The Industrial Revolution lead to the vast consumer culture of today. Mass production allowed products to be made by the minute and by the hundred, allowing consumers what they wanted, when they wanted it. With new products came new technology. The assembly line, railroad, and telegraph were all game changers in the years of the Revolution. The assembly line allowed efficient production of goods, the railroad provided transportation of goods, and the telegraph provided a means of communicating goods. With access to communication, companies and businesses began to sell products to a wider audience. Companies needed a way to showcase their products and entice their broad range of buyers. This need then started the industry of Marketing. Marketing was a turning point in the business world back then, and continues to be the main source driving product consumption.  Increased competition allowed businesses to develop brands targeting specific audiences. Marketing no longer served as a way to communicate products and services but a way to communicate that a company or brand offered the best products and services. Through the years marketing has evolved and adapted based on the consumer culture. Today’s generation continues to manipulate the Marketing system, but possibly more than others in the past. With the rise of social media and the broad access to information and publication, the effects of marketing have taken on a new life. Where some people praise marketing for its innovation and creativity, others argue that marketing has gone too far in persuading customers to buy products. This paper will take a closer look at the debate of how marketing has positively and negatively affected consumers and how it will affect consumers in the future. 

Marketing had humble beginnings with the simple goal of informing customers of new products that would meet their needs. Before marketing, sellers identified strategies to simply sell products. Salesmen became noticeably desperate for sales, seeking to hunt buyers and make a quick and short-term transaction. The philosophy resulted in selling great quantity rather than great quality. Companies began to realize a gap between seller and buyer transactions with greater competition in the marketing place. Companies had to figure a way to sell products to consumers in the short-term while creating a lasting impression with customers in the long run. Marketing served to bridge the gap between sellers and buyers, changing the focus from selling a product to benefiting the customer. Companies adopted the Marketing Concept which suggested that decisions should first focus on knowing the customer’s needs and wants and then developing a strategy to market a product or service that meets those needs and wants. (Boundless) Since the 1970’s the basic characteristics of marketing have remained the same. Technology has created new outlets for marketing to reach a wider audience but with the same intention of serving the consumer first. While marketers take full advantage of new social media outlets praising the low cost advertising, easy to access trends, and access to a broader audience, critics of the 21st century argue that marketing has exhausted newer outlets and proven to negatively impact the consumer.  

Similar critics, Jagdish N. Sheth and Rajendra S. Sisodia, believe marketing has abandoned its unique role in the world- as voice of the customer and has settled to remain another business function. Sheth and Sisodia, authors of “A Dangerous Divergence,” argue that marketing’s focus should be less about representing the company to the customer and more about representing the customer to the company. They explain this divergence of marketing by identifying two deficiencies including lack of respect within a corporation and lack of respect by consumers. Marketing has fallen short of serving the customer and has instead began serving the product to the customer. Marketing managers are spending more time creating products that maximize profits than creating products that deliver high levels of “real value” to customers. Often companies are guilty of finding advertising tactics that best “trick” a customer into buying a product. A study by Bentley College and Emory University uncovered the managerial agenda driving marketing. The study found 62% of a given group had a negative attitude towards product advertisements while 28% remained neutral and only 10% had a positive attitude towards product advertisements (Jagdish). Short-term maximization of sales and profitability have taken priority over the company and consumer long term interest and benefit. Sheth and Sisodia metaphorically relate this kind of marketing to a potent drug, depicting marketing as a drug with potentially serious side effects. Similar to a strong drug, marketing serves as a strong influence which can be abused to overwhelm its intended effects.  Marketing has the power to align interest of corporations and their customers. Moreover, marketing has the power to influence public opinion and society as a whole. The power to shape society’s attitudes and culture should not be underestimated. Specific groups have become the target for marketing campaigns. Among these groups are young children. 

For example, recent research suggests that food marketing affects children’s preferences, short and long term dietary consumption, and purchase requests. One study observed children ranging from two to six years of age. One set of children watched a television show with a series of commercials while another set watched the television show without commercials. After the show ended, children were presented with pairs of similar products advertised in the commercials and asked to choose a preference.  Researchers found that children who were exposed to the commercials selected the advertised products significantly more than the children who did not see the commercials. The study proved the ease at which a child can be manipulated through marketing. Another study relating to food preference, accessed food choice by directly observing children’s eating behavior. Over a two–week field experiment children between the ages of five and eight watched a series of cartoons embedded with one of three types of ads: candy commercials, fruit commercials, or pro-nutrition PSA’s. A fourth group watched the TV show without ads. After each viewing session children chose two snacks from a selection of two fruits and two candies that had appeared in the commercials. Children who saw the candy commercial consumed significantly more candy than children in the other three categories. Once again, proving marketing’s power of choice motivation. In the bigger picture, marketing has the power to not only influence short term decision making but affect long term decision making, which in turn can alter long–term health. Companies can use this power to motivate children’s preference of healthy eating, possibly resulting in better long-term health.  Marketing directors know that people are motivated by things they want. Children gravitate towards colorful and fun goodies, of which can be seen in kid’s clothes, shows, games, and toys. In the same way, marketing departments target older audiences by appealing to status, money, peace of mind, power, or sexual pleasure. (Chernin)

