International marketing ethics: principles and practices

Unethical Marketing

Successful advertising has always walked a fine line between touting the benefits of a particular product or service and making unethical claims and/or employing unethical techniques in a marketing strategy. Some cases of unethical marketing are clear-cut, however, going far past this line and into a total ethical void. One such case was the marketing of Vioxx by pharmaceutical manufacturer Merck in 2005 (OMB, 2005). Despite the company's knowledge that the drug led to an increased risk of heart failure, they continued to aggressively market their product. Not only did they ignore evidence that suggested the risk inherent to taking Vioxx, but an investigation of the incident conducted by a congressional committee "revealed a pattern of using carefully crafted sales techniques and questionable presentation of scientific information in a campaign to push Vioxx and minimize its risks" (OMB, 2005).

The unethical behavior in this situation, then, is twofold. First, Merck ignored the risk that their medication carried and continued to sell their drug without conducting further research into the safety of the drug and without warning doctors or consumers of the known risks, to the point that an estimated eighty-eight thousand to one-hundred and forty thousand Americans are believed to have suffered significant medical complications from taking the drug (OMB, 2005). Second, and even worse, Merck consciously and actively took steps to misrepresent the level of risk and the efficacy of the drug in an attempt to make the benefits of the drug seem to far outweigh any dangers it presented (OMB, 2005). The unethical behavior of Merck in their marketing of Vioxx went beyond feigning ignorance; their further actions and marketing materials make it clear that they were aware of the deficiencies and dangers of their product, and that they directly lied in their advertising to physicians and consumers alike.

Pharmaceutical marketing, though a direct and unequivocal attempt to increase profits, must remain rooted in its concern for public welfare and health if it is to remain ethical. Though the Vioxx incident is one of the more major breaches of this implicit public contract, the issues of improper marketing -- especially in over-promoting a drug's efficacy and unethically downplaying a drug's risks -- are an industry-wide problem (OBM, 2005) for that reason, Merck and other pharmaceutical companies ought to adhere to the same standards as social marketing. Social marketing, which is generally not for a profit, is concerned only with public welfare, and thus faces slightly different ethical issues (Brenkert, 2002). Both commercial and social marketing are concerned with improving the well-being of the consumer, but in social marketing "the intended well-being of the people targeted is not simply an individual or subjective matter" (Brenkert, 2002). The same should be true of pharmaceutical marketing; though these companies must turn a profit, their main concern -- like the main concern for all other sectors and practitioners in healthcare -- should be the welfare of their patients.