One
thing that always thrills me is linking things together that are seemingly
unrelated at the onset. Sometimes it appears that the topics that we study in our
classes at Embry-Riddle have a semi-logical progression but at times are
random. They all link back to the overall course topic (for this current class,
everything deals with ethical decision-making) but the topics in any given
module are often independent topics so I love trying to find commonalities
between them. For example, our primary text and discussion for the week centers
on slippery slope arguments (SSAs) which admonish us to either perform or omit
an act based on it leading to another act which may be unethical. (For example,
there is nothing wrong with having an alcoholic drink but it may cause you to
want to have more and can lead to drunkenness so it is best to not even have
the first drink.) However, this blog centers around the ethics of marketing.
The two are seemingly unrelated but I saw a connection which I will briefly
discuss later in this blog.
With
my current job, I am very involved in marketing. Let’s face it – military recruiters
are salespeople. As a Center Leader, I could put “sales manager” on my resume
without feeling like I was lying. With my job, I evaluate and analyze data
support systems, conduct area canvasing, conduct training, act as a human
resource advocate, and market my product (a career in the Army). Therefore, it
is critical that I understand the ethics of marketing.
Before
I get too deep into this, I want to remind you that there are two primary
theories of ethics – deontology and consequentialism. As a quick refresher,
deontologists focus on the principle of the matter. A consequentialist tends to
look at second and third order effects of a decision. If you subscribe to
deontology, you may automatically dismiss marketing at unethical. In order to
push a product, there may be some gray areas that might be hard for a deontologist
to swallow. That may be a bad way to frame it but I think it makes the point.
The
Army (especially the U.S. Army Recruiting Command – USAREC) is a very corporate
environment and closely resembles many other organizations and business. We
face our fair share of ethical decision-making dilemmas. As recruiters,
misconceptions have led to a somewhat tainted reputation. Actually, I don’t
know that they are misconceptions. There were surely instances in the past that
violated public trust with the way that we marketed ourselves. We were able to
mostly recover from that, though, and repair our reputation. “Businesses that
effectively manage ethics can systemically absorb, react, and appropriately
adjust to most breakdowns in conduct or decisions” (Ferrell, n.d., p. 3). It is
critical that any professional organization have a formal system in place to
deal with ethics. This includes both training on ethical standards/conduct and
established procedures for dealing with breaches of ethics. The ethical codes
can be both explicit such as written codes of conduct and standards or implicit
through dress codes, anecdotes, and treatment of both employees and customers
(Ferrell, n.d.). Though I don’t have a basis of comparison, I believe that
USAREC has one of the strongest ethics programs available. As an example, the
entire Bronx Company received an all-day workshop from the USAREC Office of
Command Psychology. The intent of the training was to increase trust and
communication to increase team cohesion and integrity. In the past, we had a
huge problem with recruiters doing whatever they could to put people in the
Army. A lot of bad stuff was happening. Recruiters were having inappropriate
relationships with recruits, they were coaching applicants on how to conceal
disqualifying information, and they were often telling lies such as promising
combat exemptions or bonuses that didn’t exist.
Even
with our formal programs along with our explicit and implicit guidelines, it
may be impossible to eliminate unethical behavior. “Academic studies have shown
that in any workplace, at least 10 percent of employees will take advantage of
situations if the opportunity exists and the risk of being caught is low”
(Ferrell, n.d., p. 6). Additionally, another 40 percent will go along with the
group and not report the wrongdoing for fear of social repercussions. Though
the Army strictly enforces our core values to include integrity, we are
comprised of the members of society so this statistic still applies to us. That
means that even in USAREC where multiple screenings take place to weed out
those that don’t belong, unethical practices will happen. However, “the goal is
to recognize that while you cannot remove the risk of ethical misconduct, great
leaders are prepared” (Ferrell, n.d., p. 8).
