VIGNANA JYOTHI INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT

Advanced Marketing Management

A Term Paper Report On

Societal Marketing and Morality

Submitted To Mrs. V. Jayshree

Submitted By
Anusha Boddapati- (10303) Neha Singh- (10229) Ch. Ravi Kishore- (10108) N. Vamsi Krishna- (10126) Zarna Shingala- (10250)

Contents
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 3 HISTORY .................................................................................................................................................. 4 FEATURES ................................................................................................................................................ 4 FUNCTIONS.............................................................................................................................................. 4 EFFECTS ................................................................................................................................................... 4 BENEFITS ................................................................................................................................................. 5 SOCIETAL MARKETING AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY................................................................................ 5 THE CHALLENGES FACED.......................................................................................................................... 6 THE SIGNIFICANCE ................................................................................................................................... 6 EXAMPLES ............................................................................................................................................... 6 SOCIAL MORALITY ................................................................................................................................... 8 KOHLBERG'S SIX STAGES .......................................................................................................................... 9 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................................... 14 REFERENCE ............................................................................................................................................ 14

INTRODUCTION
SOCIETAL MARKETING- Building Profitable Customer Relationships

The societal marketing concept

Society (human welfare)

Consumers (want satisfaction)

Company (want profit)

Societal Marketing is basically a marketing concept that is of the view that a company must make good marketing decisions after considering consumer wants, the requirements of the company and most of all the long term interests of the society. 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. This concept calls upon marketers to balance three considerations in setting their marketing policies. The organization should determine the needs, wants and interests of the target markets. It should then deliver the desired satisfactions more effectively and efficiently than competitors in a way that maintains or improves the consumers and societys well-being. Societal marketing emphasizes several aspects of responsible marketing, beyond simply focusing on the process of maximizing consumer purchasing. Societal marketing extends ahead of the company's needs and seeks to meet the customer's needs and societal needs. This allows for more sustainable success rather than short-term accomplishment. Essentially, the goal is to provide a marketing strategy that betters both consumer and societal well-being. Although societal marketing still aims at surpassing the competition, its strategy has changed. There is an understanding in this type of marketing that while it may not provide higher yields, it is more socially responsible.

HISTORY
 Societal marketing appeared during the 1970s in an attempt to provide marketing concepts that were more in tune with social needs and established more ethical practices.  As more emphasis was placed on social responsibility, more companies moved toward business practices that supported these values.  The idea of social responsibility surfaced decades before societal marketing became an option. However, during the 1960s and 1970s, the unethical business practices of many companies became public information.  Suddenly, large corporations were under the scrutiny of the consumer. To better this image, action was taken to increase social responsibly, which led to societal marketing.

FEATURES
y y y When companies adopt societal marketing, they are choosing to maintain socially responsible practices that benefit consumers and the larger community. Companies using this type of marketing are concerned with not only immediate customer satisfaction but also long-term impact on the customer and society. Several avenues exist for this social responsibility. For instance, a company focusing on social responsibility from an environmental perspective may strive to decrease its carbon print on the earth. Therefore, one of its goals might be to reduce practices that pollute or damage the environment.

FUNCTIONS
 One of the major goals of societal marketing is to improve brand image in the eyes of the consumer. For companies, this is referred to as corporate societal marketing, or CSM.  This type of marketing has several goals, including building the image of the brand, developing more community awareness of the brand, ensuring a sense of credibility in the brand, eliciting consumer feelings toward the brand and ultimately securing a customer/brand connection.

EFFECTS
Societal marketing can have a variety of impacts on the consumer and the community. Advocates for this type of marketing believe that by enforcing products and practices that benefit consumers and communities for the long run, they will also achieve more loyal customers for the long term. If consumers have a positive perception of the company, then the brand name will be strengthened by these views and business will improve.

