Been busy - and a bit distracted the last couple of weeks. Want to pick up on the idea that one of the core arguments against marketing being "necessary" is that it can - and often is used for less than positive purposes - some would say evil.
To get there we need to think about the core element of marketing - exchange. In theory marketing is usually thought of as an exhange - a transaction that is freely entered into by both sides - that a seller offers and a buyer accepts.
Sounds good - free exchange freely entered into - what could possibly be wrong with that. Well what if one side knows something the other does not - what if the seller knows that tobacco is both harmful and addictive but instead of sharing this info with the buyer, the tobacco company goes to great lengths to create an image of smoking as something cool and part of a cultural norm.
The problem of asymmetrical information is real - and marketers either knowingly or not have used this to promote and persuade consumers to engage in exchanges without full knowledge about the costs and benefits of the transaction.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Had a couple of distractions to deal with - and sorry for disappearing for awhile. I have a couple of thoughts floating around that I will try and get sorted out over the next few days. The core of what I will be trying to explore is the idea that marketing is different from marketing activities and that until we sort through this distinction we end up in a very muddled place. In suggesting that the activities of marketers - advertising for example - can and often do occur outside of the realm of marketing I am swimming upstream - the great Shelby Hunt considers the distinction to be a moot point - settled law if you will. I will try and make the case for the contrary.