The Societal Marketing Concept

The societal marketing coneept holds that the organization should determine the
needs, wants and interests of target markets. It should then deliver the desired
satisfactions more effectively and efficiently than competitors in a way that maintains
or improves the consumer's and the society's well-being. The societal
marketing concept is the newest of the five marketing management philosophies.
The societal marketing concept questions whether the pure marketing
concept is adequate in an age of environmental problems, resource shortages, worldwide
economic problems and neglected social services. It asks if the firm that senses,
serves and satisfies individual wants is always doing what's best for consumers and
society in the long run. According to the societal marketing concept, the pure
marketing concept overlooks possible conflicts between short-run consumer
wants and long-run consumer welfare.
Consider the Coca-Cola Company. Most people see it as a highly responsible
corporation producing fine soft drinks that satisfy consumer tastes. Yet certain
consumer and environmental groups have voiced concerns that Coke has little
nutritional value, can harm people's teeth, contains caffeine and adds to the litter
problem with disposable bottles and cans.

Such concerns and conflicts led to the societal marketing concept. As Figure
1,5 shows, the societal marketing concept calls upon marketers to balance three
considerations in setting their marketing policies: company profits, consumer
wants and society's interests. Originally, most companies based their marketing
decisions largely on short-run company profit. Eventually, they began to recognize
the long-run importance of satisfying consumer wants, and the marketing
concept emerged. Now many companies are beginning to think of society's interests
when making their marketing decisions.
One such company is the international corporation Johnson & Johnson,
which stresses community and environmental responsibility. J & J's concern for
societal interests is summarized in a company document called 'Our Credo',
which stresses honesty, integrity and putting people before profits. Under this
credo. Johnson & Johnson would rather take a big loss than ship a bad batch of
one of its products. And the company supports many community and employee
programmes that benefit its consumers and workers, and the environment. J & J's
chief executive puts it this way: 'If we keep trying to do what's right, at the end of
the day we believe the marketplace will reward us.'13
Consider the tragic tampering ease in whieh eight people died from swallowing
cyanide-laced capsules of Tylenol, a Johnson & Johnson brand. Although
J & J believed that the pills had been altered in only a few stores, not in the
factory, it quickly recalled all of its product. The recall cost the company $240
million in earnings. In the long run, however, the company's swift recall of Tylenol
strengthened consumer confidence and loyalty, and Tylenol remains the leading
brand of pain reliever in the US market. In this and other cases, J & J management
has found that doing what's right benefits both consumers and the company.
Says the chief executive: The Credo should not be viewed as some kind of social
welfare program - it's just plain good business.'1-1 Thus over the years, Johnson &
Johnson's dedication to consumers and community service has made it one of
America's most admired companies, and one of the most profitable.
Increasingly, firms also have to meet the expectations of society as a whole.
For example, society expects businesses genuinely to uphold basic ethical and
environmental standards. Not only should they have ethics and environmental
policies, they must also back these with actions. Consider, for instance, the bad
publicity The Body Shop received during the early 1990s when the company
came under attack in 1992 over its environmental standards. Some critics who
researched the company's ethical and environmental practices charged that the
high standards which it claims to uphold might be less genuine than it would like
the world to think. The critics also expressed a broader concern - that the
company persistently appears to exaggerate its involvement in worthy causes.
Such charges cannot be ignored by the company's management, particularly its
founder, Anita Roddick, and chairman, Gordon Roddick, who have long been
involved in promoting ethical and environmental causes within the business
world. Any tarnishing of The Body Shop's image removes the organization's point
of differentiation and, therefore, increases its vulnerability to competition.14 As a
riposte to the allegations that The Body Shop was not living up to its own standards
on issues such as animal testing, the company took the lead in the UK to
undertake an ethical auditing exercise. At the beginning of 1996 it published its
first Values Report, a massive affair spanning five volumes and over 300 pages of
data and feedback from stakeholders - suppliers, customers, employees, shareholders
and others representing the public at large - in three mam areas: environment,
social policy and animal protection.