BENEFITS
Societal marketing can positively impact consumers and society in several ways. First, shifting to a consumer-oriented strategy reinforces the needs of the customer over the corporation. Therefore, rather than focusing on a sale, regardless of the positive or negative effect on the company, the customer's well-being is put first. For instance, many food-based companies have begun marketing strategies that highlight their healthy foods rather than their less-healthy alternatives. These same companies might provide nutrition facts, information about trans fats and other health-related facts. Not only does this information educate the consumer, but it also establishes the impression that the company is accounting for the client's needs. Companies that both advertise and invest in programs that shift to environmentally friendly business practices are examples of how societal marketing can help the larger community. Nonprofit organizations are among the biggest proponents of societal marketing. Marketing not only enhances their image, it allows them to exert their influence on society as a whole when they put socially responsible spins on their agendas. Societal marketing can also be used to influence healthy behavior and discourage unhealthy practices. Perhaps the best example of societal marketing comes with increased environmental awareness and the marketing of green products. Society expands to encompass the entire Societal marketing can lead to the development of desirable products and long-term, mutually beneficial relationships, enhancing consumer's well-being without harm to society.

SOCIETAL MARKETING AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

As the marketing decisions frequently involve people from agencies which are both external and internal to the organization, such as advertising, PR etc., the individuals moral responsibility is a major factor in marketing. Also, the 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 adoption of the SMC may thus equally result in the adoption of moral behavior 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. The relationship between organizations and society as a whole says that business and society are interwoven rather than distinct entities; therefore society has certain expectations for appropriate business behavior and outcomes. 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. Societal marketing by whom Societal marketing is deployed by government departments, agencies, nonprofit organizations and nongovernmental organizations. Several NGOs like CRY, WWF have managed to create
5

and sustain heart wrenching campaigns. Several commercial organizations also apply societal marketing for their CSR initiatives. No wonder, societal marketers seem to be in great demand and their role in society is receiving a tremendous impetus. Most often, NGO's and NPO's recruit marketing professionals or agencies to drive home their point.

THE CHALLENGES FACED

The task returns are difficult to measure. Societal marketers may have to wait for years or decades to see some form of societal change. Communication about sensitive societal issues may be like walking the tightrope. There might be a very thin line between a hard hitting and a gory campaign against AIDS. At times, the communication may be so poignant that the next time an individual sees it he or she may like to ignore it rather than think about the issue at all. Regional differences in a country like India pose challenge to societal marketers. A campaign to save the girl child will be more relevant in a state like Uttar Pradesh or Bihar, where there are rampant cases of female infanticide, rather than a state like Kerala, where women not only surpass men in numbers but are also socially more empowered than their counterparts in other states.

THE SIGNIFICANCE
Societal marketing is gaining importance world wide as people become aware of social and environmental issues both old and new. It becomes all the more important cases where legal or political solutions have not helped the cause and voluntary change on the part of individual or society is desired. Societal marketing could well be answer to several pressing issues worldwide and this in itself could be overwhelming for societal marketers.

EXAMPLES
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 planet. Thus it is completely following the concept of Societal Marketing. The Body Shop is an organization that has taken the societal marketing concept firmly on board. It sources its products solely from sustainable resources, embodies the fair trade concept, and markets safe and effective products to consumers who are socially conscious and have adopted the green agenda. However, its success has been achieved because it does not rely entirely on the
6

beads and kaftans brigade for its customers. It is a mainstream retailer that sells vast quantities of goods to people who have never given a thought to where they came from. 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. 4: McDonald's Environmentalism 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 (used for the clamshells) blown with CFCs, the family of chemicals which destroy the ozone layer, to plastic foam that used hydrocarbon blowing agents. In 1989, the company instituted a pilot program in 450 New England stores to recycle its plastic clamshells. In April, 1990, it committed $100 million, 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 "McRecycle". In 1989 and 1990, McDonald's bolstered its environmental management practices with a proactive public relations campaign. The centerpiece was the 1989 Annual Report, which highlighted the issue of the natural environment. 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 1989 annual report represents an aggressive attempt by the company to manage the public discourse around the company's role as an environmentally responsible corporate citizen and construct itself as green. The report belongs to the category of epideictic advocacy, the discourse of praise and blame that is commonly used to establish or consolidate value premises, especially in corporate issue management campaigns; such discourse often serves as a basis for later persuasive efforts. Epideictic rhetoric works by building on shared premises and borrowing from values and beliefs embedded in the common culture. In this case, given the new ecological awareness of the public, McDonald's positions itself as having concerns ecological and practical, social as well as economic.

