|
|
|
You are here: Home > Current Topics > Mind your Business > 07 June 2004 |
|
|
|
|
|
A committee of MPs looking at the issue of obesity in the UK revealed an extraordinary story of the death by heart failure of a 3-year-old girl who weighed an incredible 6 stone (94 pounds). The average weight for a three year old is 2 stone 4 pounds (32 pounds) and the average weight gain for a 3 year old is between 4-6 pounds per year. Whilst the girl's death was related to a genetic disorder rather than obesity, the case raised some concern. The Committee were looking into the problems that are arising as a result of the increase in the number of people classed as being obese in the UK. It has been suggested that obesity could cause the collapse of the National Health Service (NHS) in the future if we do not do something about it now. Part of the strategy to tackle the problem, it has been suggested, is to focus on the responsibility of the food industry in the way that they market their products as well as the amount of information that they provide for customers. Better labelling of food products to inform parents should be adopted and firms should be looking to avoid marketing their products at vulnerable groups like children. In addition, there have been calls for the removal of vending machines in schools which sell sweets, crisps and fizzy drinks and a review of the foods being offered in school canteens. Do such measures represent a sensible approach to dealing with the problem of obesity or is it another example of the 'nanny state' interfering with the rights of individuals to choose their own lifestyle? 
Dark or white chocolate? The choice is yours! © iStock.com The Health Committee seem to be particularly scathing about the role played by business in marketing food products to consumers. It suggests that 'viral marketing' and 'underground communication' are used as means of circumventing the traditional routes of promoting products because - so the implication goes - the companies concerned know that the products they are pushing are not good for your health or at the very least do not contribute to a healthy diet if consumed too heavily. Given that the businesses concerned rely on repeat sales - and lots of them in such markets - it is not surprising that they are looking to encourage purchases! 
OK, we've made the stuff, now how can we sell it? © Photolibrary Group The Guardian quotes the case of Kellogg's marketing of its 'Fruit Winders' product. It highlights the strategies used by Kellogg's to market the product and implies that much of the strategy was aimed at getting to children. Examples of the strategies included the use of 'mutant fruit characters', the development of a 'secret language' used at concerts, magazines and cinemas and using clothing and celebrities getting exposure on TV and other forms of entertainment targeted at the relevant market segment. Kellogg's also used technology with an interactive Web site, micro Web sites on other popular children's sites and e-mails to further push the product. Companies involved in marketing such products would clearly defend their actions. Looking at a sample of food stuffs in my kitchen which our children eat for packed lunches and so on, reveals perhaps how companies manage to persuade parents or maybe, some would argue, deceive them into thinking they are buying something they are not. The products in the image to the left are fairly typical of this case. The box containing the Frusli bars has images of wheat fields, fresh fruit and the claim that these bars have a new 'fruitier taste and lighter texture'. The information on the box also tells me that the company (in this case Jordans) 'insist that our cereals should be grown in a way that respects nature and the environment. We are instrumental in pioneering Conservation Grade farming, a unique system that is helping to reverse the decline in wildlife on British farms'. Excellent, so not only am I giving my children healthy food, I am also helping the environment. The terminology and images all go to suggest a healthy snack bar - fruit and cereals are after all healthy aren't they? 
Looking at the ingredients however, I find that 36.6% of the bar is made up of sugars and 9% of the bar is fat. The BrunchBar contains 15.9% fat and (although I confess this is not entirely clear) all manner of sugars, inverted sugar syrup and glycerine - the exact amounts I am unable to determine because the information is not clear enough for me to be able to make an informed judgement. The other bars are similarly difficult to decipher in terms of exactly what proportion of the bars are sugar, salt and the other ingredients that may not be what I want my children to eat. The companies concerned do however, highlight the 'healthy' ingredients - 'oats, bran flakes, honey and cranberries', the fact that there are 'no GM products' and that the products are 'free from artificial flavourings, colouring and preservatives'. Kellogg's indeed, defended the attack on their Fruit Winders product by claiming it was a 'unique product and are all natural ingredients with no artificial flavourings' (quote from 'Revealed: how food firms target children', The Guardian, May 27, 2004) So the debate centres on the social and ethical responsibility of firms to provide adequate information to consumers about what they are buying and the ethics involved in marketing products to target markets. The purchasers of such products may not be the people who actually consume the product and so this does raise issues of ethical responsibility. |
'Viral marketing' refers to ways in which businesses can get messages about their business to target audiences through 'word of mouth'. The use of the term 'viral' is based on the hope that the way the message spreads will be exponential in nature. For example, one person triggers the message to two others who in turn spread the word to another two friends who in turn do the same thing. Very quickly you are creating a massive growth in the number of people who are aware of your product. The principle of exponential growth can perhaps be best remembered by the analogy of what happens if you keep doubling the number of rice grains on the squares of a chess board - 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, etc.
