducing, reusing and recycling materials. It cites experts who support its position on plastic packaging and who point out the small contribution of the entire quick-service restaurant industry to America's waste.
Coca- cola is a soft drink company started early in the 90 s in USA. After gaining a good market value in the world the company looked out for promoting large people towards their products. As a result they formulated an awareness program in the African countries about the HIV awareness.
In the 2001 the Coco-Cola African foundations was formed to reduce the impact of HIV AIDS on coca-cola 60000 employees and 40 independent bottlers in Africa. At present, 100 percent of the coca-cola µs independent bottling companies in 54 African countries are enrolled in the foundations programs.
All their employees and the employees¶ families are eligible to receive benefits, including access to antiretroviral drugs, testing, counseling, prevention, and treatment. The foundations outreach also extends beyond employees and into community.
It focuses its efforts on three factors which Coca- cola operates: healthcare, education, and the environment. The many projects are supported by the foundation cost millions of dollars each year, but coca- cola offers more than just funding. By using its distribution network, one of the most extensive in Africa, coca-cola can transport vital materials to the remote part of the continent.
It reach areas of Africa which the AIDS/HIV workers have not previously had easy access and thereby ensure that people in those areas can obtain information about the prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS. Even Coca-Cola¶s marketing expertise is be ingused to raise awareness of key issues of such as HIV prevention. By leveraging its corporate assets, Coca-Cola has made contribution to all African communities.
NIKE-"Just do it:
Nike, Inc., a marketer of athletic shoes and sports apparel, has grown into a large multinational enterprise through a marketing strategy centering on a favorable brand image.
In 1996, NIKE decided to design a new, state-of-the-art campus for its European headquarters in the Netherlands. A complex of five new buildings, the campus was designed to integrate the indoors with the surrounding environment, tapping into local energy flows to create healthy, beneficial relationships between nature and human culture.
We had come to see that our customers' health and our own ability to compete are inseparable from the health of the environment," said Darcy Winslow, one of the early leaders of the sustainability movement within the company. Product innovation and performance remained Nike's first priority, she said, "but our sense of design excellence had expanded to include a commitment to ecological intelligence, to fully understanding the impacts of our products on the natural world.
Nike's first steps toward ecologically intelligent product design began with materials. Together they sought to determine the chemical composition and environmental effects of the materials and manufacturing processes. Using natural flows of energy and nutrients as models, these product materials are designed to flow in closed loop cycles, eliminating the concept of waste while enhancing and replenishing both nature and commerce.
With its Management of Environmental Safety and Health program, for example ,Nike has merged health and safety metrics with a Nike management model to create a framework for sustainability suitable for its Asian contract factories.
We have studies that affinity marketing initiatives, especially societal marketing initiatives, have the potential to improve consumers attitudes about a brand in a number of different ways. How
much a given initiative will help or hurt a given brandwill, of course, depend on the characteristics of its target markets. While consumerists and other critics of the selling concept regularly and loudly chastise business organizations for employing marketing strategies and campaigns which are ostensibly based upon assumptions of consumer ignorance and irrationality, these same guardians of consumer interest are typically synonymous with those pushing organizations most forcefully into programs of social responsibility and the societal marketing concept. It must inevitably be those organizations which are encouraged to view their consumers as ignorant or irrational that can and will most easily extend that notion to discover opportunities for exploiting that ignorance and irrationality. It is for this reason that those espousing the societal marketing concept of business can be seen as the greatest danger to consumer sovereignty and consumer welfare. Yet it is a corollary rule that in reducing one individual's power, all others with whom that person deals have their relative power increased. By forcing consumers into the roles of ignorant, helpless, and mindless children in need of protection and corporate welfare, advocates of the societal marketing concept have liberated consumers from both responsibility and power, and have concomitantly made business more powerful.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.