5: ADIDAS: It has embarked on a number of projects, all community based. -better pay for local workers in the under-developed countries. -support for local community sports. -offer of free sports gears for talents. -sports events sponsorship. -supporting the construction of sports grounds. -cheaper brands for selected countries etc 6: COCA COLA has programs for -local water supply -community developments like sports etc

7: NESTLE: A blatant example of where this concept was ignored was the marketing by the Nestle Company of infant formula in developing countries. Although the company has since modified its practices in response to international pressure, it was accused in the late 1970s of marketing its formula on the premise that its product was better for babies than breast milk. The main problem was that, in order to prepare the formula for use, it had to be mixed with water, and if the water was contaminated, which is frequently the case in African villages, the milk would be as well.

SOCIAL MORALITY
We live in a global-society in which we are all interconnected. We need to start learning how to live together, because we are NOT living together. We are going in the wrong direction as far as living together as a society, much less a global-society. Our society, in the United States, and elsewhere is tearing itself apart. Look at the society we have created. A society just living in the here-and-now; and not even thinking about the future. An individual has more future then they do the here-and-now. Are you thinking five, ten, fifteen years when it comes to education? Probably not, and the kids are not thinking of their future either. Everyone is just in the here and now, here and now. We continue to live in a society with no system of morals and values and it is getting worse. We need to live in a society that teaches morals, a society teaching social morality. MORALITY- morality means a code of conduct which is held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong. A moral outcome can be achieved in specific situation (applied ethics), how moral values should be determined (normative ethics), what morals people actually abide by (descriptive ethics), what the fundamental nature of ethics or morality is (meta-ethics), and how moral capacity or moral agency develops and what its nature is (moral psychology)
8

It also depends on the consumer behaviors which consumers consider acceptable - service providers can better understand their customers is to investigate their customers ethical inclination. Consumer ethics today incorporate many activities such as consumers: y Properties (recycled, sustainable, carbon neutral etc.); y Moderating or eliminating the use of scarce or harmful resources (water, petrol, pesticides etc.); y Forming groups with a view to altering business outputs or the consumption practices of other consumers; and y Evaluating the outcomes of others consumption decision. Corporate Social Responsibility is the alignment of business operations with social values. CSR consists of integrating the interests of stakeholders- all those affected by the companys conductinto the companys business policies and actions. CSR focuses on the social, environmental, and financial success of a company.

KOHLBERG'S SIX STAGES

Level1. Preconvention Morality Stage1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation. Kohlberg's stage 1 is similar to Piaget's first stage of moral thought. The child assumes that powerful authorities hand down a fixed set of rules which he or she must unquestioningly obey. To the Heinz dilemma, the child typically says that Heinz was wrong to steal the drug because "It's against the law," or "It's bad to steal," as if this were all there were to it. When asked to elaborate, the child usually responds in terms of the consequences involved, explaining that stealing is bad "because you'll get punished" (Kohlberg, 1958b). Although the vast majority of children at stage 1 oppose Heinzs theft, it is still possible for a child to support the action and still employ stage 1 reasoning. For example, a child might say, "Heinz can steal it because he asked first and it's not like he stole something big; he won't get punished" (see Rest, 1973). Even though the child agrees with Heinzs action, the reasoning is still stage 1; the concern is with what authorities permit and punish. Kohlberg calls stage 1 thinking "preconventional" because children do not yet speak as members of society. Instead, they see morality as something external to themselves, as that which the big people say they must do. Stage 2. Individualism and Exchange. At this stage children recognize that there is not just one right view that is handed down by the authorities. Different individuals have different viewpoints. "Heinz," they might point out, "might think it's right to take the drug, the druggist would not." Since everything is relative, each person is free to pursue his or her individual interests. One boy said that Heinz might steal the drug if he wanted his wife to live, but that he
9