Hotmail is a well known example of the viral marketing technique. At the foot of the mail message received is the offer to get a free account. The expectation is that others will then open accounts as the network of messages begins to widen. You e-mail your friends; each of them opens up a Hotmail account and in turn e-mail their friends who do the same. It is not difficult to imagine the speed by which the 'viral' message spreads.
It is not just the Internet where this technique can be exploited, other tactics employed include attempting to plug into the expected behaviours of the target market being aimed at - projecting your product as being 'cool', 'trendy', rebellious and so on taps into the common psyche of the target group and helps it to spread more easily. It is deliberately designed to exploit our psychological weaknesses. We all want to be different and individual but in reality we end up all being the same within our little groups. The desire to have a uniform that identifies us with a group, culture or belief is very strong and viral marketing is seeking to take advantage of that desire.
Other characteristics of viral marketing include giving free samples of the product; attempting to exploit existing communication networks between the target market (this may be technological or social). It is suggested that each person has a close network of around a dozen friends - if the message can be spread in some way through exploiting this network the number of people you can reach can be significant and is likely to be more targeted than plain advertising.
For example, a mate tells you about a new CD he has found from an obscure band. You are interested because by the very nature of friendship, you tend to share the same interests - that is what makes you friends - so you then seek it out, in so doing you might then tell one or two other friends in associated networks who in turn tell their friends and so on. The network might be a work based network, a sports club based one, people you socialise with, people you are at school/college or university with, friends from home rather than university and so on.
'Underground communication' deliberately exploits the tendency of people to pass on messages primarily using technology as the means. Think about it, you receive a joke via e-mail or text message. How many of you pass on that message to the people in your address book? Underground communication aims to exploit this tendency and can be very effective.
Businesses have learned that fortuitous references to their product in totally unusual circumstances can bring massive benefits. One such example was Altoids, a mint sold in the US. The company's sales rose dramatically after they were mentioned in a hoax e-mail related to the Bill Clinton/ Monica Lewinsky affair. Companies therefore might not deliberately put around false information but they can sow seeds that others may well expand and develop.
Given the marketing techniques mentioned above, the issue of whether such techniques are 'right' comes into play. Social responsibility refers to the responsibility a firm has of the impact of their product and activities on society. Ethical responsibilities refer to the moral basis for business activity and whether what the business does is 'right' and is underpinned by some moral purpose - doing what is 'right'.
The problem arises when asking 'doing what is right for whom?' A private sector firm is primarily responsible to its shareholders - the owners of the business - who in turn will wish to see the firm grow, expanding sales and profits. In so doing there may be a conflict with the responsibility a firm has to the health and welfare of its customers. In the case of the food products quoted, companies like Kellogg's have a responsibility to develop new products, market them and generate profits for their shareholders. Should they be doing so at the expense of the health of those who consume their products?
Many businesses will claim to have a socially responsible code of practice that they adhere to as well as an ethical stance to their activities but such claims are sometimes refuted and criticised by opponents. It is all very well claiming to have no artificial colouring and preservative and be against GM foods but this comes to nothing if you are filling children up with sugars which contribute to obesity, heart disease and high blood pressure.
This brings us to the issue of the 'nanny state'. If companies cannot be trusted to be responsible themselves, then it will be up to the government to do it for them, either by legislation or regulation, and at the same time tell us what we are supposed to eat. One example of such a policy therefore could be the banning of vending machines from schools. Is this acceptable? Clearly school children cannot be trusted to look after themselves properly so we will remove the temptation for them. In effect therefore the government is seen to act like a 'nanny' looking after our welfare for us because we are not capable of doing it ourselves!
Part of the policy response by the government could be passing legislation that forces businesses to give clearer information on packaging to help consumers make more informed choices about what they buy. Such legislation would impose additional costs on businesses and ultimately would put up the price of the product to the consumer. Are we willing to pay such a price for the extra information? Do we read any of it anyway?
The issues therefore are complex and open, as with so many in business and economics, to subjective interpretation. The solution may be to try to arrive at some form of balance between the rights of people to choose their own lifestyle, be informed about the consequences of that lifestyle and to be protected from the unknown by the government. Where that balance lies though is not at all clear!
