Advanced MARKETING for managerTERM PAPER

Societal Marketing and Morality

Submitted BY Ch. Prasanna Kumar 10308 Meinam Bhopendro Singh 10330 Naga praneeth 10203

Sanjana 10342 Talluri Silpa 10249

1

ContentsINTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................................3

Theory and practice of societal marketing..................................................................................................4

Moral bases for marketing..........................................................................................................................6

The link with neo-classical economics: fostering self-interest.................................................................7

The “Harvard” tradition: marketing as satisfaction of self-interest.............................................................7

Societal marketing and Moral responsibility.............................................................................................10

Difference Between Social Marketing and Societal Marketing..................................................................13

Companies Employing the Societal Marketing Concept:..........................................................................15

McDonald's:...........................................................................................................................................15

Coca-Cola:.............................................................................................................................................16

NIKE-"Just do it:.....................................................................................................................................17

Conclusion:................................................................................................................................................18

2

INTRODUCTION:

Societal marketing emerged in the early 1970s, promising a more socially responsible and ethical

model for marketing. While the societal marketing concept has attracted its adherents and critics,

the literature on societal marketing has remained sketchy and underdeveloped, particularly with

respect to its underlying (and largely implicit) moral agenda. The societal marketing concept is

an extension of the marketing concept, rather than a fundamental reconstruction of marketing

theory. While acknowledging the use of the societal marketing concept in practice, this use is

problematized with respect to a number of critical moral issues. In particular, the question is of

who should and can decide what is in the public’s best interests, and elucidate the moral

deficiencies of the rational-instrumental process upon which marketing decisions are frequently

rationalized. Attention should be refocused away from prescribing what “moral” or “societal”

marketing should be, and towards developing an understanding of the structures, meanings and

discourses which shape and explain marketing and consumption decision making and sustain its

positive and negative impacts on society.

The dominant model of marketing, based on the notion of consumer sovereignty, assumes that

the role of the marketing process is technical rather than moral in nature – its purpose is to

translate demand into production, not to legislate on what demand or production might be

“good”. This is largely the marketing “science”, as derived from the Harvard University

economic school of thought and subsequently presented in major textbooks, and as traditionally

taught in business schools. Later, constituencies critical of marketing emerged and grew in

power and influence while many marketers became defensive about such developments, the

upshot of this was a series of attempts (both theoretical and practical) to address these criticisms.

Philip Kotler was central to these efforts to incorporate social and moral concerns into marketing

“science”, and his contribution can be bracketed in two ways. First, he proposed an extension of

the marketing technologies into non-business arenas. Thus, in prompting marketers to benefit

society by considering the marketing of social ideas and causes, the notion of social marketing

was introduced by Kotler and Zeltman. Second, in association with other “reconstructionists” ,he

argued that the marketing concept and its technologies must be tempered, and ultimately revised,

3

by adopting a more explicit social orientation. Thus, the societal marketing concept (SMC) was

born.

Kotler’s initial definition of societal marketing called for marketers to provide in addition to the

basic elements of the marketing concept – customer satisfaction and profitability – a third

element, which he called “long-run consumer welfare”. By doing so, Kotler was acknowledging

the argument “what was good for individual consumers might not be good for the society”. This

lack of concern for social welfare was clearly illustrated by: the incidence of pollution and

congestion as a result of individual car purchase; poor nutrition due to a reliance on junk food;

excessive waste resulting from throw-away convenience packaging; and health problems due to

the consumption of harmful tobacco and alcohol products. The key assumption here was that

consumers’ immediate “desires” were in some ways distinguishable from their longer-term

“interests”. According to Kotler, while marketers had been successful in satisfying the former,

the emergence of consumer advocate groups and other voices critical of marketing suggested

that, thus far, they had been unsuccessful in terms of the latter. Societal marketing thus promised

a fundamental reconstruction of marketing, suggesting the possibility of a more ethical

marketing approach, which embraced rather than excluded public concerns.