doesn't have to if he wants to marry someone younger and better-looking. Another boy said Heinz might steal it because maybe they had children and he might need someone at home to look after them. But maybe he shouldn't steal it because they might put him in prison for more years than he could stand. What is right for Heinz, then, is what meets his own self-interests. You might have noticed that children at both stages 1 and 2 talk about punishment. However, they perceive it differently. At stage 1 punishment is tied up in the child's mind with wrongness; punishment "proves" that disobedience is wrong. At stage 2, in contrast, punishment is simply a risk that one naturally wants to avoid. Although stage 2 respondents sometimes sound amoral, they do have some sense of right action. This is a notion of fair exchange or fair deals. The philosophy is one of returning favors--"If you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." To the Heinz story, subjects often say that Heinz was right to steal the drug because the druggist was unwilling to make a fair deal; he was "trying to rip Heinz off," Or they might say that he should steal for his wife "because she might return the favor some day". Respondents at stage 2 are still said to reason at the preconventional level because they speak as isolated individuals rather than as members of society. They see individuals exchanging favors, but there is still no identification with the values of the family or community. Level II. Conventional Morality Stage 3. Good Interpersonal Relationships. At this stage children--who are by now usually entering their teens--see morality as more than simple deals. They believe that people should live up to the expectations of the family and community and behave in "good" ways. Good behavior means having good motives and interpersonal feelings such as love, empathy, trust, and concern for others. Heinz, they typically argue, was right to steal the drug because "He was a good man for wanting to save her," and "His intentions were good, that of saving the life of someone he loves." Even if Heinz doesn't love his wife, these subjects often say, he should steal the drug because "I don't think any husband should sit back and watch his wife die". If Heinzs motives were good, the druggist's were bad. The druggist, stage 3 subjects emphasize, was "selfish," "greedy," and "only interested in himself, not another life." Sometimes the respondents become so angry with the druggist that they say that he ought to be put in jail. A typical stage 3 response is that of Don, age 13: It was really the druggist's fault, he was unfair, trying to overcharge and letting someone die. Heinz loved his wife and wanted to save her. I think anyone would. I don't think they would put him in jail. The judge would look at all sides, and see that the druggist was charging too much. We see that Don defines the issue in terms of the actors' character traits and motives. He talks about the loving husband, the unfair druggist, and the understanding judge. His answer deserves the label "conventional "morality" because it assumes that the attitude expressed would be shared by the entire community"anyone" would be right to do what Heinz did. As mentioned earlier, there are similarities between Kohlberg's first three stages and Piaget's two stages. In both sequences there is a shift from unquestioning obedience to a relativistic outlook and to a concern for good motives. For Kohlberg, however, these shifts occur in three stages rather than two.

10

Stage 4. Maintaining the Social Order. Stage 3 reasoning works best in two-person relationships with family members or close friends, where one can make a real effort to get to know the other's feelings and needs and try to help. At stage 4, in contrast, the respondent becomes more broadly concerned with society as a whole. Now the emphasis is on obeying laws, respecting authority, and performing one's duties so that the social order is maintained. In response to the Heinz story, many subjects say they understand that Heinz's motives were good, but they cannot condone the theft. What would happen if we all started breaking the laws whenever we felt we had a good reason? The result would be chaos; society couldn't function. As one subject explained, I don't want to sound like Spiro Agnew, law and order and wave the flag, but if everybody did as he wanted to do, set up his own beliefs as to right and wrong, then I think you would have chaos. The only thing I think we have in civilization nowadays is some sort of legal structure which people are sort of bound to follow. Because stage 4, subjects make moral decisions from the perspective of society as a whole, they think from a full-fledged member-of-society perspective. You will recall that stage 1 children also generally oppose stealing because it breaks the law. Superficially, stage 1 and stage 4 subjects are giving the same response, so we see here why Kohlberg insists that we must probe into the reasoning behind the overt response. Stage 1 children say, "It's wrong to steal" and "It's against the law," but they cannot elaborate any further, except to say that stealing can get a person jailed. Stage 4 respondents, in contrast, have a conception of the function of laws for society as a whole--a conception which far exceeds the grasp of the younger child.

