« My other technology obsession -- alternative energy | Main | Blog Bits - Week of March 13th »

NY Times Gets Stealth Marketing Wrong

A New York Times article titled "For Tobacco, Stealth Marketing Is the Norm" is dead wrong. The marketing tactics cited are legitimate and pragmatic, even innovative given the constraints on tobacco marketing. They don't match WOMMA's definition of stealth marketing: tactics that attempt to hide the marketer's identity and fool the consumer. The Word of Mouth Marketing industry needs to keep this definition sharp to avoid confusion and keep the focus on the illegitimate practices that could undermine consumer trust.

Catching up on my reading this weekend, I read this article accusing the tobacco industry of using stealth marketing. But the tactics cited are "direct mail, coupon discounts, and promotional efforts for its database of smokers." Author Julie Bosman also uses the example of a new product, the Marlboro Menthol 72, "a shorter cigarette intended for a shorter smoking break" and a lower cost generic product. Her final example is RF Reynolds opening a tobacco lounge in Chicago in response the a citywide ban on smoking.

To me, this isn't stealth, it is creative, pragmatic marketing responding to the many restrictions the industry faces. But "stealth" marketing? Not in the definition that our industry is using.

WOMMA has developed a detailed definition of stealth marketing. The short version is anything that attempts to deceive the consumer, using a fake identity when contacting a consumer, hiding the marketers' involvement, etc.

These tobacco examples do none of these. The databases are pure opt-in; consumers know they are signing up for mailings from tobacco companies, so there's no deception there. The new products are smart marketing: adapting the features to changing circumstances in the market. The tobacco lounge: maybe this one is on the edge since it is the "Marshall McGearty Tobacco Lounge" (whoever he is) and not the RJ Reynolds lounge. But this seems no more deceptive than using a character like Ronald McDonald or the Jolly Green Giant to promote a product. On the other hand, it clearly declares it is for smokers, and is licensed as a retail tobacco store. Smokers know it is for them, non-smokers know not to go there. Where is the deception?

Many people don't like the idea of the tobacco industry doing any marketing, and perhaps this journalist is one of them. To them it doesn't seem "right" that a company should provide incentives to continue or increase use of a product when that use may lead to serious long-term health problems. There is grounds for a debate about the ethics involved, but that is a different issue than whether this is stealth.

This isn't a matter of splitting semantic hairs. The WOM industry needs to keep the definition of stealth marketing pure so we can focus on marketers whose abusive tactics could further alienate consumers from the marketing process. It is important that we don't allow stealth to be confused with legitimate marketers using honest tactics for products that some consider unsavory.

Posted by Jim Nail on March 12, 2006 at 08:25 AM | Email this post Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341cdcdc53ef00d83528583753ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference NY Times Gets Stealth Marketing Wrong:

Comments

The comments to this entry are closed.