SMC is based on different and arguably more solid moral terrain than the marketing concept, the

concept raises some fundamental, perhaps irreconcilable, difficulties. Rather than attempting to

articulate what societal marketing “should” be (and why), academics would be better advised to

research decision-making processes in relation to the production/consumption contexts in order

to understand the different moral bases which are drawn on in enacting and rationalizing real

marketing decision making.

The theory and practice of societal marketing will form the basis of a more extended

examination of the moral basis of societal marketing.

Theory and practice of societal marketing

Kotler introduced SMC as an academic concept in the mainstream marketing literature. This is

not meant to suggest that social concerns and/or the consumer’s long-term interests had been

4

entirely absent from the marketing literature before this, but rather that an explicit orientation

towards them had not been incorporated into the marketing orthodoxy promulgated by

mainstream textbooks and journals. Social concerns of one kind and another had clearly been of

consequence to various marketing practitioners prior to the introduction of Kotler’s concept.

However, although there is evidence to suggest that some marketers may at times have acted in

certain consumers’ interests long before this (for example, firms such as Kellogg’s, Nestlé,

Merck, Johnson & Johnson, and various others have all long-declared intentions to promote

healthy, nutritious, safe and/or socially valuable products), Kotler’s views of mainstream

marketing may be seen as being justifiable in the context of a long history of disreputable

marketing practices, the criticisms of the consumerism, and a regulatory environment predicated

on caveat emptor.

Kotler’s main emphasis was on setting out the type of products that might or might not be

appropriate to a societal marketing orientation. By defining product benefits in terms of short-run

consumer satisfaction and long-run consumer welfare, he claimed that there essentially are four

types of products. They are:

1. (1) Deficient products, which he said offered neither short- nor long-term benefits;

2. (2) Salutary products, which had were low immediate appeal but high long-term

consumer benefit;

3. (3) Pleasing products, which gave high immediate satisfaction but could cause harm in

the long term; and

4. (4) Desirable products, which combined immediate satisfaction with long-run benefit.

These are shown in Table I. Kotler suggested that, for the implementation of the SMC, deficient

products should be deleted from the product range altogether; salutary and pleasing products

should undergo product modification in order to move them towards the top right-hand quadrant;

and the development of desirable products should be the ultimate aim of marketing efforts.

With the passage of time, the concerns of the SMC had moved beyond “long-term consumer

welfare” to embrace more specifically “society’s wellbeing”. Thus, “the societal marketing

concept calls upon marketers to build social and ethical considerations into their marketing

5

practices”. Societal marketing has become a central concept in contemporary marketing theory.

Indeed, if the contribution of the SMC is to be found in its widening of attention away from the

satisfaction of individual desires to longer-term social and individual interests, the continued

preoccupation of marketing texts on customer satisfaction and profitability suggests that the

SMC has yet to have anything more than, at best, a marginal impact on the traditional principles

of marketing theory.

Certain elements of societal marketing theory have, however, been taken up. For example, some

elements within the marketing academy have acknowledged (often without reference to the

SMC) that marketing should embrace a more social and ethical agenda .Indeed there is

considerable evidence to suggest that many firms have succeeded to some extent in combining

social and economic goals through their marketing activity. For example, at one level, we might

think of the numerous cases of cause-related marketing reported in the literature, such as

American Express’s Charge Against Hunger programme, which saw the company donating 3

cents to the hunger-relief organization Share Our Strength every time someone used the card.

Perhaps more significantly, we might think of Menon and Menon’s (1997) “enviropreneurial”

marketers, who have been argued to have achieved fundamental environmental improvements in

their products at the same time as impressive economic success. Similarly, Crane (2000a) reports

on “social mission companies”, which have (not always successfully) attempted to combine

product marketing with social cause campaigning. Abratt and Sacks have even gone so far as to

cite alcohol firms as societal marketers, given their attempts to promote responsible drinking.

Moral bases for marketing

First it is important to demonstrate that there is a link between the SMC and morality. While

Kotler did not manifest a relation between societal marketing and morality, his shift from the

traditional to the societal marketing concept indexes a shift in the moral plane from a focus on

psychological to one based on ethical egoism.

