Two weeks ago, at the family day of the Eucharistic Congress on Margaret Island, I spoke as an invited guest about the ethical issues in the marketing profession.
It is easy to say that we do not work with products that create unfounded healing hopes, but is it ethical to assist in the communication of a product that, while not harmful, also does not bring any benefit? Is it ethical to promote a nutritionally void, quasi-physiologically useless soft drink by claiming it brings the family together? My debate partner included Dr. Sarolta Baritz a nurse who was previously a top manager at one of the multinational cola distributors.
It does not require a great moral sense to say no to products that create unfounded healing hopes. Someone will not be a good person simply because they say no to something that the majority would also reject.
I think the real ethical challenge is to say no to something that is very tempting because it comes with a lot of money, especially since society does not condemn it either. I admit, I have stumbled in this regard several times, which is why I tried to appear somewhat lenient with my conversation partners (a lecturer from Corvinus University and a Catholic nun). In the end, I posed a provocative question.
I knew that the deeply respected Dr. Sarolta Baritz, Sister Laura leads a specialized training on Christian social principles in the economy at the Sapientia College of Theology for Religious Orders, but previously she was a top manager at Pepsi. I raised the question that if we agree that being bad is not good, then let’s consider what makes marketing behavior sustainably good?
Alright, social etiquette teaches that lying is ugly. But are we unethical if we sell a physiologically unnecessary, thus useless, zero-calorie drink, say cola, using marketing manipulation techniques? A wide range of society not only does not condemn it but happily consumes those soft drinks that certainly do not contribute to our health; we drink them just for fun.
Here, I also have an open bottle of Coca-Cola, and I down two or three Red Bulls a day. I have never thought to blame their marketers for my decision to buy these in the store.
We constantly say that evil marketers influence ordinary people until they buy something they do not want. As if we were forcing the masses, who would not want it on their own, with dark magic.
The seven deadly sins must be prohibited precisely because if they were not forbidden, people would engage in them. Albert Szent-Györgyi formulated that every moral prohibition is the inverse of a natural desire. After all, it is unnecessary to prohibit us from munching raspberries on the backs of dolphins because this rarely presents us with not only the means but also the will.
We prohibit what we would otherwise do. I do not want to absolve marketers with this, but I pose the question:
should we also say no to what is only considered harmful by a smaller group? When does it become unethical to promote meat consumption, gasoline cars, or pharmaceutical manufacturers?
So, is it unethical to say that a physiologically worthless cola is essential for family meals? It is not, as long as the recipient is also aware that they are seeing an advertisement. Let’s treat people as adults, allowing them to decide what message is interesting to them. Meanwhile, let’s also adhere to our own value system.
As marketers, instead of misleading, let’s entertain, educate, and provide useful materials. That is our moral obligation.
