An ethical marketer will avoid intentionally harming by omitting or providing misleading information. If a marketing campaign is deceptive it could cause undue hardship which could have devastating effects for both the business and consumer. It is also important that products be advertised to appropriate audiences. There are several populations that are physically, or mentally vulnerable, or those financially distressed. Since these populations are more susceptible to harm, it is imperative that marketing strategies do not aim to take advantage. “it is unfair to market goods to…vulnerable individuals in ways which take advantage of their vulnerability, one that does not turn on the claim that marketing goods to these people in this way would be taking advantage of something over which they have little or no control,” (Palmer et all, 2013, pp. 405). One of my first jobs was as a receptionist for an accounting firm that specialized in tax resolution. This meant helping clients file back taxes and negotiate with various federal and state agencies to resolve these matters. I would frequently hear ads on the radio for firms being able to completely absolve people of their tax debts. When seeing the end results of what would happen with our clients, I was confused as to how these companies were able to get these results so I asked my boss. He explained that getting the IRS to accept an offer in compromise is extremely difficult because the basis of the argument must be that the taxpayer has sustained a hardship that would make them incapable of ever earning income to pay off their liability, such as a contractor who had a lucrative year but then sustained an injury that would prevent them from ever working again in the trade.
These radio ads were not ethical because they were taking advantage of people in financial distress with misleading cases. Many of these companies would charge large retainers upfront and then not yield positive results. Many times these companies would just get government agencies to put clients in an uncollectible status, which is really only a temporary fix since it would have a negative impact on their credit.
I was thankful to find out that the firm I worked at was embracing conscious capitalism. Instead of making false promises to clients, they would be honest and upfront with the likelihood of each avenue of resolving their tax issues. We would always keep them apprised of the progress that we were making and if situations arose that were outside of the spec of the original engagement we would create new goals so there would not but a surprise when they received their bill at the end of the month. “Conscious businesses have trusting, authentic, innovative and caring cultures that make working there a source of both personal growth and professional fulfillment.” By striving to create financial, intellectual, social, cultural, emotional, spiritual, physical, and ecological wealth the firm was able to flourish. Our clients respected that we were always upfront and adjusted expectations. They appreciated that we were transparent with our time spent and that we were not one of the many firms that sent out spam mail the second that their tax liability became public record. In turn return, our business grew from referrals from existing clients.
Gilbert, J. C. (2017, June 27). Can conscious capitalism Survive Amazon? Or the public capital markets? Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/groupthink/2017/06/27/can-conscious-capitalism-survive-amazon-or-the-public-capital-markets/?sh=78be8fc34629#333561394629.
Palmer, D., & Hedberg, T. (2013). The Ethics of Marketing to Vulnerable Populations. Journal of Business Ethics, 116(2), 403–413. https://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1476-2
DQ2 -Defining vulnerable populations can be challenging because it can often rely on circumstances surrounding individuals. Palmer and Hedberg (2012) review and reference the renowned article “Marketing and the Vulnerable” written in 1998 by George Brenkert where it is argued a vulnerable population is defined “as one that is susceptible to harm by others” (p. 404). Brenkert understood that at one time or another the vast majority, if not all, of the population could be susceptible to harm by others. The definition was further developed to identify the group in reference as “specially vulnerable” which needed to fulfill three conditions (Palmer & Hedberg, 2012). The three conditions to be designated as specially vulnerable in terms of marketing populations begins with the stipulation that the person suffers from at least one of the following conditions: physical vulnerability, cognitive vulnerability, motivational vulnerability, or social vulnerability. The second and third conditions are that the person’s vulnerabilities are due to factors largely beyond the person’s control and those vulnerabilities make them more susceptible than normal adults to harm (Palmer & Hedberg, 2012).
According to Palmer and Hedberg (2012), Brenkert argued “that it is morally wrong to market goods to these people in ways that take advantage of their vulnerability” (p. 403). The key to this phrase is the intent to take advantage of the population. According to the Fair Trading Commission (FTC) (n.d.), vulnerable populations are those that may be disadvantaged if they have a low income, language barrier, disability (intellectual, psychological, physical, sensory or learning), a chronic or serious illness, homeless, very young, old, or have poor reading, writing, or math skills.
Government regulation is in place with respect to selling to vulnerable consumers under the Consumer Protection Act Cap 326D which “prohibits misleading or deceptive conduct which can include leaving out or hiding important information, making false claims about services or products” (FTC, n.d., para 11). This act “applies to all interactions with the public, from the overall impression you create in your advertising to one-on-one sales situations” (FTC, n.d., para 11). As Palmer and Hedberg (2012) reference, the concerns about marketing should be the same for vulnerable populations as it is for the general population because the business should portray the product accurately, not omit relevant information, and not deceive the consumer. While the specially vulnerable may be less capable of resisting some unethical marketing techniques, these techniques are impermissible regardless of the target population (Palmer & Hedberg, 2012). Additional regulations would not necessarily have the desired result, rather businesses engaging in conscious leadership with strong established codes of ethics for marketing would be a better solution.
Looking to the Christian worldview, specifically the four core principles, application of these concepts and those associated with conscious capitalism would result in ethically marketing to all consumers, vulnerable populations included. Showing a concern for others through the “golden rule”, understanding free will, that there is an individual responsibility, and an acceptance of traditional moral values will guide businesses to make good ethical decisions (Last Post, n.d.). Incorporating the pillars of conscious capitalism of a higher purpose, stakeholder orientation, and conscious capitalism will be inclusive of vulnerable populations, reinforcing ethical marketing choices