6

The link with neo-classical economics: fostering self-interest

From a moral perspective, marketing was informed then by two positions: a “reformist” position,

which maintained that marketers should work in the overall interests of society by aiding the

State regulation of the marketplace (Wisconsin) and a laissez-faire view (Harvard) that one

should entrust morality to the actions of individuals, who, by “freely” (of regulation) pursuing

their rational self-interests, would thereby set in motion the “hidden hand” of the marketplace

and thus ensure the best possibility for ethical outcomes.. Adam Smith’s classic text, The Wealth

of Nations (1793). In his chapter on the Division of Labour, Smith considers how, of all the

different species, man is reliant on others for his sustenance. However, he should not rely on the

benevolence of others for this but rather:

He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them

that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to

another a bargain of any kind proposes to do this: give me that which I want and you shall have

this which you want is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain

from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not

from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from

their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-

love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages ecological and

consumer concerns (among others) could best be addressed through economic actors seeking to

fulfil their own desires in the marketplace.

The “Harvard” tradition: marketing as satisfaction of self-interest

From our earlier discussion of morality in marketing, it can be argued that a dual approach to

morality and marketing persisted through the course of the twentieth century. Those from what

we might loosely describe as the “Harvard” tradition embraced the psychological egoism

7

inherent in Smith’s (1793) writings. The message was simple: the proper locus of morality is

vested in economic agents, each acting, either narrowly or widely, in his or her own self-interest,

untrammelled by the power of State intervention. As we will demonstrate in more detail, this

view underpins various descriptions of the “market orientation” offered by marketing academics

and the idea of the “marketing concept”. On the other hand, those who follow in the “Wisconsin”

tradition are sceptical of the ability of the market to regulate itself, and instead insist that, where

necessary, the State must intervene through legislative and other programmes. As we shall see,

both of these traditions have influenced each other – in particular the threat of imminent

legislation has influenced the psychological egoists, who have tended to respond with calls for

marketers in firms to be more zealous in following marketing-led precepts and principles and in

implementing the marketing concept more fully. Kotler’s (1972) development of societal

marketing can be interpreted within this context as part of the response to increasing social

discontent and imminent legislation. As such, Kotler’s development of the SMC represents an

attempt to shift the moral basis of mainstream marketing from the psychological egoism

advanced by earlier apostles of the marketing concept (based on serving consumer desires) to a

form of ethical egoism (based on satisfying long-run consumer interests and welfare). This was

meant to suggest not so much that consumers’ “desires” were irrational, but more that (at least

according to Kotler, 1972, p. 54), because marketers were so successful in making their products

immediately appealing and gratifying, consumers “cannot resist” these temptations in the

economic realm of consumption, and seek therefore to “express their discontent as voters” –

thereby precipitating regulatory action.

A second possibility is where the firm tracks the social concerns of consumers. A number of

firms have done this in recent years, the companies preceded an ethical branding initiative with

extensive surveys ascertaining the importance to customers of various potential issues which

could be addressed by the firm, such as animal welfare, the environment, fair trade, and the

supply of weapons. These surveys have subsequently fed into (societal) marketing decision

making. Clearly, this approach is strongly based on egoism, for it rests on the assumption that

the firm will benefit by addressing only those causes identified as important by one’s customers.

A third possibility also focuses on consumers, but in this case ostensibly allows customers

themselves to directly “decide” which products should continue to be produced through their

8

purchase decisions. Of all the possibilities discussed, this follows most closely in the liberal

tradition advocated by Adam Smith. In this view the “hidden hand” of the market intervenes to

create the best solution. Hence, a fall in demand for products deemed by consumers to be

socially undesirable will result in them leaving the market, and equally a demand for socially

desirable products will result in such products being successfully marketed. While this ignores

Kotler’s original distinction between consumers’ short-term desires and long-term needs, as well

as the question of whether consumers truly have the degree of sovereignty necessary to ensure

such an outcome, this has clearly been a dominant assumption of much of the existing “green”

marketing theory and practice. Indeed, freedom to choose is seen as the ultimate repository of

“goodness” by the free market economists, suggesting a passive role for the marketer.

