Should a firm use different criteria in targeting such groups as the aged, ethnic minorities or the disabled?

Question

Some firms have been criticized for targeting unwholesome products to certain segments of the market. Should the government oversee and control such marketing activities?

Answer 1

Yes. Marketing unwholesome products is an externality of market economies and is the reason why government exist (by market economic standards).

However, different segments have different tastes so, in the case of wholesome products, it is completely legitimate to use different market strategies for different segments.

Answer 2

Angela ... You ask a good question regarding a very worthwhile issue.

You asked about a firm's target/marketing techniques. I think it's only natural to prepare your marketing strategy to fit the group(s) that you expect will use your product/services the most. After all, you wouldn't expect Outback Steak House to be advertising to a group of vegetarians.

However, I think you were actually meaning to ask whether it's appropriate to take advantage of someone's ignorance and/or vulnerabilities. Am I correct? The answer to that should always be no, of course.

A different aspect of your question asks whether a certain group might not be a fair target. No, it is NOT fair for a company selling tobacco products to target teens, for example. In fact, there was once a company that made candy sticks that looked just like cigarettes. I remember these from my youth back in the '50s. Eventually someone began to suspect that the company making this product was trying to entice pre-teens and teens to imitate the habits of smokers, thereby increasing the likelihood that they'll become smokers as adults. I think that company stopped producing that particular candy product.

Lastly, you asked about the government overseeing these activities. I see why you think this would be a good idea. Such a government agency could also serve as a central location for screening product marketing tactics.

However, I don't think it would work well. As you might already know, the federal government cannot even regulate all food stuffs and nutrition supplements that are sold. If you go to a specialty store, their shelves are STACKED with "cures" for EVERYthing from obesity to poor eye sight ... from sleeplessness to dry skin ... from baldness to constipation.

The products are brought to market faster than you can blink your eye. Requiring all these companies to obtain approval for their marketing strategy would create a bureaucracy such as we've never seen before. Furthermore, a so-called "government seal of approval" would imply there's a guarantee that the product is safe and effective. However, such assertions could not possibly assure that EVERY product tested would in fact be beneficial to EVERYone who might consider using it.

Yes, I know you specifically addressed marketing activities. However, that mandate would soon "evolve" and expand into a request that the government evaluate the products themselves.

Therefore, as great as your theory is — and I do sincerely applaud the thought — I think it would not be practical and might be immensely difficult to implement. I do not want to sound as though I'm discouraging you, but I honestly believe that such a tremendous investment of resources would not produce significant benefits. That's just my opinion.

Good luck, Angela, and thanks for posing this quesiton.

Answer 3

I guess that depends on your concept of freedom.

Not only the freedom of the companies to advertise to whomever they want, but also the freedom of individuals to choose unwholesome products if they want them.

How far do we go? No one can have something that is unhealthy? No one is free to do anything harmful to their own body? Once we begin down the slippery slope of removing liberties "for our own good" where do we draw the line? Who decides what is permissible or not? SHOULD this person be in the position to make that decision or would it be better to allow maximum freedom and let the individuals decide for themselves?

As I am sure you can tell, I fall on the side of more freedom and less government intervention.

Answer 4

You are assuming that aged, ethnic minorities and the disabled are less competent than the general public, and therefore in need of special protection. I think the only group that is less competent is minor children, but there are and should be laws that require ethical behavior by businesses for all there customers.

Answer 5

no. If you do not like what business is doing, do not buy from it, and convince others to boycott them as well.

Government should only step in if advertizing mis-informs consumers about potentially harmful good (like alcohol and tobacco)