Remember
that I said that USAREC had some serious issues in the past. You can see
countless videos on YouTube about recruiter misconduct. There are a couple that
are particularly embarrassing where people had hidden cameras while talking to
recruiters that are spewing all sorts of lies. The most embarrassing video,
though, is probably of a recruiter in Oklahoma that was using his government
vehicle trolling for prostitutes. Talk about tainting the organization! It is
so difficult to repair a reputation with stakeholders! Even in civilian
organizations, this same concept is true. “Poor sales performance is easier to
recover from than ethical misconduct” (Ferrell, n.d., p. 9).
Using
this base knowledge, let me address a few issues in marketing outside of the
Army. First, how can organizations balance the need to “win” with ethics?
Remember that I said that this may be a bit difficult for deontologists because
there is often a little bit of gray area. Obviously lying is immoral and
therefore unethical but it often seems that marketers do just that. I saw a
funny meme on social media that had three different brands of toothpaste. Each
had a caption that said something similar such as “9 out of 10 dentists
recommend this” or “4 out of 5 dentists prefer this”. All of them said
basically the same thing indicating that the majority of dentists recommended
their product. How can the majoring recommend all of those products? Are those
marketers lying to us? Perhaps. But perhaps they are also balancing the need to
make a profit with ethics. Suppose they polled 1,000 dentists and found only 9
that recommended their product. The statement “9 out of 10” can still be a technically
true statement if you only count those nine plus one more. A deontologist would
say that is misleading but a consequentialist would say that it is technically
true and harms no one but serves the organization. Consider marketing practices
in the sugary snacks industry (Frank, 2017). They use actual facts but tend to
omit the facts that do not support their cause to help market their products.
Is this ethical? Well…maybe. Again, the deontologist will be quick to say no
but the consequentialist will notice that an entire industry rides on this
marketing. Is candy evil? No, not in moderation. Do we really want to put
thousands of people out of work and never eat candy again? This argument isn’t
just limited to unhealthy products and toothpaste, though. But where do we draw
the line?
Speaking
of drawling a line, surely you have heard about companies tracking your
browsing history to market products to you. I see this all the time on my
social media. Even just today, I saw a targeted advertisement for the EMBA
program at Pace University which is located here in Manhattan. A lot of people
now feel that this is a violation of their privacy. The search engines are
selling their history and IP/MAC addresses to advertisers which some view as a
violation of privacy. Is this ethical? Well, it is legal. That much is for
sure. I think that the real question, then, is what are companies doing to
protect that data (Bradlow, Gangwar, Kopalle, & Voleti, 2017)? The true
ethical dilemma comes with that burden of protection. The risk of malicious
compromise and mishandling is minimal due to the effort required to truly
analyze the data but there is a risk. That data must therefore be protected but
a consequentialist may realize in an analysis that the cost of protecting the
data of millions of people far exceeds the cost of reparations should damage to
an individual occur. This is where we must refer back to the point made by
Ferrell (n.d.) that the damage to reputation is more difficult to repair than
poor sales.
As I
wrap up this week’s blog, I want to remind you that I like to link our topics. As
a leader charged with marketing a product, I have to remember that both the
carrots and the sticks – the positive and negative motivators – that I provide
can open the door to unethical conduct in my organization (Ferrell, n.d.). In
other words, the incentives that I provide for stellar performance as well as
the consequences for a lack of production can both encourage my team to take
shortcuts. Though a few shortcuts might not be a big deal, they may set a
precedent for future unethical behavior thus taking the first step onto a
slippery slope. As a Center Leader, it is up to me to ensure that I balance
mission accomplishment with ethics. In this case, though, I do believe that I
have to put my deontologist ways to the side and look at the big picture. When
it comes to marketing, I think we have to be consequentialists but we have to
watch out for that slippery slope!
Bradlow,
E. T., Gangwar, M., Kopalle, P., & Voleti, S. (2017). The Role of Big Data
and
Predictive
Analytics in Retailing. Journal of
Retailing, 93(1), 79-95.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/10.1016/j.jretai.2016.12.00
Ferrell,
L. (n.d.). Marketing Ethics.
University of Wyoming.
Frank,
M. K. (2017). Sugarcoating the Truth.
Scholastic, Inc.
No comments:
Post a Comment