The fourth possibility evident in current marketing practice is where the State will make the

decision as to which products should be provided, and how they should be marketed. We have

also recently seen the case in Europe of the farming industry refusing to self-regulate the sale of

beef products, prompting government action banning the sale and import of beef in a number of

European countries. Here we see echoes of Kotler’s fears concerning increased regulation in

response to insufficient self-regulation. However, there are few industries that passively accept

any form of regulatory encroachment, and lobbying remains a potent force in resisting further

regulation of marketing activities. For instance, following a 2000 British Medical Association

report linking anorexia with depictions of excessively thin fashion models in the media, the

fashion industry successfully argued against the establishment of even a voluntary code proposed

by the UK Government to regulate fashion ads. This would suggest that the Wisconsin model of

societal marketing, whereby marketers actively work with the State in ensuring social welfare, is

still rare in practice.

Finally, firms might respond to the demands of pressure groups and the media in deciding their

marketing strategies. In response, all the major UK supermarkets eventually responded with self-

imposed bans on GM ingredients, whereas the supplying companies such as Monsanto relied on

internal constituencies to determine a stance of no-change. In a sense they do, for the former

appear to have embraced a certain level of openness to, and acceptance of, the views of society

organizations that the latter have not. However, we must also recognize that each is still rooted in

egoist principles the supermarkets considering social welfare in order to avoid a loss of

9

consumer trust Monsanto seeking to foster acceptance for a product technology that would have

enormous consequences for their subsequent economic performance.

Societal marketing and Moral responsibility

The first of these linked concerns is that the concept’s insistence on the role of the individual

moral agent veils the social context and in particular the imbalance in size and power relations

between individuals and corporations.

However, what is veiled by the above is not simply the fact that marketers often work for

corporations involving hundreds, thousands and indeed hundreds of thousands of people but,

more importantly, the implications which this has for the exercise of individual moral

responsibility and action. While one can accept the idea that the individual is a moral agent, such

agency is easily “floated” within such groupings where the individual is a mere cog in an

enormous wheel. Within marketing, the floating of individual moral responsibility is further

exacerbated, as marketing decisions frequently involve people from agencies which are both

internal and external to the organization, such as advertising, PR and through the line agencies.

As Bauman notes, where the individual within the organization does experience a conflict of

interest, their loyalties and sympathies fall usually on the side of their colleagues and not with

those who are perceived to be “other” or external to the organization.

A third concern is that managers are mainly called upon to adopt “socially responsible”

behaviors for the same reasons as those for which they are called on to adopt the marketing

concept, i.e. profitability, which is the measure of “self-interest”. The rational-instrumental

approach that is involved in the calculation of marketing costs and values is adiaphoric in that it

renders decisions morally neutral. The adoption of the SMC may thus equally result in the

adoption of moral behaviour on the part of a firm which can clearly see that to act in the interests

of others is to act in its own self-interest. On the other hand, where its own self-interest is not

clearly served, there is no call for such an approach. The key issue is that it effaces the “face” of

the “other” and so facilitates the treatment of this “other”, whether human or not, as an object.

10

Even where corporate marketing decisions have resulted in “moral” outcomes, evidence suggests

that the managers involved seek to deliberately downplay, avoid or reframe any moral meaning

such as to “amoralize” the marketing process. Hence, whether all marketing decisions are

“really” constitutive of a rational-instrumental process, or are in fact also shaped by organization

culture, careerist competition, personal creativity or whatever else, the dominant rationality of

the modern organization imposes the need to justify and frame actions only in those terms. Thus,

the marketing decision-making process tends to exclude, degrade and marginalize morality, since

the rationalization of marketing action effectively separates and removes marketing

“practitioners” and “consumers” from moral considerations and moral action.

Even if marketers are apparently unwilling to acknowledge or embrace moral sensibilities and,

moreover, are largely unaware of the terminology and theory of societal marketing, this does not

mean that marketing decisions do not have “societal” outcomes, or even that many firms have

not sought to incorporate aspects of societal marketing into their decision process. Although

there is only limited empirical evidence attempting specifically to locate corporate practices

directly within the discourse of societal marketing, there are, as we have already acknowledged,

burgeoning literatures on green marketing, cause-related marketing, and ethical marketing

among others, which illustrate the wide array of corporate marketing practices aimed at

achieving a positive social impact.