Level III. Postconventional Morality Stage 5. Social Contract and Individual Rights. At stage 4, people want to keep society functioning. However, a smoothly functioning society is not necessarily a good one. A totalitarian society might be well-organized, but it is hardly the moral ideal. At stage 5, people begin to ask, "What makes for a good society?" They begin to think about society in a very theoretical way, stepping back from their own society and considering the rights and values that a society ought to uphold. They then evaluate existing societies in terms of these prior considerations. They are said to take a "prior-to-society" perspective. Stage 5 respondents basically believe that a good society is best conceived as a social contract into which people freely enter to work toward the benefit of all.They recognize that different social groups within a society will have different values, but they believe that all rational people would agree on two points. First they would all want certain basic rights, such as liberty and life, to be protected. Second, they would want some democratic procedures for changing unfair law and for improving society.

11

In response to the Heinz dilemma, stage 5 respondents make it clear that they do not generally favor breaking laws; laws are social contracts that we agree to uphold until we can change them by democratic means. Nevertheless, the wifes right to live is a moral right that must be protected. Thus, stage 5 respondent sometimes defend Heinzs theft in strong language: It is the husband's duty to save his wife. The fact that her life is in danger transcends every other standard you might use to judge his action. Life is more important than property. This young man went on to say that "from a moral standpoint" Heinz should save the life of even a stranger, since to be consistent; the value of a life means any life. When asked if the judge should punish Heinz, he replied: Usually the moral and legal standpoints coincide. Here they conflict. The judge should weight the moral standpoint more heavily but preserve the legal law in punishing Heinz lightly. Stage 5 subjects,- then, talk about "morality" and "rights" that take some priority over particular laws. Kohlberg insists, however, that we do not judge people to be at stage 5 merely from their verbal labels. We need to look at their social perspective and mode of reasoning. At stage 4, too, subjects frequently talk about the "right to life," but for them this right is legitimized by the authority of their social or religious group (e.g., by the Bible). Presumably, if their group valued property over life, they would too. At stage 5, in contrast, people are making more of an independent effort to think out what any society ought to value. They often reason, for example, that property has little meaning without life. They are trying to determine logically what a society ought to be like. Stage 6: Universal Principles. Stage 5 respondents are working toward a conception of the good society. They suggest that we need to (a) protect certain individual rights and (b) settle disputes through democratic processes. However, democratic processes alone do not always result in outcomes that we intuitively sense are just. A majority, for example, may vote for a law that hinders a minority. Thus, Kohlberg believes that there must be a higher stage--stage 6-which defines the principles by which we achieve justice. Kohlberg's conception of justice follows that of the philosophers Kant and Rawls, as well as great moral leaders such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King. According to these people, the principles of justice require us to treat the claims of all parties in an impartial manner, respecting the basic dignity, of all people as individuals. The principles of justice are therefore universal; they apply to all. Thus, for example, we would not vote for a law that aids some people but hurts others. The principles of justice guide us toward decisions based on an equal respect for all.

