MARKETING RESPONSIBILITY

INTRODUCTION

This paper analyzes the responsibility of marketing people for the way that their products are used by the consumers. Using the Australian beer as a guiding example, it attempts to establish if marketers should be held accountable for how their products are being utilized by the people that patronize them. The marketing field has always been muddled in paradox, in that of making a profit while giving the customers high-quality products (Willsmer, 1975). It is in this contradiction that lays the basic question of should marketers be really responsible for how their products are used by consumers when they already have gained profit from the transaction? In this light, the paper takes the Australian beer category for the simple reason that the country is reputed to have one of the highest per capita beer consumption in the world after the Czechs, the Irish and the Germans (Beer Consumption in Major Countries in 2004, 2005), meaning a huge amount of consumption, and a corresponding amount of marketing involvement.

BRIEF BACKGROUND

The most popular drink in Australia nowadays is beer. In New South Wales, it's Tooheys, in Victoria it's Carlton Draught and United Breweries (brewer of Fosters), in Queensland XXXX (Springer, 2003), in South Australia, Lion Nathan’s West End brand and Coopers, in Northern Tasmania Boags and Cascades in the South and in Western Australia, the Swan and Emu brands. As further proof, even the beer glasses for the different states have names. The history of Australian beer can be traced back very early in Australia’s colonial history, in 1770 to be exact (‘Australian Beer History’, n.d.). The popularity of this drink in the country has brought with it a wealth of marketing efforts in an attempt to sell more of the liquid product. In line with this, the marketing field has become involved with an increasingly larger scope of corporate social responsibility, encompassing even how their products are utilised by the consumers. A general marketing principle these days, (at least in the books) is the satisfaction of the consumer by providing a product that not only is usable and acceptable but also safe for the individual, safe for the environment, and good for the diminishing resources of our society (Samli, 1992).

SHOULD BE OR NEED NOT BE?

There are basically two arguments to this case. One, that marketers should unquestionably be responsible for how their products are being used by their consumers because it is basic marketing responsibility to provide the users brand information regarding the product like product quality and other essential information which the consumers will find useful in the search of products to patronize through such means as packaging, labelling, advertising and promotion. The two latter practices, especially, are powerful ways to relate such information to the market. In those ways lay the primary responsibility of the marketing people to provide accurate and sufficient information for the guidance of the consumers. Kendall (1971) asserted that the advertising and promotion's specific role in the marketing function is to convey the news and the benefits of the product to the consumer. However, their role does not end in relaying only the benefits and the good news. As a social responsibility, they are also bound by morals to relate if their products have side effects or anything that might be detrimental to the welfare of the consumer. On the sidelines, the six primary sources of ethical decisions that marketers make, according to Earl Clasen of the Pillsbury company are: (1) personal conscience, molded and formed by the ethical traditions of our society; (2) the law and its corollary; (3) organization structure and procedures; (4) the marketplace; (5) professional knowledge or the business and technical expertise; and (6) consumer wants and acceptance (as cited in Kelly & Lazer, 1973). These six factors affect how marketers make their decisions that would consequently be beneficial or damaging to consumer welfare.

However, this does not seem to be the case in most advertising and promotional tools nowadays. In essence, only the products who are what they claim to be will work excellently according to the consumer’s needs, products that they could use to the extent of their potential use as they are fully informed and well aware of the mechanisms, processes and the correct usage or consumption of the said products. At least three negative practices associated with advertising and promotion namely failure to inform, manipulation and deception (Samli, 1992) should be overcome by the marketing profession so that they would be, in part, responsible for the way their consumers use their products. The phrase ‘in part’ was mentioned not by accident, as the responsibility is now clearly becoming a shared thing for both the marketers and the consumers.

On the other hand, there is the ‘free will’ argument, where it is claimed that people, as specimens given the ability to think for themselves, should have what is termed as ‘consumer social responsibility’. It is, by definition, ‘the conscious and deliberate choice to make certain consumption choices based on personal and moral beliefs’ (Devinney, Auger, Eckhardt & Birtchnell, 2006). Gaski argued that customers are very knowledgeable and therefore they can make very good purchase decisions (1985). It is also widely contended that consumers need to be socially responsible in that they are expected to take into account the public consequences of their private consumption or who attempts to use their purchasing power to bring about social change

In the advertising of Australian beer, the Advertising Federation of Australia, the body representing companies in advertising and marketing communications to industry, government, media and the public in the country, set a regulation called the Alcoholic Beverages Advertising Code (ABAC). The Code was first introduced in 1998 and updated in 2004 to take into account changes including the growing use of internet advertising and promotional events for alcohol beverages. Summarily, the Code is designed to ensure that alcohol advertising will be conducted in a manner which neither conflicts with nor detracts from the need for responsibility and moderation in liquor merchandising and consumption, and which does not encourage consumption by underage persons, specifically stating that ads for beverages must not suggest that the consumption or presence of alcohol beverages may create or contribute to a significant change in mood or environment (‘The ABAC Scheme’, 2004). Interpreted, there is a balance of responsibility on the part of the consumers and the marketers to have socially responsible behavior in the consumption of such products.

