a) Ethics can be a rather prejudiced matter; whether it is ethical to market products directly at children depends on several factors:
- The age of the children being targeted (younger children are more susceptible so it may be considered less ethical if marketing is directed at them)
- People's perceptions of what is wrong or right
- The type of product(s) being marketed at children - e.g. educational toys. and textbooks or mobile phones and fast food?
- The type of marketing/selling techniques being used - e.g. hard-selling and bait-and-switch aimed at children would probably be considered unethical by most people
Arguments beside marketing products directly at children:
- Are children able to sort out so much advertising clutter?
- Social and Peer pressures to conform
- Children (especially the very young) are vulnerable and are easily manipulated / influenced by what they see and hear
- Pester power techniques can be a source of tension between family members
Other issues:
- Award up to 2 marks for suitable definition of Pester Power. Directly targeting children would be considered immoral if marketing techniques take advantage of parents and/ or their children
- Marketing at children does not have to be offensive, aggressive, unethical or distasteful
- Children today tend to have more power and autonomy in decision making
- The bottom line - parents have the conclude say and, in theory, should be able to make rational decisions in the best interest of their children
b) The likely outcomes are likely to be either negative or positive:
|
Negative outcomes
|
Positive outcomes
|
- Punishments for breaking consumer protection laws
|
- Reverse psychology to attract people to buy (Yorkie bar example in the case study)
|
- Upsetting the general public (e.g. Thierry & Guy's Fat Bastard brand of wines)
|
- Viral marketing / Word of mouth (e.g. the rebranding of FCUK worked well for the organisation)
|
- Damaging the corporate brand image (which could be irrevocable)
|
- Brand awareness - shock tactics can bring publicity and draw attention to a firm and/or its products
|
- Boycotting of a firm that causes offense to the public
|
- Can be memorable and humorous even if (slightly) offensive
|
Issues to consider could include the following:
- What is simply offensive and what is humour?
- Overly offensive adverts are likely to be banned and this therefore could represent unproductive use of money to the business
- Knowledge of shock strategy often spread fast, e.g. viral marketing on the internet
- Award marks for suitable use of real world examples
Whether the outcome is likely to be negative or positive is not always clear. Shock tactics are often a gamble and therefore represent a risky strategy due to their random outcome.