There is thus ample evidence to show that social concerns have impacted on various aspects of

marketing activity. Many firms have changed product formulations to improve environmental

performance others have attempted to develop communications campaigns stressing corporate

social responsibility while others have attempted to incorporate charitable donations into their

marketing campaigns. These are just a handful of the many examples of how such issues have

been translated into marketing.

However, the above developments do not deflect us from our main argument; to say that social

issues can be and have been incorporated into certain marketing activities does not mean that

societal marketing is necessarily a more moral or ethical approach to marketing. As we have

outlined, the concept is conditional, can result in different outcomes, has no clear location for

moral responsibility, and is rationalized in a way that renders its object morally neutral.

11

However, we must stress that our intent and approach in this paper are largely theoretical. There

is a need to supplement existing research by asking what forms of discourse inform those

decisions which result in the production of such ostensibly “socially responsible” offerings such

as green products and ethical investments. Evidence suggests the latter, with the green marketing

literature in particular showing clear evidence of campaigns based more on extending choice,

and with little resort, if any, to moral reflection concerning which products should be marketed,

and whether certain products should be marketed at all.

Moreover, it is one thing to say that societal concerns have been incorporated into marketing

practice, but it is quite another to suggest that this means that these concerns are viewed as

intrinsically moral in nature, or that they are granted some form of moral status that is in any

way different from, or above, conventional marketing concerns of profitability, customer

satisfaction, customer relationships and the like. Even the marketing of ostensibly “ethical”

products does not, and perhaps cannot, ensure that those involved in the marketing process feel

any sense of responsibility or duty to society when dealing with such products. This suggests that

societal marketing, as it is enacted in practice, may be less a moral transformation of marketing

and more a minor adjustment or extension to the existing technicist “scientific” marketing

paradigm.

Societal Marketing is actually an offshoot of the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility and

sustainable development. This concept urges companies to do more than having an exchange

relationship with customers, to go beyond delivering products and work for the benefit of the

consumers and the society.

Examples:

Following are the three examples of Societal Marketing Concept:

1: Body Shop: Body Shop is a cosmetic company found by Anita Roddick. The company uses

only vegetable based materials for its products. It is also against Animal testing, supports

community trade, activate Self Esteem, Defend Human Rights, and overall protection of the

12

planet. Thus it is completely following the concept of Societal Marketing.

2: Ariel: Ariel is a detergent manufactured by Procter and Gamble. Ariel runs special fund

raising campaigns for deprived classes of the world specifically the developing countries. It also

contributes part of its profits from every bag sold to the development of the society.

3: British American tobacco Company: BAT is a British based Tobacco company. It was

found in the year 1902. BAT is involved in working for the society in every part of the world. It

conducts tree plantation drives as part of its societal marketing strategy.

Difference Between Social Marketing and Societal Marketing

Societal marketing concept is evident when an organisation determines consumer needs and

wants and then integrates all activities in the firm to serve these needs while simultaneously

enhancing societal well being (McColl-Kennedy, Kiel, Lusch & Lusch, 1994)

“Social marketing is the adaptation of commercial marketing technologies to programs designed

to influence the voluntary behaviour of target audiences to improve their personal welfare and

that of the society of which they are a part.” Andreasen, (1995)

Societal marketing is the business driven, profit orientated way of changing the world as a means

of developing revenue based product. Societal is about the direct benefits for the organisation

(profit) and secondary benefit for the community. Social marketing is about changing

behaviours for the benefit of the broader society. Social marketing is about the social gain, target

market’s gain, and the flow of benefits where profit may not actual exist, or if it does, then it’s

just an incidental secondary benefit for the campaign.

13

societal marketing is any form of marketing that takes into consideration the needs and wants of

the consumer and the well-being of society. Basically, societal marketing is marketing combined

with social responsibility.

