Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
The text discusses the micro-marketing/macro-marketing dilemma in great depth. However, I feel that
the text does not do a very good job of presenting this information; nor does it make it clear
how it is applicable to marketers. Thus, I want to clarify it a bit. Micro-marketing
has to do with individual organizations' marketing goals and objectives, which is to make a profit.
Profit, by itself, if not a bad thing -- though it is possible for companies to make excessive
profits at the expense of consumers. However, for a company to stay in business, it must
eventually turn a profit. This applies to non-profits, as well. Non-profits would rather
make a slight profit and re-invest it into the organization, than to show a loss for
the year and have to incur debt that must be repaid eventually. Macro-marketing has
to do with HOW society's goals/objectives are met as companies seek to make profits.
In other words, society wants companies to be socially responsible during their pursuit
of profits. This includes respecting human rights, protecting the environment and competing
fairly. Dilemmas occur when these two types of marketing are in conflict. Let's consider
BP, British Petroleum. This is a company that currently has a very poor consumer perception
due, primarily, to the oil spill they had in the Gulf of Mexico. In addition, their
main product, oil, helps pollute the air that we breathe. It is very clear to see that they
have ethical dilemmas in trying to provide a product almost every human being wants & needs
(gas for their cars), while respecting the environment. However, let's consider a company
with a very positive image with consumer: Tom's shoes. As many of you will know, Tom's
shoes will send a pair of shoes to a child in need in a third world country for every
one of their shoes purchased. People who buy their products feel good as they get a nice
product while simultaneously helping a child in need. However, they face ethical dilemmas,
just like BP! Think about how the shoes come packaged: in cardboard boxes. Tom's might
use recycled paper, but even then, not all of their materials used are recycled. Thus,
in one way or another, they have contributed to deforestation! Deforestation is one of
the potential causes of global warming. Even worse, how do these packages get to retail
stores that sell Tom's shoes? On trucks! Even if these are hybrid trucks, they still pollute.
Thus, adding to global warming. In the end companies must balance meeting society's demands
with making a profit. Being "green" increases costs. If these costs increases too high,
profits disappear! Thus, both Toms' and BP must decide how "far" they are willing and
able to go in being socially responsible! This is NOT an easy decision to make regardless
of what critics of business might believe. There is often one big difference between
those companies that are in conflict with society's goals, but still have positive company
images versus those that have negative images. Those who have positive images are usually
proactive in their social responsibility activities whereas those with negative images are often
reactive social responsibility. This is best seen by McDonalds. Though I doubt McDonalds
is anymore to blame for childhood obesity than other fast food restaurants, they have
had a knack in the past to wait until consumer groups complain about them before taking any
positive steps. Companies like Ben & Jerry's, however, seem to carefully monitor consumer
sentiment about social responsibility and usually attempt to implement positive changes
before they become an issue.