In academic literature, Samli countered Gaski’s argument that the marketing people is not in any position to make socially responsible decisions because it does not know enough about it. In Samli’s book, he refutes that this could not be true as who other than a particular business knows more about its particular products or services? (Samli, 1992) This is true especially in the case of beer companies who should recognize the probable impact of their products upon a reasonable person within the class of persons to whom the advertisement or promotion is directed and other persons to whom such may be communicated, as they are the people who know more about their products than anyone else. On the flip side, there is also the consumers’ responsibility to regulate the consumption of beer products. The efforts of beer marketers to inform the general public about its possible effects to the human system will ultimately come as no avail for some products, even though not inherently harmful, can be potentially harmful to consumers due to abuse or misuse (Choudhury & Cui, 2003). For instance, targeting alcoholic beverages at poor inner-city consumers is particularly problematic, as this segment already suffers from a greater number of alcohol-related health and social problems than the general population (Smith & Cooper-Martin, 1997), meaning that ethical evaluations of many products depend on their interaction with consumer characteristics and marketing practices (Choudhury & Cui, 2003). Thus, marketers must study the perception of the public when formulating marketing strategies in order to avoid potential misunderstandings when it comes to the use or consumption of the products (Smith, 1995).

CONCLUSION

From the profusion of information available on the subject of responsible marketing in the context of the Australian beer, it could be summarily considered that marketers should be responsible for the way their products are used by consumers. Attached to that responsibility is the premise that marketers should provide all the necessary information possible which will aid the consumer in the decision-making process with regards to product usage or consumption. However, this paper brought out another side to the issue. The side of the consumers, who, in part, should also be socially responsible for how they use or consume the products offered in the market. Being given the will to choose from amongst a variety of products, it is in the sole discretion of the consumers how they would utilize the products after having been appropriately given the necessary information which would assist them in making consumer-based decisions. It will thus prove beneficial for both parties, the consumers, getting exactly what they need, and the marketers, gaining profit from the consumption. In the words of A. Coskun Samli, ‘Socially responsible marketing is good marketing’ (1992).

REFERENCES

Australian Beer History. (n.d.). Retrieved October 3, 2006, from www.australianbeers.com

Beer Consumption in Major Countries in 2004. (2005, December 15). Retrieved October 3, 2006, from www.kirin.co.jp

Choudhury, P. & Cui, G. (2003). Consumer Interests and the Ethical Implications of Marketing: A Contingency Framework. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 37(2), 364+.

Devinney, T., Auger, P., Eckhardt, G. & Birtchnell, T. (2006). The Other CSR: Consumer Social Responsibility. Social Science Research Network. Retrieved October 3, 2006, from http://papers.ssrn.com

Gaski, J. (1985). Dangerous Territory: The Societal Marketing Concept Revisited. Business Horizons, July/August issue, 42-47.

Kelley, E. & Lazer, W. (1973). Social Marketing: Perspectives and Viewpoints. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin.

Kendall, D. (1971). Statement Before the Federal Trade Commission. Federal Trade Commission Hearings. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Samli, A. (1992). Social Responsibility in Marketing: A Proactive and Profitable Marketing Management Strategy: Westport, Connecticut: Quorum Books.

Smith, C. (1995). Marketing Strategies for the Ethics Era. Sloan Management Review, 36(4), 85-97.

Smith, C. & Cooper-Martin, E. (1997). Ethics and Targeted Marketing: The Role of Product Harm and Consumer Vulnerability. Journal of Marketing, 61(3), 1-20.

Springer, B. (2003). Australian Beer. The Epicentre. Retrieved October 3, 2006, from www.theepicentre.com

The ABAC Scheme. (2004). Advertising Federation of Australia. Retrieved October 3, 2006, from www.afa.org.au

Willsmer, R. (1975). Directing the Marketing Effort. London: Pan Books, Ltd.