In its best form “marketing”/”advertising” is just “information”
If you have a great product that does “whatever” the best use of your “marketing” budget is to build awareness of the products benefits among folks that need to do “whatever it is that your product does”
e.g. say you make beer or running shoes – and your goal is to continue to sell beer or running shoes.
Spending time educating potential customers about the benefits of your beer or running shoes is gonna be much more effective than – I don’t know, randomly pushing a social agenda.
e.g. The “craft beer” industry got its start by educating folks on how “good beer” should taste. The “athletic shoe” business had to educate/inform how their shoes improved performance.
Leadership
This is where competent leadership would say “hey, we are NOT a social advocacy company — we sell beer (or running shoes) so we are gonna concentrate on making the best beer (or running shoes) and leave the social advocacy for other folks”
That doesn’t mean your company can’t be a “force for positive change” — i.e. being a “good corporate citizen” is always “good business.” It just means that your company has a product to sell and that shouldn’t involve “propaganda.”
Donating to charities or allowing employees “personal time” to volunteer will have intangible benefits — but taking a “corporate stance” on “controversial” issues with marketing decisions is a pointless gamble.
Studio System
For most of the 20th century the above would PROBABLY have qualified as “corporate dogma” for MOST large corporations.
Back in the old “movie studio system” where actors were “under contract” – the studio made an effort to control the public image of “movie stars” and wouldn’t let the actors express “controversial opinions.”
why? because folks on both sides of the issue were potential customers – an actor expressing an opinion would (probably) offend SOMEONE – and that would mean “lower sales”
Yes, they were selling an illusion, but the point was that the studio was NOT in the “advocacy business” – they were selling “escapism”/”entertainment”
Michael Jordan pointed out that he intentionally was NOT “political” because “Republicans and Democrats both buy shoes” (or something along those lines).
Freedom of Speech
The modern business of sport is inherently tied to the “endorsement deal.” I don’t know if anyone can truly claim to have “invented” the idea of celebrity endorsements – i.e. the birth of “mass media” and “marketing” go hand in hand.
Babe Ruth was the best baseball player in the world (and an all time great) at a time when “mass media” was shifting from newspapers to radio. Baseball was helped by radio, which meant that Babe Ruth’s value as a “celebrity endorser” was helped by radio. BUT while the Babe endorsed everything from “cereal to Girl Scout cookies to soap” I’m not sure if he made more money from “playing baseball” or from endorsements.
Arnold Palmer (professional golf great) on the other hand made much more money from “endorsements” than he did from winning golf tournaments. This time Mr Palmer benefited from the growth of “television.”
If a “modern sports star” was looking for an “endorsement” role model – Mr Palmer is probably hard to beat. I’m not a golfer – but I still think of his commercials for a particular motor oil when I’m buying oil.
Of course the “products” that Arnold Palmer was selling were “golf” AND “Arnold Palmer” – I’m sure he had opinions of the controversial subjects of his day, and I’m sure he contributed to multiple charities, he just kept those opinions separate from his “golf professional image.”
In 2023, I’m not opposed to an athlete expressing an opinion on “controversial subjects” – I just prefer that they have an educated opinion on the subject BEFORE they comment.
Of course then “product endorsements” might be impacted by an athlete expressing their opinions. This withdrawal of “corporate approval” is NOT an attack of “freedom if speech” – again, the “company” needs to remember that it is in the business of selling a “product” NOT active propaganda.
You keep using that word …
Propaganda is “ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause” — so is “propaganda” a form of “marketing?”
well, maybe – “propaganda” USUALLY has a very negative connotation. Propaganda is biased and “selectively true” – i.e. trying to present YOUR idea/product in the best possible way – which might also be true of “marketing.” BUT propaganda allows for “allegations” meant to “damage the opposition” – which implies (at best) unethical behavior, which tends counter productive in the long term.
Again “Good marketing” starts with a quality product/service. The goal is to educate folks on how YOUR product can help them solve a problem NOT convince them that your competitors are evil.
Maybe if you have an inferior product/idea then selling “fear uncertainty and doubt” (FUD) is your only option — but wise leadership better serve a company by “repositioning” the product or developing a better product/idea.
Marketing is NOT Manipulation
My point is that “marketing” should equal “education” but NOT “manipulation.”
If a group of “corporate executives” is sitting around thinking “We have the most popular product in the land. We have so much market share it is hard for any new marketing campaign to make a BIG difference one way of the other – you know what we should do? How about we hire a ‘spokesperson’ to advocate for a ‘controversial’ subject!” – well, it is probably time to get some new “corporate executives.”
I cannot think of ANY product at ANY time that has been so popular that the parent company could try to “force feed” a radical agenda to their customers without losing a significant market share.
If a company has “monopoly power” then their “marketing” doesn’t matter – but if there are multiple competitors and the cost of switching is just “I’m never buying that brand again – I will buy this other brand readily available from a competitor that hasn’t insulted my intelligence/integrity” – well, you will probably get “new executives” when the ones that made the terrible marketing blunder get fired
Leave a Reply