I’ve been reading a pretty interesting book – John Stossel’s latest. He makes some fascinating points, especially regarding the inequities of how rules and laws are used to enforce social policy. Stossel points out that rules like Title IX (the Federal statute dictating that boys and girls sports programs must be “equal.” The result of the law is that schools are finding they have to cut down on boys sports, because of a lack of enrollment/participation by girls.

Other chapters cover how attorneys have profited by suing over junk science witch hunts (DDT, irradiated foods, et cetera). It’s riveting stuff, especially when you realize that there is a radical disconnect between what we are told is the “truth” and what’s really going on. What emerges is a pattern – a pattern that shows that one little erroneous factoid or malicious story generated by some special-interest group can get picked up and amplified by a media hungry for any kind of story that can be sensationalized. Their over-hyping then triggers an over-reaction government, motivated by self-interest and a desire to “fix” everything by way of taxation and/or regulation. In effect, within this system, the truth is either immaterial, or collateral damage to the goals and aims of the special interests/media/government.

So where does marketing come in to play a part in this unholy cabal? Interestingly, at every step along the way. Marketers tell stories. When a story is compelling, it spreads. When it’s not, it dies. Marketing is the original aural virus. In order to get some fiction turned, by government/media fiat into the “truth,” marketing is the tool for the job. Marketing, of course, comes in many forms – there’s advertising, of course. But don’t forget P.R., editorial, and good old fashioned rumors. It’s performance art writ large.

Consider the chemical DDT. I’m sure, if you’ve heard anything at all about DDT, it’s that it’s a horrible, deadly chemical, that must be banned to preserve the public’s safety. The truth is, the only thing DDT affects are mosquitos. Not humans. In fact, I’m old enough to remember trucks pulling through our neighborhood and spraying the stuff into the air, like gigantic clouds, bringing death – to the mosquito population. These clouds of DDT harmed no one. There were no great increases in any kind of cancer or other fatal diseases – and certainly none that could be associated with DDT. Enter the book, Silent Spring.

A woman by the name of Rachel Carson wrote a book that vilified DDT, and blamed our love of chemical solutions for her own cancer. (She died of breast cancer two years after the publication of her book.) Silent Spring is almost single-handedly credited with triggering a worldwide ban on DDT. The result of this ban has been, paradoxically enough, millions of deaths in countries like Ethiopia, where malaria kills due to mosquito infestations. U.S. aid policy bans sending money to any country that chooses to spray with DDT.

How did Silent Spring cause this wave of destruction? Marketing. The book was marketed by it’s publishers. The marketing efforts attracted the attention of a mainstream media hungry for stories that scare the populace to death. The unwashed masses Demanded That Something Be Done. Politicians, eager to grandstand (and free of conciences that might give them pause to think about the Law of Unintended Consequences) passed laws, and that was that.

the current trend in the legal trade is to sue companies for liability over their products that, years later, are proven to be harmful. For instance, asbestos was used in everything from residential siding, fireman’s protective gear, and building insulations for years. Nobody knew it could cause cancer. When this unfortunate fact was discovered, asbestos manufacturers stopped making and selling the stuff. Lawyers sued them essentially for not knowing their products were harmful, even before anyone had made the connection between mesothelioma and asbestos.

With that kind of logic, ANY product could be found to be harmful, and entire industries could be bankrupted. There’s a legal concept that prevents laws being passed after the fact – it’s called “ex post facto.” It means you can’t be held as guilty for something you did before a law was passed that prohibits whatever it was you did. Sadly, that legal concept seems to have escaped our tort system.

Here’s a poser for you…just how long do you think it’s going to be before lawyers start going after the REAL perpetrators, when some of these bogus claims and scare stories are exposed for what they really are – hot air?

Let’s say, for instance, that we presume that, while global warming is real, it’s cyclical and entirely beyond the effects of man. In other words, nothing mankind can do or say will effect global warming – or global cooling – in any way, shape or form. Trouble is, we’ve passed a bunch of laws and regulations that have cost consumers millions (if not billions) of dollars in things like, um…I dunno – replacing cheap incandescent light bulbs with expensive (not to mention enviornmentally dangerous) mercury-laced floursent bulbs. Do you think lawyers will ignore the opportunity to sue SOMEBODY for this huge injustice? I don’t. And if they want to get the REAL culprits, they’ll sue not just companies like GE (makers of “green” lightbulbs as well as owners of NBC, the so-called “green” network), but also GE’s advertising, marketing and PR agencies. THEY are the companies that have sewn the seeds of their own – and our – destruction.

But thats’s just one company, and one marketing campaign – albeit a really big one. What about the “carbon footprint” nonsense? DDT? Alar? Food irradiation? Genetically altered foods? Marketing companies routinely make millions, promoting causes that are later proven to be completely bogus. How long before some enterprising ambulance chaser realizes there’s money to be had going after the masters of manipulation, instead of just the corporations behind the stories? Remember, agencies are big business. You hear about “Big Oil” and “Big Chemical” all the time. But “Big Marketing” is every bit as large a “problem” as any other industry. And ultimately, just as liable.

Think about your own marketing – and your marketers. Is your marketing realistic, or are you “spinning” or “shading the truth,” in the hopes of putting one over on your customers? Is your marketing message 100% ethical, or are you exaggerating your claims, in the hopes that nobody will care – or catch on? Be aware – the day is coming that no one will be beyond the reach of the  long arm of the trial lawyers. And the world will begin in earnest, an inexorable spiral down into fascism, in the classical sense.

This entry was posted on Sunday, September 14th, 2008 at 11:00 pm and is filed under marketing, media.You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.