Conversely, social marketing uses more traditional commercial techniques and strategies

(focusing primarily on selling) to achieve goals for the greater social good. Social marketing

campaigns can either encourage merit goods (Ex. Fund raising for Not-for-profit organizations)

or dissuade the use of demerit goods (Ex. Non-smoking campaigns).

Social marketing focuses more on the end result of the marketing (promoting a merit good)

while

societal marketing is more concerned with the marketing process in general and the marketing

strategy used (using marketing techniques that take into account the well-being of society).

A marketing campaign focusing on smoking cessation is an example of social marketing, but if

the marketing strategies and techniques used in that campaign focus on increasing the well-being

of society, that same campaign can be an example of societal marketing as well.

Social marketing is the systematic application of marketing, along with other concepts and

techniques, to achieve specific behavioral goals for a social good. Social marketing can be

applied to promote merit goods, or to make a society avoid demerit goods and thus to promote

society's well being as a whole. For example, this may include asking people not to smoke in

public areas, asking them to use seat belts, or prompting to make them follow speed limits.

The societal marketing concept is an enlightened marketing concept that holds that a company

should make good marketing decisions by considering consumers' wants, the company's

requirements, and society's long-term interests. It is closely linked with the principles of

corporate social responsibility and of sustainable development.

The concept has an emphasis on social responsibility and suggests that for a company to only

focus on exchange relationship with customers might not be suitable in order to sustain long

term

14

success. Rather, marketing strategy should deliver value to customers in a way that maintains or

improves both the consumer's and the society's well-being.

Societal marketing should not be confused with social marketing. The societal marketing concept

was a forerunner of sustainable marketing in integrating issues of social responsibility into

commercial marketing strategies. In contrast to that, social marketing uses commercial marketing

theories, tools and techniques to social issues. Social marketing applies a “customer orientated”

approach and uses the concepts and tools used by commercial marketers in pursuit of social

goals like Anti-Smoking-Campaigns or fund raising for NGOs

Companies Employing the Societal Marketing Concept:

McDonald's:

McDonald's is the leader of the fast-food industry, with worldwide operations employing

approximately 500,000 people in 11,000 restaurants and serving 22 million customers a day. At

the time Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) approached McDonald's, its entanglement in

controversy over its packaging frustrated the company. From EDF' s perspective, McDonald's

leadership position, its problematic history of waste management, and the iconic value of waste

management as an environmental issue made the company an attractive candidate for

partnership. EDF saw significant opportunity for both environmental action and a major, high

visibility, opportunity to test its innovative approach to environmental problem-solving through

corporate partnerships. Plastic had been demonized by several environmentalist organizations.

The use-and-dispose philosophy at the core of McDonald's business and its distinctive plastic

clamshell sandwich boxes, which helped to make the company one of the largest single users of

polystyrene in the United States, had made McDonald's a continuing target of ecology groups

15

Throughout the late 1980s, McDonald's instituted and publicized a number of environmentally

positive steps in its domestic operations. It reduced consumption, for instance, by using lighter

weight paper in straws, paper bags and other items and recycled paper and cardboard packaging.

In 1987, it switched from polystyrene blown with CFCs, the family of chemicals which destroy

the ozone layer, to plastic foam that used hydrocarbon blowing. In 1989, the company instituted

a pilot program in 450 New England stores to recycle its plastic clamshells. In April, 1990, it

committed $100million, or one quarter of the company's annual building and remodeling budget,

to buy recycled materials for restaurant construction, remodeling, and operations under a

program called "Mc Recycle "In 1989 and 1990, McDonald's bolstered its environmental

management practices with a proactive public relations campaign. McDonald's also offered in-

store flyers to educate customers about the company's environmental management practices,

policies, philosophies, and positions on particular issues such as rainforest beef and the ozone

problem. Brochures on environmental topics, including packaging, were available from its public

relations department. In addition, McDonald's worked with several different environmental and

nonprofit groups (e.g., the World Wildlife Fund and the Smithsonian Institution) to coproduce

elementary school materials on the environment.  McDonald’s positions itself as having concerns

ecological and practical, social as well as economic. Second, McDonald's positions itself as one

of a community of stewards of the earth. McDonald's defends its environmental record by listing

specific actions that it has taken to manage waste and conserve resources by reducing, reusing

and recycling materials. It cites experts who support its position on plastic packaging and who

point out the small contribution of the entire quick-service restaurant industry to America's

waste.

