Ethics / Legal

Can Direct Mail be Environmentally Friendly

I am probably going to regret opening this can of worms but lately my thoughts have turned to the impact on the environment of direct marketing. I am not crazy enough to tell you that marketing (especially direct mail) is a positive environmental force - a few industries today can claim to be that. But I do think that my colleagues and I are reducing the impact, albeit in a small way.

By focusing on customer data, companies can dramatically change the environmental impact of their direct mail initiatives. Specifically,

1. By building a complete view of the customer (linking disparate databases), companies can reduce duplicate mailings and control the flow of communication to their customers.

2. Using analysis techniques such as predictive modelling and segmentation, communications can be targeted maximizing the impact of every piece of mail. This can ensure that only those most likely to respond will receive a piece of direct mail.

3. By cleaning up databases, and fixing addresses, undeliverable mail can be reduced.

4. By enabling opt-outs (and using the CMA opt-out list)- and specification of contact preferences - companies ensure that those who do not want to receive mail do not get it.

5. By merge-purging external lists against one another and internal files, targeting of the same prospect multiple times can be avoided.

My response for years when asked "Oh, so you are responsible for all this direct mail I get" has been "No, I am responsible for all the direct mail you DON'T get". I have a feeling I might be asked that more and more in the coming years!

For more on this read the Aberdeen Group's report:
Green Marketing: Leveraging Customer Data to Reduce Direct Mail Waste by Aberdeen Group.

I am also encouraged by the new focus being shown on this issue by our key industry groups – perhaps too little too late but all action is better than nothing:

- NAMMU (National Association of Major Mail Users) has an annual award that recognizes innovation in making the mailing industry as environmentally friendly as possible. The winner in 2007 was Domtar for their EarthChoice Paper.
- DMAT (Direct Marketing Association of Toronto) has recently announced the creation of a taskforce to study the issue of environmental responsibility.
- The Forest Stewardship Council of Canada (FSC) launched their FSCXpert (FSCX) Program late last year – this is an educational program and designation for graphic designers, and communications and marketing professionals committed to responsible forest management.
- And, of course, the CMA has a variety of case studies and green tips available to marketers who want to reduce their environmental footprint.

Domain Name Disputes: Honey or Vinegar?

One of the more unusual aspects of my job as General Manager of a large private portfolio of domain names is that I see all the "poison pen" letters from lawyers representing clients who believe (usually incorrectly, I should add) they are legally entitled to a domain name that we own. Since we own over 150,000 domain names, we get quite a few of these letters every week!

I make sure that we respond to each and every one of these inquiries, and now that I've seen and dealt with over a hundred of these letters I wanted to make a suggestion to the marketing community at large:

"You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar."

Admittedly, I didn't come up with this age-old concept, but I'd like to remind people that you will have better luck resolving a dispute - any dispute - by playing nice than by being hostile.

For instance, the next time you think that someone owns a domain name that you think you are legally entitled to, don't make your first move a "nasty lawyer's letter."

Instead, just reach out to the current owner with a courteous phone call or email (which you can get from checking the public WHOIS records) and let them know you have some questions or concerns. You might discover that the current owner is a lot nicer than you think, is not a hardened criminal, and is more than willing to negotiate in good faith. You might even learn that the original basis for your complaint is flawed and that - surprise, surprise - you aren't legally entitled to the domain name after all.

Not only will you save yourself the time, hassle, and significant expense of going the legal route (fighting a domain name dispute can cost many thousands of dollars), but you will begin the dialogue on a positive and constructive basis, not an adversarial one.

I go out of my way to help the small minority of folks who approach me nicely and are willing to listen to and consider our side of the story. Between us, we can usually resolve the situation within a few days. Unfortunately, I can count these "honey" folks on the fingers of one hand.

I'm not so sympathetic towards the "vinegar" folks - those who courier me three-inch thick stacks of legal documents that make all sorts of false accusations, ridiculous demands, and set unrealistic timelines for a response. (One company did this to me, quite deliberately, on Christmas Eve last year.) Sadly, these "poison pen" letters make up the vast majority of inquiries I receive. Sure, we respond to them as well, but I'm not going to cut them any slack or do them any favours. Why should I?

In the end, this boils down to one simple suggestion: be nice. ;+)

Privacy Concerns in Social Networking

Social interaction in the online space is becoming more and more frequent. Most people are unaware however that every Facebook, MySpace, msn, iChat, email message leaves an information footprint and this trail can be picked up by third parties. In this new wild west of virtuosity, some companies have brazenly admitted to offering services or products to people within the social networking arena with little or no regard for privacy or the expectation of privacy.