Multinational Corporations, International Trade and Morality. Do No Evil? The activity of multinational corporations in the international arena is an important engine of development. It is within the ability of multinational corporations to create jobs, to invest in expensive research, to transfer knowledge and technology around the world and to promote progress in many fields. Indeed the international community supports such activities through the regulation of both international trade and investment. These rules are mostly designed to
12

facilitate international economic activity by ensuring easy access to foreign markets and warranting fair treatment to aliens by host states. The opening of borders to international activity has also brought about certain illnesses, some of which are not easy to confront. On the environmental front for example, it seems as if fears of losing economic competitiveness inhibit countries like the United States from passing a significant climate change bill. With regard to labor standards, competition for foreign investment may encourage countries to relax their labor laws and to use lower standards as an enticement for foreign economic actors. International economic activity is a complex, multilayered issue, one that touches (and often clashes with) a multitude of global issues. A somewhat complicated relationship exists between international economic activity of multinational corporations and morality. The different concepts of moral behavior, the notion of companies as entities that should act according to guidelines of morality (rather than just acting according to laws) and the role of the state as a champion for the publics morality; all these factors are controversial and contribute to the complexity of the relationship. In the context of international economic law, one should add to these debate concerns of hidden protectionism, i.e. cases in which a state attempts to protect its domestic industry by attributing moral fault to foreign economic actors. In the past, several multinationals have acted in a manner which is considered as immoral to western eyes. Reports of Nikes sweatshops remains until today a symbol for abusive behavior, in which the possibility to reduce costs outdid western views of what is appropriate. In other, less brutal cases however, the clash between international economic rights and morality is harder to discern. Indeed in recent years two cases relating to this issue of morality were adjudicated by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB): US - Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services in which the United State raised GATS Article XIV(a) the public morals defense concerning its prohibition of online gambling, and China Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution Services for Certain Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products in which China raised the public morals defense (this time under the GATT), regarding its right to authorize and restrict the distribution of foreign entertainment products (i.e. DVDs, books, etc.). Both of these cases dealt with attempts of multinational corporations to operate in foreign markets (the US market in the first case, the Chinese market in the second), and the consequent refusal of local authorities to allow their activities due to the danger that such an industry poses to its public morals. In both of these cases it was not so much the companies behavior, but rather the companies services and products (gambling and entertainment products) that were considered as a threat to public morals. When deciding these cases, the WTO panels clarified that the notion of morals is to be defined according to the local community or nation standards of morality. Morality, for the purpose of WTO law, is a subjective, local concept, and is to be determined according to local cultural, ethical and religious values. One may ask whether this type of pluralistic determination does not bring WTO panels to an automatic acceptance of any claim of the morality defense. After all,
13

how can a foreign panel of arbitrators dispute a claim based on local values? Should and can trade arbitrators become the judges of such values? A recent clash between two rising giants, China and Google, presents another advancement in the relationship between multinational corporations and morality. In a nut shell, this dispute regards Googles decision to shut its Chinese search engine (google.cn), due to the Chinese authorities censorship of Google search results. Googles decision was not portrayed as a business decision, or as a result of cost-benefit calculation, but as nothing less than a humanrights/freedom of speech political move. Sergey Brin, one of Googles two co-founders demanded U.S. governmental support on this issue, stating I certainly hope they make it a high priority Human rights issues deserve equal time to the trade issues that are high priority now, I hope this gets taken seriously. He further sources his childhood in communist USSR as a motivation for this move. U.S. officials were fast to adopt Brins narrative; Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was quoted by the BBC, saying that companies like Google should refuse to support politically motivated censorship. Google so it seems, is doing what the U.S. or China have attempted to do in the above described trade disputes: It claims that the other partys morality is just not high enough for its own standards. While such a decision is expected of a sovereign body like a state, it is somewhat surprising to see it coming from a commercial entity. Whose standards of morality does Google promote here? Its shareholders? Probably not. Sergey Brins? Possibly. The free world? Who appointed them or asked them to?

CONCLUSION
In essence, it can be said that societal marketing aims to guide companies for following marketing ethics and environmental policies so that their products are for the well being of the society. Moreover, companies must not aim only for commercial success in marketing products but they must ensure they're giving valuable services to the society. Societal marketing is a challenging issue for every firm as it requires oodles of innovation and creative thinking.

REFERENCE
y y y www.scribd.com www.buzzle.com/articles/societal-marketing-concept.html www.docstoc.com

14