Chilhood Obesity and Unethical Marketing

Editor's Notes

• #2: N.B. LINE OF ARGUMENTATION: Although marketers are responsible for the provision of ethical information, the decisions and ultimate responsibility for childhood obesity relies on the parents and children because it’s a god damn free market economy!
• #16: Introduction to part 2: Where does the responsibility fall? Marketers? Or Parents and Children? Due to the nature of a free market economy, all players have the freedom of choice. The marketers will produce products desired by customers and consumers will purchase products that they want. By understanding this, we must acknowledge that both ‘marketers’ as well as ‘Parents and Children’ will have some degree of responsibility. Although it is ideal that Marketers act with ethical behaviour, the problem is there is no obligation to do so. Carroll (1979) discusses that organisations’ first priority is to suffice their baseline: to be economically profitable. Once they have done this, they have the choice to meet the legal requirements. Regulation by law enforcement agencies ensure that corporations act morally. However, the third level of corporate social responsibility is to provide ethically driven behaviour. This is a grey area. As there is no obligation to do so, this is often seen as an undesirable external costs that undermine the economic bottom line of corporations (to maximise profits). This demonstrates that Marketers are technically NOT responsible for the provision of ETHICAL MARKETING, as they have met their legal requirements set by the regulations (as Marco previously discussed). And Ethical Marketing would significantly hinder the sales of their products in a business that boasts a lucrative bottom line (highly profitable). However, It has been argued that if Marketers DO engage with Corporate Social Marketing there are 6 strongly identifiable BENEFITS that their corporations would receive. (LIST AND BRIEFLY DISCUSS THE 6 BENEFITS) Drawing conclusions from this, it is possible to argue that there are BENEFITS to organisations to engage with Corporate Social Marketing, however, as they are not OBLIGED to do so, society does not hold them RESPONSIBLE for the provision of ethical marketing. Therefore, by default the RESPONSIBILITY of CHILDHOOD OBESITY falls to the PARENTS & CHILDREN. *SLIDE*
• #17: The Problem with the Consumer Psyche is that there is the Intention-Buyer Gap. This shows that although consumers have the intention of purchasing ethically, only 3% actually do.
• #18: The problem of Consumer Psyche is further propagated by the paradox of the free market. Customers are apathetic to organisation’s provision of unethical products, or in the case of this, in the provision of foods that create Childhood Obesity. If they stop engaging then by the law of free markets, organisations would cease to have any demand for their products and they would cease their production. However, in the case that a legislative body did step in to represent the views of the consumer, they in turn would be voiding the underlying and fundamental principles of a free market economy, whereby people have a choice to choose what they consume and organisations choose what they produce. Conclusively, the problem of Australian Childhood Obesity is not going away any time soon. At the rate we are going, the marketers will still market unethical products, legislation won’t step to sufficiently constrain the production and advertising of food and beverages contributing to Childhood Obesity. Finally, this relies on the Parents and Children. Although the responsibility of choice in a democratic society falls upon themselves, Carrington, Neville & Whitwell (2014) demonstrate that even of the 30% of the population who do intend to purchase ethically, only a very few % will commit to do so fully. Therefore responsibility seems to be the one thing that Australia does not poses in abundance when it comes to the growing problem of Childhood Obesity.