Coca-Cola:

Coca- cola is a soft drink company started early in the 90 s in USA. After gaining a good

market value in the world the company looked out for promoting large people towards their

products. As a result they formulated an awareness program in the African countries about the

HIV awareness. 

16

In the 2001 the Coco-Cola African foundations was formed to reduce the impact of HIV

AIDS on coca-cola 60000 employees and 40 independent bottlers in Africa. At present, 100

percent of the coca-cola ‘s independent bottling companies in 54 African countries are enrolled

in the foundations programs.

  All their employees and the employees’ families are eligible to receive benefits, including

access to antiretroviral drugs, testing, counseling, prevention, and treatment. The foundations

outreach also extends beyond employees and into community.

  It focuses i ts efforts on three factors which Coca- cola operates: healthcare, education, and

the environment. The many projects are supported by the foundation cost millions of dollars

each year, but coca- cola offers more than just funding. By using its distribution network, one of

the most extensive in Africa, coca-cola can transport vital materials to the remote part of the

continent.

It reach areas of Africa which the AIDS/HIV workers have not previously had easy access and

thereby ensure that people in those areas can obtain information about the prevention and

treatment of HIV/AIDS. Even Coca-Cola’s marketing expertise is be ingused to raise awareness

of key issues of such as HIV prevention. By leveraging its corporate assets, Coca-Cola has made

contribution to all African communities.

NIKE-"Just do it:Nike, Inc., a marketer of athletic shoes and sports apparel, has grown into a large multinational

enterprise through a marketing strategy centering on a favorable brand image. 

In 1996, NIKE decided to design a new, state-of-the-art campus for its European

headquarters in the Netherlands. A complex of five new buildings, the campus was designed to

integrate the indoors with the surrounding environment, tapping into local energy flows to create

healthy, beneficial relationships between nature and human culture. 

17

We had come to see that our customers' health and our own ability to compete are

inseparable from the health of the environment," said Darcy Winslow, one of the early leaders of

the sustainability movement within the company. Product innovation and performance remained

Nike's first priority, she said, "but our sense of design excellence had expanded to include a

commitment to ecological intelligence, to fully understanding the impacts of our products on the

natural world.

Nike's first steps toward ecologically intelligent product design began with materials. Together

they sought to determine the chemical composition and environmental effects of the materials

and manufacturing processes. Using natural flows of energy and nutrients as models, these

product materials are designed to flow in closed loop cycles, eliminating the concept of waste

while enhancing and replenishing both nature and commerce.

  With its Management of Environmental Safety and Health program, for example ,Nike has

merged health and safety metrics with a Nike management model to create a framework for

sustainability suitable for its Asian contract factories.

Conclusion:

 We have studies that affinity marketing initiatives, especially societal marketing initiatives, have

the potential to improve consumers attitudes about a brand in a number of different ways.

How much a given initiative will help or hurt a given brandwill, of course, depend on the

characteristics of its target markets. While consumerists and other critics of the selling concept

regularly and loudly chastise business organizations for employing marketing strategies and

campaigns which are ostensibly based upon assumptions of consumer ignorance and

irrationality, these same guardians of consumer interest are typically synonymous with those

pushing organizations most forcefully into programs of social responsibility and the societal

marketing concept. It must inevitably be those organizations which are encouraged to view their

consumers as ignorant or irrational that can and will most easily extend that notion to discover

opportunities for exploiting that ignorance and irrationality. It is for this reason that those

18

espousing the societal marketing concept of business can be seen as the greatest danger to

consumer sovereignty and consumer welfare. Yet it is a corollary rule that in reducing one

individual's power, all others with whom that person deals have their relative power increased.

By forcing consumers into the roles of ignorant, helpless, and mindless children in need of

protection and corporate welfare, advocates of the societal marketing concept have liberated

consumers from both responsibility and power, and have concomitantly made business more

powerful.

19