3 ms·

A related question: Where do you, as a marketer, draw the line between producing a product to serve the needs and interests of a particular market and enabling

A related question: Where do you, as a marketer, draw the line between producing a product to serve the needs and interests of a particular market and enabling activities you disagree with or believe to be harmful (even if only harmful to the consumer)? In this case, writing for the "prepper" audience seems to fall near the line of providing content relevant to the consumers' interests and enabling/encouraging paranoid 'end-of-times' behavior that at best prepares the consumer for a natural disaster and at worst entrenches distrust of society in the audience. Is it possible to ethically market a product that relies on a belief system or set of values you disagree with?

maxerickson 10y ago
It depends on your ethics. Which I think is more than a trite rejoinder. You don't have to go very far back in history to see how slippery received wisdom can be. Here's a vaguely on target real world example: There are doctors who perform surgeries for people that refuse blood transfusions for religious regions. Presumably some of the doctors disagree with the belief, but they perform the surgeries anyway. In that situation it isn't a huge conundrum, choosing to engage the patient on their terms can be better than letting them suffer or die (so while your predicate is true, it's also the case that there is strong alignment of interests). It's had an impact on how medicine is practiced otherwise: http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-jehovahs-witnesses-are-changing-medicine http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-jehovahs-witness... Anybody have any better real world examples that more directly get at the tricky part of the question?
jwhitlark 10y ago
I think it is more than a possibility, and sometimes a moral imperative. Is it ethical to refuse to engage with people who you disagree with? It is always a possibility that it is your ethics/world view which is mistaken. That said, your question was "is it possible?", not is it the right thing in this or any particular case. Just be wary of thinking than anyone who doesn't agree with your ethics is unethical, for there be dragons.

maxerickson 10y ago

It depends on your ethics. Which I think is more than a trite rejoinder. You don't have to go very far back in history to see how slippery received wisdom can be. Here's a vaguely on target real world example: There are doctors who perform surgeries for people that refuse blood transfusions for religious regions. Presumably some of the doctors disagree with the belief, but they perform the surgeries anyway. In that situation it isn't a huge conundrum, choosing to engage the patient on their terms can be better than letting them suffer or die (so while your predicate is true, it's also the case that there is strong alignment of interests). It's had an impact on how medicine is practiced otherwise: http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-jehovahs-witnesses-are-changing-medicine http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-jehovahs-witness... Anybody have any better real world examples that more directly get at the tricky part of the question?

jwhitlark 10y ago

I think it is more than a possibility, and sometimes a moral imperative. Is it ethical to refuse to engage with people who you disagree with? It is always a possibility that it is your ethics/world view which is mistaken. That said, your question was "is it possible?", not is it the right thing in this or any particular case. Just be wary of thinking than anyone who doesn't agree with your ethics is unethical, for there be dragons.