Published in CommPRO.biz 2013.07.08

Ethical Marketing

 

Marketing genius Seth Godin brought us up sharp with an on-the-mark blog post. He pointed out that many marketers blithely peddle goods or services that they know – or should know – are anything but good for those they entice into using them. It’s easy to look askance at those who market tobacco and other well known threats to our well-being. Godin zeros in on fast food, actually food in general, and our obesity epidemic along with the array of woes it brings with it.

It’s too easy to point out that the occasional burger and fries, or pile of pancakes with maple syrup does not make one obese. Nor that some individuals find it a lot harder to control their weight than others. Neither of those points amounts to a whole lot when we all know that there’s no way to limit what a food maker offers unless we do it, unless we show them a better and more profitable option.

There is another face on this coin, health insurance. Or more accurately benefits, since this sector veered from the insurance model years ago. No one expects a life insurance company to offer a policy to those in their nineties; in fact most policies cut off well before the applicant turns eighty. Nor is it expected that a life policy will be issued to an individual with severe health issues. While we as a people are not going to deny health benefits to those who do not act to care for themselves, some boundaries need to be established by the underwriters, the government and the medical community; the doctors and healthcare facilities.

Godin makes the point that marketing is one of the few professions that does not have boundaries. Law, medicine, real estate, retailing, even food manufacturing all have boundaries. The only fence surrounding the marketing world is a truth in advertising rule. Of course many marketers have ethical boundaries. They won’t work for companies who do not adhere to high ethical standards. But even those individuals and agencies might not feel that a food manufacturer presents an ethical issue.

On the contrary such a company might present an opportunity, an opportunity to create a set of boundaries. Boundaries that never show oversized portions; that offer only healthy recipes and serving suggestions. Boundaries that limit the potential for harm from legitimate efforts to create revenue for the company. There is reason to believe that this is a solid marketing concept. Consumers are moving more and more to products that offer healthy options. So rather than selling more to a limited number of customers, create more customers.

Beyond marketing, medicine and government have work to do on the obesity front. And marketing needs recognize that food and obesity are but a single color on its palette. There’s hardly a company that does not present ethical issues when it comes to creating their sales messaging. We owe Godin thanks for reminding us of our responsibility to follow the ethical model whatever we peddle.

Doctor Owned Device Firms

It’s not easy these days for those who practice medicine. Physicians are standing on shifting sand. It’s a tough and demanding profession. They have to be super smart and go through a grueling educational process that too often leaves them staggering under a mountain of debt. The traditional Fee For Service model that dominates American medicine pushes doctors to see more and more patients and tack on as many services as possible. It’s not a giant leap from there for doctors to have a financial interest in a medical entity or device. Makes sense, we invest in what we know. And there is nothing wrong with that.

But therein lies an ethical and legal quagmire. Let’s say a surgeon specializes in implantable pacemakers and defibrillators. It wouldn’t be unusual to favor and use a particular manufacturer’s models exclusively; nothing wrong with that. The red flags go up when a cozy relationship with the manufacturer evolves into a deal netting the doctor a profit on each device sold. The potential for doctors to call the shots on medical supply purchases is defensible when their motivation is to maintain high quality goods and services. It is indefensible when they have a financial interest.

While blatantly ethically challenged behavior of this nature would seem rare in a profession like medicine, apparently it is common enough to trigger last month’s (2013.03.26) “Special Fraud Alert: Physician-Owned Entities,” from The Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services. Their concern on this issue dates to the late 1980s when they issued their first fraud alert under a statute covering kickbacks in the medical field. While the current alert covers implantable devices, the kickback statute looks at any situation where medical personnel have an interest in a device or facility resulting in usage or referrals that puts money in their pocket.

In addition to the smarmy side of these issues there is an obvious concern that healthcare costs will be driven up by a proliferation of physician owned facilities. Costs driven by an excess number of such facilities where there is little market supply and demand restraint. And when the doctors own the imaging facility, the testing laboratory, the dialysis facility, or any other medical service that they can feed patients into, there is a potential for abuse. It shouldn’t have to be a federal case, but those who will not live within their own ethical boundaries can expect a visit from the law.