Marketing in Society; Illusion or Evolution

Marketing should be a partnership, a pledge between buyer and seller to fulfill the individual and collective needs of society in a way that adds value to both sides. Both customers and corporations have the responsibility in this covenant to defend ethical treatment of the earth, to safeguard against practices that could cause injury to workers or consumers, and to demand diversity in product choice (and price) as opposed to allowing monopolies to have manipulative power.
This partnership is founded on several assumptions:
1. Marketing incorporates all that an organization or corporation does and is.
2. Corporations are entities that work as one, and therefore should be treated as persons, both in court and in ethical accountability. Because of this, all workers who are not in agreement with company actions have the responsibility to remove themselves from the whole of that corporation to avoid being personally responsible for the collective proceedings. This also gives executives an extremely important role, as they are making decisions about how to interact and participate in society on behalf of their entire firm.
3. As a direct representation of all people in the United States, our government has the responsibility to share in this pledge of positive and ethical relationships between business and consumer. Passing laws to standardize protection against monopolies, environmental damage or safety for workers and consumers is the job and the role of our government, just as it is the job of individuals in society. This is part of the give-and-take of our corporate and economic landscape.
4. If the future of the business world continues to be one of global domination by the most powerful and wealthy, there is a problem with this model of partnership between corporations and consumers. This problem deals with the issue of power. My hypothesis on the relationship between marketing and society is based on the assumption that there is shared or equal power on both sides of the marketing process. In the case of international politics (and in some domestic politics) that is not the case. Without shared power, a co-creator relationship is impossible. Therefore, for marketing to be ethical and achieve a positive sum value in its relationship with society, business activities would need to have the aid of international human rights observation in all practices where power is imbalanced or oppression is in place. With careful decisions, organizations can change these situations for the better through enlightened marketing, however, they must be held accountable at all times in order not to succumb to the temptation to take advantage of an already oppressive situation.
This theory of partnership based around the goals of environmental protection, safety and diversity of product choice, engages several schools of marketing as outlined by Sheth, Gardner and Garrett in Marketing Theory: Evolution and Evaluation (1988). Enlightened consumers who work against corporate irresponsibility need to be acknowledged as part of the activist school of marketing (p. 127). Evaluating marketing’s role in society brings us into the macromarketing school (138). As we hope for evolution toward the better in partnership with business and consumer, we employ the systems school of thought (p.162). And the belief that corporations and customers should be in relationship to one another comes from the social exchange school (p. 173). Each of these are noneconomic, yet are both interactive and noninteractive ways of thinking.
If Philip Kotler is correct in seeing knowledge and training as the solution for poor economic performance, marketing surely has the potential to be a force for education, learning, and the eventual evolution of our society to a better future (1991, Dolan, ed., Strategic Marketing Management , p.476). However, the source of this “knowledge” we rely on must be scrutinized to evaluate where it comes from. Not all knowledge is wisdom. With wisdom as our goal, and shared responsibility as our reality, conscious consumer and ethical marketers can be a force for great things in society and in the world.
In conclusion, I am left with more questions than answers. Is the corporate world capable of such a transformation that they would depend on wisdom rather than profits as a benchmark of success? Is any individual in our society capable of doing that in a sustained way? Even with the best of intentions in the non-profit as well as the for-profit world, unbalanced power relationships often cause our organizations to do more harm than good. Though we can formulate an ideal picture of what marketing can be and what enlightened economics could contribute to the world, much of that picture is an illusion that may be impossible to realize simply because of human nature.
For the time being, I hold on to an anarchistic hope that each of us as responsible consumers and executives can and should make a difference toward this end in our own ways. Those consumers who don’t see themselves as activists need to be encouraged to vote with their dollars. Those corporate bodies that hold no responsibility to society should be challenged by court and by campaigns that demand justice and educate about their wrongdoings. In the metaphysical world that has only recently entered our collective consciousness; every action produces a ripple that can have wide reaching effects. With enough synergy of intention, it may be possible to do the impossible, to come together as a society that takes care of its needs through the marketing of egalitarian, creative, sustainable production and service.