The industry coalition to develop food advertising guidelines (actually now aligned with an FTC task force), the Alliance for a Healthier Generation, a report on the use of new media to promote food products and the Shrek promotion campaign collectively caught the attention of the social marketing list serve in the past week. Of course, industry marketing practices are the culprit. Corporate intentions, even when shrouded in CSR language, are evil.
Gordon Wright wrote an excellent contrasting POV to the alarmists that deserves your consideration. With his permission, unedited:
Shrek is a big green ogre.
But he sure is loveable and he connects with an audience.
That connection can help sell both goods and ideas.
It's all true. But it is not really new.
The approach is much more sophisticated today. But, this type of marketing has been going on for years and years.
So, let's talk about marketing. And we will use the word a lot so we remember what it is we are really talking about -- marketing.
I started some of this discussion for a reason.
We may be social. But we are also marketers.
Are we committed to marketing?
If we are social marketing professionals, then how can we be opposed to marketing?
It seems to me that "marketing" upsets some people in the social marketing world. I find that a bit perplexing.
What is it that upsets?
Is it the act of marketing?
Is it the success?
Is it the effect of the success?
My position is that, if we are in marketing, then we ought to accept that many of our competitors who market products are generally good at what they do. We can learn.
They are competitors. I am a competitor. Let's compete.
Yes, the food and beverage industry is targeting children and youth in a digital age. That's a challenge in product marketing.
But, what is the greatest challenge in social marketing today? Targeting children and youth in a digital age, perhaps?
One sells junk food. One promotes health. But each is trying to reach an audience.
There is a subtle difference between social marketing and advocacy for social change. The word marketing doesn't appear in the latter expression.
We, as social marketers, need to be creative and keep learning from competitors and from the marketplace of ideas.
We must adapt to survive and succeed.
If we're at odds with the concept of marketing, then I'd suggest we're in the wrong profession.
A guideline is one thing. A policy is one thing. A regulation is one thing. Censorship is one thing. History tells us what works and what doesn't work over time.
If we are discussing "marketing to children" and the need for regulation to help families protect their children from "predators" who market to children, then I'd suggest we ought to be careful.
A lot of us are in the business of marketing to children and to families.
I'd like to think we are marketing good things.
But we are marketing. Or, as marketers, we ought to be.
I may be skeptical. I may by cynical from time to time. I may even be analytical once in a while. But I still think it is important to differentiate between "marketing practices" and other things.
Here's my comment back to Gordon:
Gordon, great and thoughtful post. Straight to the heart of the
matter, esp the ‘uncomfortableness’ many have with marketing. I think
of what Stephen Dann has been saying periodically about ‘cheating’ and
going to advocacy/policy change before really trying to compete in the
marketing arena. The answer from many smers is that ‘we are outgunned,
underfinanced’ etc… lacking great ideas and the will to compete may be
closer to the truth you have here.
As I've said before: there are no coincidences. Now it's time for the public health, children's welfare, education and other sectors to decide whether to engage, or cheat. And who can foresee the unintended consequences?
Comments