This hopefully is where the government can and will intercede. The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) outlines what information organizations can and cannot gather about consumers. Unfortunately, this legislation does not directly impact consumer privacy in the social networking arena. The impact of this is that the privacy rights of consumers might be at risk - consent and awareness of how information is being used varies depending on the channel being used.

Responsible marketers are already aware of these sensitivities and have put measures in place. The many “cowboys” in this new frontier however will take advantage of the information available and use it to their advantage. These marketers are preying on the most vulnerable users of technology – the youth, who are most likely to engage in social networking without considering the possible implications on their privacy.

Social networking and social media are hot button items at the moment and there are many layers to discover. CMA’s Marketing Technology and Database Intelligence Council is hosting a breakfast Roundtable that will explore how social media may be strategically applied to business and integrated with an organization’s marketing plan.

The Shameful Art of Greenwashing

You stroll through your local supermarket to pick up a few items. Out of the corner of your eye you catch a rack with attractive and reasonably priced $0.99 reusable shopping bags, usually featuring the company logo, and Green imagery such as grass or a leaf. You look into your basket, smile and pick up a couple of reusable bags, feeling better about yourself for doing something positive to help our environment.

Well, that’s great, but are the environmental claims being made by the company actually being put into practice? Are they advocating disuse of plastic bags by not offering them or making consumers pay? An entire town in Manitoba did just that, and banished plastic bags from being sold or distributed, enforcing hefty fines for ignoring the ban.

Plastic bags, clearly aren’t the only source of landfill waste, and are not the only item that marketers and companies can eliminate in order to become more eco-friendly.
Today, more than ever going Green means big money for corporations, and winning over consumer opinion, but consumers must be wary about those organizations who claim to be Green vs. those who truly are.

Organizations who falsely claim to be environmentally conscious, when in fact they are misleading consumers about the environmental practices they employ are referred to as “Greenwashers”.

TerraChoice Environmental Marketing issued a report in November 2007 entitled “The 6 Sins of Greenwashing” a study of environmental claims in the North American consumer market.

The six sins are:

1. Sin of the Hidden Trade Off
This is when a company emphasizes one environmental factor, while hiding a trade-off between other issues.

2. Sin of No Proof
When an environmental claim is made, yet no evidence or certification of this claim is made available.

3. Sin of Vagueness
When a claim fails to explain itself rendering itself too vague or meaningless. Popular vague terms include; non-toxic, “all natural”, and environmentally friendly.

4. Sin of Irrelevance
Making a claim that all other products in this category could also make, or simply making a statement that is irrelevant but intended to sound eco-friendly.

5. Sin of Fibbing
Falsely claimed environmental certifications, either third-party or completely non-existent. Usually easy to detect with a little bit of research.

6. Sin of Lesser of Two Evils
When a company aims to make a consumer feel environmentally conscientious about a product that has questionable environmental benefits.

As marketers and consumers, it is our responsibility to ensure that the companies we represent don’t make false claims about being eco-friendly, and don’t try to capitalize on the “Green Movement” with a sole mandate to increase profits.

We need to be conscientious about the stores we shop at and the brands we endorse. Check out their environmental claims. Are they true? Are they in fact being proactive about protecting our environment?

This is our earth. We need to protect it… Not just “say” that we are.

What’s a good marketing plan without a domain name?

Marketers design campaigns around domain names, so the chosen name has to be available.
Even parents are registering their kids’ names as domain names.
Where can you check if a potential name is available?

The public database of domain name owners is the Whois database, which tells us who owns a particular domain, or at least a company that represents the domain name owner.

Trouble is that public access to the domain name owner database creates all kinds of problems.

In addition to searching to see if anyone else already has the domain, there are other, less constructive uses: Spammers send their e-mails to addresses they find on the whois directories. There may be direct marketers using the information to place cold calls or email solicitations (not that there is anything wrong with that). There is also an element of opportunism from the whois database: apparently there are ways to determine if anyone has searched the database for a particular name, and opportunists will park on the domain name in the hopes of selling it to the prospective owner.

In case you don’t know, unused domains names can be registered with InterNIC (and therefore reserved or “parked”), but the websites themselves are inactive.

The question is, should the ownership information be public?

Whether to continue to allow public access to the owner information was recently debated over at ICANN . No decision was made. The committee, the Generic Names Supporting Organization Council, decided to study the matter further. What kinds of studies are needed will be decided on February 15, 2008.

