You may or may not have noticed, but I followed the example of the French this summer and took the whole of August off!  I've thoroughly enjoyed the brilliant summer we've had here in the south-east - but I have to confess it is hard to settle back at the desk when the blue skies are still taunting me through the window.  However, now I am back I am making a short departure from the marketing myths series I started because I am driven to write about my distress at the way I have seen ‘marketing' portrayed recently - mostly because the bad press seems to be warranted.

"Marketing" (a generic term, written and spoken with a sneer or a metaphorical spit on the ground, and conjuring up pictures of sharp young execs in global organisations or ad agencies) it seems is behind many of the ills in society, be that obesity, anti-social behaviour, or the breakdown in communities.

I'll give just a couple of examples.  I was watching a TV documentary recently about how little consumers understand of what goes into their food.  An experiment was carried out, with the help of a design agency, to prove that with the right packaging, naming and imagery "marketing" could convince the buyer that the item (a meat pie in this example) was wholesome and trustworthy.  This despite the fact that the small print ingredients list identified the contents as reclaimed meat and gristle combined with a cocktail of flavours and preservatives. 

And I have recently read ‘Toxic Childhood' by Sue Palmer who sets out to explain why so many children these days suffer from learning difficulties and disruptive behaviour, and why society as a whole should care about this.  Her hypothesis sets out a complex interaction of different factors, but behind many of them is the evil hand of "marketing".  As in the previous example, "marketing" can convince the unwary public that they are buying good wholesome food while actually creating very unhealthy eating habits.  And children are specifically targeted as an audience to create ‘pester power' for foods, toys, games and all manner of merchandise linked to film and TV characters.  

All of this left me feeling quite shamefaced about my profession.  While I don't believe there is a malicious or evil intent behind these activities, I do think that the profession of marketing needs to take responsibility for the long term repercussions of its actions.  While the marketing folk involved may justify what they do on the grounds of consumer choice and meeting real needs (for speed, convenience, entertainment, etc.) the evidence is now mounting that there are downsides to our fast-paced lives and that we cannot assume that we the public do have the information, or the inclination, to make fully informed choices.  The convenience of ready-meals and TV dinners has been shown to be responsible for the decline in families eating together, which in turn is leading to breakdown in communication skills and family life.  Not something that was foreseen at the outset, I'm sure.

But we should remember that markets are not passive or static. Consumers (or the market) can also play a stronger role in this process by demanding better controls and more honest information on products and packaging.  Government may also need to play a more authoritative role.  Ultimately, being an optimist by nature, I am hopeful that "marketing" will respond to this problem by recognising the real needs of society and developing and promoting products that will reverse these negative trends.  There are some small signs of the start of this process through the introduction of healthy options and games that encourage active rather than sedentary lives (e.g. Wii fit) which, putting cynicism aside, is a step in the right direction.

In the meantime, my personal experience with working with many marketers in businesses in the UK, is that they have integrity and honesty in abundance.  So I shall hold my head high and continue to defend marketing as an essential and positive aspect of our market economy!