Moreover, studies have demonstrated that sexual appeal attracts more attention in adult viewers.  For this reason, marketing departments have integrated sexual information into PSA’s and other materials for a range of issues. For a time, social marketers used sexual information to promote safe sex and other fields relating to sex. However, sexual information has been more recently used in ways not explicitly linked to sex. For example, the American Cancer Society PSA featured a mildly suggestive image of a couple applying sunscreen with the title, “how to rub out skin cancer.” The purpose of this title and image are to inflict appealing thoughts to the viewer and ultimately inflict positive feelings toward the company (Reichert).  The viewer is likely to rely on the positive cognitions evoked by the sexual information to guide decision making. This effective use of marketing can positively impact companies like the American Cancer Society and advocacy organizations who can attract audiences for purposeful means.  However, the negative to this type of marketing is it creates a social attitude toward sexual appeal. The more companies using sexual appeal, the more consumers are seeing it in the market place, creating a social norm. Advertisements like Victoria’s Secret are known for using unclothed models and sexual language to convince the consumer that a Victoria’s Secret bra will make a consumer look and feel sexy. Other popular brands like Abercrombie and Fitch, Nissan, and several Burger chains have used sexual appeal in advertisements. This norm has stretched sex from a bedroom secret to a public act talked and seen everywhere. Young people have adapted to this norm and have become numb to talks of sex. Although sexual appeal can be an effective marketing technique, it has a negative effect on society as a whole. Sexual appeal reveals marketing’s power of social influence on consumers by showing its potentially negative consequence.

Similar to sexual appeal marketing, medical marketing has good intentions of seeking more buyers but can negatively impact society. In one sense medical marketing is beneficial to the consumer, allowing access to information about new products that could potentially help them. However, critics suggest medical marketing may harm the public by promoting unnecessary drugs as well as failing to provide consumers with a balanced and accurate appraisal of alternative treatments. One critique calls medical marketing a “sophisticated and largely stealth apparatus…designed to promote the use of specific brand drugs and influence consumers by using unfair and deceptive advertising practices.” This critique came from a 144-page complaint of four public interest organizations demanding regulation of drug marketing companies. The organizations fear a threat to public health due to lack of medically approved information. Specifically, the complaint detailed concerns such as “eavesdropping” on online discussions of health consumers, behavioral tracking to target patients for medical advertising, unbranded websites that redirect patients to sponsored sites, and independent bloggers who fail to disclose that they are sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. (Lenzer)Social Media has contributed to medical marketing allowing more information available to consumers with the ability of users to control content, promote content, and be targeted with content based on user profiles and history. Companies have begun a pattern of search advertising in which a company can track a user’s searches and create content on those specific websites. Tracking of consumer searches has supported critic’s argument for regulation. Regulation opens up another topic for debate and leads the conversation for marketing today and in the years to come. Having seen the effects of marketing through children’s food preference, sexual appeal, and medical drug promotion, the conclusive evidence suggests that marketing is beneficial to any business or organization when used correctly. However, the end question arises as to if marketing should be regulated to ensure it is not abused by companies or organizations.    

 The role of government in the marketing system received substantial attention in the 1920’s 1930’s and 40’s reflecting active social and political debates over consumer welfare and the proper balance between moves by the government to restrain business and actions taken to facilitate it. During this time authors viewed marketing as a social institution one that could lead to a better standard of living, and efficient flow of goods to consumers, or a socially beneficial distribution of goods. However, in the past few decades – there has been little attention given to the relations between marketing and government or marketing and society (Quelsh). A study of consumer attitudes toward Marketing and Consumerism took a sample of consumers and found customer reactions towards specific operations of companies. When asked about government regulation, “two-thirds of the consumer sample agreed that additional government regulation is needed to protect consumer interests.” More specifically, 73% believed government should test competing brands and release results to the public, 73% said government should set minimum quality standards, and 68% agreed there should be greater control over advertising, sales, and marketing as a whole (Barksdale).  The United States has not implemented such regulation. However, Canada has expressed greater control of advertising through limitation towards prescription drugs.  Direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) of prescription drugs is prohibited in Canada. However, over the past two decades there has been a significant shift in the interpretation of the laws banning DTCA in Canada, which has led to a growing volume of pharmaceutical advertising. Proponents of DTCA claim that the ban denies Canadians the right to access health information and that DTCA has the potential to improve health and save lives by encouraging consumers to recognize symptoms and seek medical care at an earlier stage. Critics argue that DCTA will lead to unnecessary consumption of drugs and information that lacks critical information about specific drugs and their proper use(Gibson).

As can be seen, Technology has allowed new outlets for marketing to reach a wider audience but with the same intention of serving the consumer first. While marketers take full advantage of new social media outlets praising the low cost advertising, easy to access trends, and access to a broader audience, critics of the 21st century argue that marketing has exhausted newer outlets and proven to negatively impact the consumer.  After having seen the effects of marketing through children’s food preference, sexual appeal, and medical drug promotion, the conclusive evidence suggests that marketing is beneficial to any business or organization when used correctly. While marketing is beneficial to businesses, regulation of marketing can serve to protect consumer interest. In conclusion, marketing serves the interest of the consumer and can be best implemented through proper regulation.   