By the time the studies are complete, chances are the internet will solve the problem itself.

Out of the bag thinking on climate change

What is the impact of recyclable shopping bags when environmentally friendly packaging isn’t part of the agenda in retail?

It seems marketing is being used to change consumer opinion instead of a new pipeline of environmentally friendly products.

In markets where plastic and paper compete as packaging materials, plastic is expected to increase its market share to 53 percent by 2010. The fastest gains for plastic are occurring in soy and other nondairy beverages and pet food applications, followed by frozen food, fruit beverages, detergents and single-serving milk bottles. According to a recent Arcus climate change survey of 2000 Canadians consumers and 1200 business leaders, consumers want honest claims that have a tangible and measurable impact on the environment. Consumers are catching up.

Business is not keeping pace with growing concern among consumers about climate change. Canada has one of the biggest shifts in consumer concern about global warming out of the G8 and OECD countries, an increase of 18% to an all time high of 31% in April 2007. The global average is 16%. Consumers are shifting toward more environmentally friendly alternatives, but market forces alone are unlikely enough to meet the challenge of climate change.

There are many instances where an “environmentally friendly” brand with a low revenue contribution in a brand portfolio becomes a “flagship” brand with a substantially larger share of the advertising budget. The phenomenon of “image transfer” across the entire portfolio is well known. According to the Arcus study, less than 5% of executives admit that their organizations monitor their overall carbon footprint and just 4% have a carbon reduction plan in place. Although these numbers look set to rise rapidly, nearly one-half of firms have no intention of implementing carbon-reduction plans within the next three years.

Why have a majority of marketers been slow to recognize the shift in consumer attitudes? Businesses are playing catch up. The Canadian Council of Chief Executives, 150 of Canada's top chief executive officers, released a declaration this week calling climate change “the most pressing and daunting issue” today, and acknowledging the need for “aggressive” action including “absolute” emission cuts. It's the clearest signal ever sent by a broad coalition of Canadian businesses that they embrace the fight against climate change and accept the need for emission cut targets.

Some industries have recognized this opportunity and translated it into profitable businesses. A global retailer recently mandated new packaging guidelines last year. The policy led to a cascade of policy changes among thousands of vendors. For example, the focus in retail has been on cutting greenhouse-gas emissions with fuel efficiency of truck fleets, reduction of solid waste from stores and increasing organic foods offerings by selling them at prices more affordable to the masses.

QR (Quick Response) Codes have been touted by many industry insiders as the next big thing North American marketers should be paying attention to. The 2D bar codes store data on QR-enabled mobile camera phones that can be translated and viewed directly on the phone, or transferred and decoded on home computers. They can also be deployed to help marketers cut down on paper use. They're already big in Japan, even popping up on flour bags to transmit recipes for busy moms.

Other industries have different perspectives on the problem. Resource intensive industries are concerned about power generation capacity. Consumer product and retail companies are concerned about regulatory impact of packaging and recycling. Transportation firms are concerned about carbon emissions legislation.

One thing is clear, business needs to address the issue head-on with a coordinated plan of voluntary and regulatory mechanisms to meet the expectations of consumers and the environment.

When Does Innovation Become Irritation?

On a recent flight to the United States, I came across a quintessential example of what I believe is wrong with the traditional advertising industry.

Sitting in my seat on a US Airways flight bound for Savannah, I decide to unlock the table tray in order to have a place to rest my papers on.

This is what I was greeted with:

That's right, the surface of the table tray was completely covered by a vinyl clingy ad for an electronic manufacturer's noise canceling headphones.

Now, I've worked with enough media planners to appreciate the strategic thinking that probably went into this in terms of demographic targeting. And from an advertiser's perspective I can totally appreciate the evil genius of the whole 'captive audience' mentality behind this media placement.

It's 2007, however, and should marketers really be trying to find 'virgin' surfaces to plaster yet another one of their ads upon? Is this really innovation? Is this something the industry should be proud of?

And check out the ad copy itself:

The ultimate irony, in my mind, is the ad copy's claim that the headphones "dramatically reduce unwanted sounds." It's too bad that in promoting this feature the advertiser may have dramatically increased the level of visual pollution.

Crossing swords with Johnson & Johnson

Who would care to take on Johnson & Johnson, a multinational corpartion, in a trademark dispute? Why, the "do-gooders" at the American Red Cross, of course.

Seems that the Red Cross is using its historic red logo on products such as first aid kits, which J & J claims they do not have the rights to. Instead, J & J has had a trademark over these products for over a hundred hears.

