Cigarettes and Ethics

There was a time, not so long ago, that it was perfectly acceptable to have a cigarette ad on television, the radio, and all forms of media available for public consumption.  Why wouldn’t it be?  Tobacco companies were firms establish to create a product and provide it for public consumption.  I have seen the tobacco industry reluctantly decrease the advertisements from anything that can openly be viewed by children.  NASCAR drivers no longer race for the Winston Cup and Joe Camel and the Marlboro Man are relics of an ad campaign that now stand for the atrocities that Big Tobacco committed against society.

I am not here to judge tobacco companies though.  I turned out to be a non-smoker in spite of being exposed to all of the vicious ads that were meant to subconsciously compel me to chain-smoke a pack a day.  The tobacco industry provides a cautionary tale of one of the ethical dangers that marketers face in trying to gain insight.

Before getting into whether or not it is acceptable to market cigarettes to children, we need to discuss ethics in general.  The dictionary defines ethics as a set of moral principles that define a person’s or group’s behavior.  Simple, right?  Well, it turns out that there are many sets of principles that people gain from their culture, upbringing, and a myriad of other factors that generate infinite combinations of moral principles not to mention how the definition of moral becomes a factor.  The bottom line is that ethics can be very hard to define.  To ease the tension, organizations create a baseline level of ethics, such as the seven Army values.  The point of this is to bring everyone to the same set of moral principles regardless of what set they joined with.  Problem solved!

Not quite.  Even with a set of baseline moral principles, they are all still open to interpretation.  Interpretation will vary based on culture, environment, and many other factors and is an additional point of stickiness in promoting ethical behavior.  Let’s take the cadet honor code at West Point.  I personally believe that it is one of the most comprehensive codes and it is enforced fiercely by the students at West Point.  The cadet honor code is: “A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, nor tolerate those that do.” Simple, effective, and with a vicious bite.  Suspected violators are “tried” in front of a board of their peers and if found guilty, are dismissed.  Despite all this, the honor code cannot always influence behavior.  For one thing, it is limited to lying, cheating, stealing, and toleration.  Therefore, it can be interpreted that anything outside those activities is perfectly fine.  This code also relies heavily on the support of those that choose to follow it.  In this case, the cadets.  For this ethical principle and enforcement to work, the cadets themselves have to believe in it and define what a violation actually is.  Furthermore, the penalty for violating the code must be so severe, that there is no mistake in approaching the line.

Methods of gathering information about customer preferences have received criticism for being too invasive, especially to the privacy conscious.  On the other hand, such information, often about a problem a customer did not realize needed resolution, is extremely useful to the marketers and the customer.  So where is the line?  Back to cigarettes.  There was a time when it was okay to market cigarettes.  As the methods of marketing tobacco became more and more effective, and as the harmful effects of tobacco became more apparent, it became more more “unethical” to participate in marketing of those products.

I believe that wherever the ethical line is for any given individual, the ambiguity of how companies gain information about customers (and what the information is used for) makes it too difficult to navigate.  It is possible for some of these actions to be seen as completely harmless now only to evolve into a social plague.  The good news is that marketers still have the opportunity to shape public perception about these techniques and the uses of the information.  Taking an active approach now can create a favorable impression of the methods, but more importantly continue to monitor the perception and take steps towards staying on the ethical side (assuming that is the priority).

It is important to understand what is considered ethical, and a good measuring stick is public perception.  Armed with that information, companies and marketers can take the steps identified in the other examples to ensure ethical behavior.  As the definition of being ethical changes, so can the company’s efforts.  Over time, this will earn customers’ trust and will allow them to share more information willingly.  Using the information, to the customer’s benefit (or perceived benefit) will keep the company in their good graces.

We must not overlook the profitability of using insights without worrying about ethics.  While there is likely ample opportunity to be profitable, the risk associated with having an ethical misstep could cause a company, especially one without substantial resources, to disappear.  At the very least, it can destroy the company’s or the industry’s image.  Just ask Joe Camel and the Marlboro man.