Marketing Focus: Is marketing manipulation?

Wednesday 24 October 2018

In his final column for Connect magazine, marketing expert Chris Journeaux discusses what makes a good Jersey Royal - and questions whether marketing is manipulating or misleading consumers?

"It seems appropriate for my final column that the question of manipulation should rear its ugly head. It bedevils marketers.

"At the heart of this debate lies the self-eviscerating question: does marketing manipulate the consumer to buy something they don’t really want, or just plain mislead them.

I have never considered I might actually be trying to manipulate people. I was made to consider exactly this recently whilst training a small group of professionals. On presenting the group with a definition of marketing the room was disbelieving and hostile. I’m not sure if they were disappointed to know that some sort of mind-altering dark arts were not now going to be imparted to them, or whether they simply thought me wrong. I imagine the former, much as a generation of psychology students were suddenly made to face the fact that Cracker did not represent their future career prospects 

I hate to admit this, but they may have a point, albeit a limited one. I still baulk at the word “manipulation,” but can a case be made for promotion that exists at the outer reaches of truth? Maybe.

Let’s give it a stress test. When was the last time you saw a kidney-shaped potato with a waxy demeanour? The kind of small spud that sticks to your knife as you cut through it. That, and flaky skins, were the tests my father taught me when extolling the virtues of a Jersey Royal. Anything else was fakery. Our humble Royal has Protected Designation of Origin status so someone clearly thinks there is truth to them. And yet… last year I got involved in a bizarre online forum attempting to identify a farm producing a ‘real’ Jersey Royal, one that harked back to a former glory. We ended up in St. Lawrence, bulk buying small bags of Royals from a roadside stall. My father would have approved of the crop.

The implication, though, is that for some, the much lauded Jersey Royal is but a brand. Somewhere lost in the industrial processing of potatoes has been the fundamentals of what it takes to be something special in the world of legumes. Are we being manipulated, buying a brand with no substance? On this I feel split. The power of the brand is impressive and testament to the skill with which it is managed. I defy you to find anyone in the UK who has not at least heard of our Jersey Royal. As a Jerseyman, I lament what might arguably be the demise of a very fine legacy, that once tasted unique. But is it manipulation? I would argue, not; just fine marketing strategy of a less than stellar product.

What then what of the poster-child of marketing manipulation: Sunny Delight. Surely this was pure manipulation. Some of the telling of this brand story has been lost in the apocryphal annals of time, however there exists enough for a case to be made. The history of this drink saw it go from launch in August 1998 to number three in the best sellers list of UK soft drinks by the following year. Its sales came close to rivalling Pepsi, and The Grocer listed it as one of their top products. And then the equally swift demise.

The Guardian detailed a key issue with the drink in 2001: “Sunny Delight is 5% citrus juice, and a lot of sugar and water, with vegetable oil, thickeners, added vitamins and flavourings, colourings and other additives that make it look like fresh orange juice.” Having been a relatively ‘down-market’ product in the US since the sixties it was now marketed quite differently in Britain. However, as consumers became more ingredient savvy, and reportedly some children changed colour having drunk large quantities, the fall from grace was, perhaps, inevitable.

The question of manipulation stems from the marketing. In the advertising, the product was usually seen being taken from the fridge by some of the healthiest children you are likely to find. They were fresh in from sport, and overseen by a mother who was scarily suggestive of a successful eugenics experiment. The inference, manipulation if you will, was that the product was fresh and would offer your children the healthy, active choice. This, it proved, was not quite the case, as the ingredients made clear.

Have consumers been manipulated? This is perhaps closer to being the case in this example, but then consumer power did prevail; the product in this form died a death and maybe we all got just a little more wary of marketing promises. 

If marketing can manipulate, then the conclusion should surely be, only for a limited amount of time. If you want a future for your products or services, openness appears to be best policy."

You can read Chris' previous columns for Connect here.