As the New York Magazine points out, there was a live-and-let-live agreement between the two, where the Red Cross agreed it "wouldn't go into retail (and that the conglomerate wouldn't go solving health crises, we suppose)."

Now, call me a big bad corporate lawyer, but if a deal was struck and honoured for over a century, why is the Red Cross now marketing products?

J & J claim they offered to mediate their claim against the Red Cross, but the Red Cross refused. In my experience, the charitable sector can be more litigious than the private sector. Perhaps not-for-profit executives think they are above the law because they are trying to make the world a better place, or perhaps because they don't have experience paying legal fees.

Why Shouldn't Lawyers Advertise?

The Law Society of Upper Canada, that historic association that governs lawyers like me, has rules on how lawyers may advertise. It keeps us on a short leash.

They must have different rules in Illinois. You may have seen the sexy (vulgar?) ad for a Chicago law firm in various other blogs.

The irony that it was taken down because the law firm didn't have the proper permit has not been lost on commentators.

But why should lawyers not be allowed to advertise like every other business? One theory is that lawyers are not supposed to take advantage of people's emotions, but rather be professional advisors to avoid emotion. Try as you might, however, there is an emotional component to most legal matters. Divorce? Certainly. Intellectual property? You'd be surprized.

Another uncommon law firm advertising was at sporting events in Toronto. But the question remains whether such advertising produces results.

However, law firms usually keep thier advertinsments in "good taste". Only a few push the envelope.

To blog. Or not to blog. That is the Question.

If you don’t like my opinion about the creative your company puts out, and you complain, should the blog entry be removed at your request?

Should a restaurant or play that receives a bad review be able to complain and have a retraction printed?

And what is a blog anyway but one person’s opinion? It doesn’t mean it’s the only opinion. It is simply intended to start a dialogue. It offers the reader an opportunity to respond (see that comments button over there to the right?). And, as one of the sections on this site suggests, allows you to get something “off your chest”.

All of these questions occur to me because blogging has become a powerful and influential force in the world of marketing. Of course, the blog on this site has become a popular destination itself. We’re here talking about marketing, marketers, advertising, creative – the good, the bad, and the ugly.

To my mind, (just my opinion) as long as the host site’s Blogging Policy is upheld by its bloggers, post a comment, respond, disagree, engage. Or don’t read the blog at all. But don’t censor. That’s not blogging.

By the way, here’s the CMA’s Blog Policy.

Blogging Policy
Views expressed are those of the individual and do not necessarily represent the views of the Canadian Marketing Association.
Be respectful of organizations, customers, partners and competitors.
Use common sense and refrain from matters that you suspect are confidential or might interfere with legal and or compliance proceedings.
CMA reserves the right to refrain from publishing submissions that fail to comply with any of the above guidelines.

1 + 2 = -1000

Let me see if I have got the numbers right here:

(1) One of the major banks posted a record profit in 2006, up 11% year over year at the tune of $2.7 Billion.

(2) The outgoing President and CEO had a 2006 compensation plan in the amount of $8.6 Million dollars.

Consequently, the aforementioned bank has decided to lay off 1000 employees.

So by that logic 1 + 2 = -1000

Am I the only one having difficulty understanding this? If you can explain please do. Please also provide your exact address in Shangrila (as Joseph Jaffe would say) as I'd love to visit you.

It was reported in the Financial Post that the cuts will come mostly in "support functions and non-customer areas". The BMO President noted "We owe it to our customers, our employees and our shareholders to have lean, efficient support functions." He further stated, "It is always tough to make decisions that result in job eliminations."

A couple of observations:

Firstly, to suggest that layoffs restricted to support service positions (i.e. administration and technical support) will not affect customer service operations is a wee bit of a stretch. I'm no banking specialist but wouldn't technical support be a key feature for online banking customers? Or be critical in helping a retail branch if their systems went down? The work doesn't go away so someone has to pick up the slack or service suffers. There is no option C.

Secondly, it just doesn't come off well to the 1000 employees being downsized to state 'We owe it to them to have lean, efficient support functions.' Sharedholers may love that kind of talk but employees? I've never heard one employee (besides senior executives) state, 'We need to have more lean operations'. My wife has been a long-standing BMO customer and she's never said, "They need to have more lean operations." Perhaps someone out there has. Why is no one putting their hand up?

Finally, if BMO declared a profit of $2.7 Billion in 2006 and still let 1000 people go, can you imagine the carnage if they ever posted a year over year loss?

I'm not pulling any punches here. The Board of the BMO and Mr. Comper achieved a record profit, were compensated handsomely and still let so many people go? Talk about moxie.

Opinion of one but if you are being paid for doing a great job, then your colleagues should not lose theirs en masse. Otherwise your compensation should be adjusted to reflect your under performance. A one-liner on a press release about 'what a tough decision it was' does not suffice. Actions speak louder than words.

Perhaps I'm being harsh but I expect a lot more from such a respected Canadian brand and company. I also know some fine people who work there. BMO is capable of so much more.

Sorry but 1 + 2 does not equal -1000 regardless of how much marketing or PR you throw at it.

How Do I Stop Unwanted E-mail Advertising?

This question was recently asked by way of our blog. With 2007 approaching, and CMA's revised Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice taking effect in January 2007 - it's a good time to revisit e-mail used for marketing purposes - by both marketers and end users.

Apart from using the spam filter in your e-mail application or relying on your ISP’s filters, the short answer to the question is: Be careful who you give your e-mail address to! When you are sharing your e-mail address with an organization, take the time to check their privacy policy - if they don't have one it's a safe bet that you can't count on them to properly restrict the use or transfer of your information.

When you do receive unwanted e-mails or Spam, check for the privacy policy or "unsubscribe" link, usually at the bottom of the e-mail. Ethical marketers will provide such a means to contact them to be removed from their e-mail marketing lists.

Ethical marketers should only be contacting prospective customers by e-mail on the understanding that those consumers have consented to have their personal information transferred and/or used for marketing purposes. When someone visits a commercial website to obtain a service or order some product, and provides their e-mail address, the site owner must advise the consumer how it intends to use the information. On that basis the company has implied consent for relevant follow-up communication, although best practice is to explicitly offer the consumer a clear opportunity to opt-out of receiving further marketing offers. And such an opt-out must clearly be offered before information like an e-mail is transferred to third parties.

For CMA members, our Code of Ethics requires that every e-mail marketing offer to prospects and existing customers must include an "easy to see, easy to understand and easy to execute" click-through opportunity to opt-out. This makes it easy for consumers to stop any unwanted emails after the first communication.

The bottom line? If the online organizations you are dealing with don’t have a privacy policy and information and choices such as those outlined above, you should probably think twice before providing your personal contact information.

Loyalty

A friend made the comment that most people in the business world have no loyalty or ethics. I took exception to that remark but he countered with examples of senior executives sticking it to employees and shareholders.

"File for Chapter 11, stash all your dough off-shore, serve a brief sentence in a country club and then enjoy the rest of your days on the shattered lives of others. And prison only applies if your high-priced lawyers can't get you off."

He then asked me for just one example where in business friendship/loyalty withstood the lure of money/greed.

I gave him one example, that appeared on the CBC television show The Dragons Den, where students who launched a Canadian start-up company turned down a venture capital investment because of loyalty.

Many have criticized Jobloft for being blindly loyal to their professor. Opinion of one but I respect them for sticking to their principles and with their mentor.

I have no doubt these guys will have successful careers, be it at Jobloft or elsewhere. Why? Those are the kind of people I'd want to be in business with. The kind who have ethics.

I met them at CaseCamp and was very impressed. It's nice to see loyalty still counts for something, especially by our future leaders.

In spite of cash being dangled in front of them, the Jobloft crew did not sell their souls to the dragons. That takes a lot of moxie on national television.

And those critical of their professor based on the above clip, granted it doesn't look good but television editing dramatically affects reality. Who knows what hit the cutting room floor?

It's in the CBC's best interests to make the Dragons look good. As opposed to someone working for Ryerson University that is not on the CBC payroll. And conflict, be it fabricated or otherwise is very good for ratings.

People in the academic world do not get paid well compared to those in business. There are exceptions but most professors and teachers I've met do it for the love of teaching.

Their professor helped for who knows how long with what appears to be zero financial gain. If after all kinds of due diligence, the Dragons were still prepared to invest $200k that speaks volumes about Jobloft's potential. There will be other investors.

Some critics said that being on the Dragons Den and turning down the investment capital was negative marketing for Jobloft. Sorry but I respectfully disagree.

They could never buy that kind of marketing exposure as a startup. Not to mention showcasing their integrity and loyalty on national television.

Nice guys might finish last but at least they finish.

Blackberry and BlackJack: Riding the RIM wave of success?

There is competition in marketing. But when does the competition break the rules?

RIM says Samsung’s “BlackJack” product name is too close to RIM’s “BlackBerry” product name. Clearly, they are competitive smart phones with sleek black casings. And the names are pretty similar, too. Maybe too close.

That’s the basis of RIM’s complaint in a California court. RIM claims that consumers may confuse the BlackJack with the BlackBerry.

For its trade-mark infringement claim, the legal test RIM must prove is one of likelihood of confusion: are the products and names similar enough to confuse consumers? The “consumers” in question are the general public: not careful and diligent purchasers, nor the “moron in a hurry” (I swear to god the “moron in a hurry” has been considered as a class of consumer, in British and other commonwealth courts). Also, it is not necessary to show actual confusion, only the possibility of confusion.

Did Samsung do it on purpose? The court doesn’t care. Accidental is the same as intentional infringement. Murder is a different story, but for trade-marks, whether you intended to infringe is beside the point.

What about the fact that a blackberry is a fruit and blackjack is a card game? While meanings are relevant, the court will also consider appearance, sound, and commercial impression. Similarity of the marks in one aspect does not automatically result in a finding of likelihood of confusion.

We’ll wait and see the court’s reaction.

I suspect there is merit to RIM’s claim, but sometimes lawsuits can backfire…. I’m thinking of the record industry’s suits against kids who used Napster.

On the other hand, there is no such thing as bad press: the reports in newspapers, and even this blog, mention both RIM and Samsung.

Should Marketing Have a Bar Exam?

This post was submitted to the CMA from Jonny White, an online business owner and an academic with a strong interest in media influences www.jonnywhite.ca

What follows are excerpts from a paper he wrote during his MSc. in Organizational Psychology at Saint Mary's University in Halifax, where he ponders the impact of marketing and communications on society.

"A communications system is totally neutral... It is, in sum, no more and no less than the men and women who use it."
- Edward R. Murrow, Legendary CBS Newsman

"An organization to review and assess the marketing profession does not have to know everything about marketing. Simply put, everything about marketing, or any other profession for that matter, is not known. The standard regulating who could be a doctor was in place even when doctors still believed in the four humours and were blood-letting to cure people of their demons. That standard, however, has helped to develop medical knowledge and the profession to a point of contribution, responsibility, and accountability without which we would still face the illnesses and strife of the last millennium"

Marketing does not simply encourage the purchase of products and services, just as social marketing does simply increase the frequency with which people brush their teeth or recycle. Marketing and social marketing change our view of ourselves within the world and change what is important to us. This has been shown in numeorus empirical psychological studies and experiments. Putting aside logistics for the moment, there is an ethical argument for the idea that there should be no marketing allowed at all.

Marketing influences ideologies. It changes who we are. Is it worth the advantage of a more robust economy or decreased heart disease to have our very natures changed at the whim of a message sender who does not understand the total impact of their message? An examination of our culture, widely accepted now as a 'consumer culture' gives a hint as to what role persuasive mass communications plays in the evolution of a society's attitudes. Every marketer, social or commercial, places selling their product or ideology ahead of all others and competes to create the most persuasive communication possible. If marketing impacts society at present, its influence will increase exponentially as marketers' use and knowledge of marketing psychology increases, and the ability and technology to communicate its messages improves.

Psychologists, accountants, carpenters, dentists, doctors, lawyers, and teachers are reviewed to ensure a minimum standard of awareness and competence due to the possible implications for the public of a misuse of their craft. Should we not hold marketers, given the known potential effects of persuasive media, to some standard as well?

To approach the argument from another angle, consider that psychologists must go through extensive ethics approval in order to run an experiment because it could have an adverse impact on the lives of the participants. Yet those who use the psychology of persuasion to influence others for their own benefit are held to no ethical standard. It is media, persuasion, and marketing researchers and psychologists who are best suited to create and implement that standard for marketers, as theirs is the most reliable knowledge about how marketing affects the target audience.

A licensing system would not only be a moral victory and a protection but also an aid to the users of the media in certifying professionals who understand media effects and marketing theory. Companies would not only be getting promotions that look good, but promotions that work. Creativity is still an absolute necessity but that creativity can be teamed up with knowledge, research, and testing to better understand marketing and to avoid adverse impacts as much as possible, and more and more as our understanding increases. The media really is a reflection of us: Largely image conscious, materialistic, and fickle, but at the same time given to truth, inspiration, and great ideas on occasion. With the rapidly expanding base of knowledge that now exists we can begin to harness the power of the media for the betterment of society, or at the very least, reduce the adverse impacts.