Explain Brenkert's Position In Marketing And Vulnerability

Explain Brenkerts Position In Marketing And The Vulnerablenext A

Explain Brenkert’s position in “Marketing and the Vulnerable.” Next, apply his arguments to the case study “Kraft Foods Inc.: The Cost of Advertising on Children’s Waistlines.” What would Brenkert likely conclude about this case? Why? Do you agree or disagree with Brenkert? Why? Submit a word response in APA 6th ed. format. Your paper must include at least two external references. THANK YOU.

Paper For Above instruction

In his seminal work “Marketing and the Vulnerable,” Brenkert (2004) explores the ethical responsibilities of marketers when engaging with vulnerable populations, such as children, the elderly, or socioeconomically disadvantaged groups. Brenkert emphasizes that marketing practices should be guided by principles that respect human dignity and protect those who are most susceptible to exploitation or manipulation. He advocates for a moral framework where businesses recognize their moral obligations beyond merely maximizing profits, especially when their actions significantly impact vulnerable groups. Within this context, Brenkert argues that marketing to children, in particular, raises ethical concerns because children lack the cognitive development necessary to critically evaluate advertising messages, making them highly impressionable (Brenkert, 2004). This creates a moral responsibility for corporations to exercise caution and restraint, ensuring their advertisements do not exploit children’s naivety or contribute to harmful health outcomes.

Applying Brenkert’s arguments to the case study “Kraft Foods Inc.: The Cost of Advertising on Children’s Waistlines,” one can infer that Brenkert would likely critique Kraft Foods’ advertising strategies aimed at children. The case details how Kraft, a major food manufacturer, actively markets products high in sugar, fat, and salt to children, leveraging colorful packaging, cartoon characters, and media campaigns to attract young consumers. Brenkert would argue that such marketing practices are ethically problematic because they exploit children’s vulnerability and lack of critical judgment, encouraging unhealthy eating habits that contribute to childhood obesity. From his perspective, Kraft’s actions diminish children’s autonomy and undermine their well-being, violating the moral obligation of marketers to prioritize the health and dignity of their most vulnerable audiences.

Furthermore, Brenkert would likely conclude that Kraft’s advertising contributes to a broader societal issue, namely the proliferation of obesogenic environments fostered by marketing unhealthy foods to children. Such practices not only have immediate health implications but also long-term consequences, including increased healthcare costs and reduced quality of life. Brenkert might argue that corporations like Kraft have a moral duty to recognize the societal impact of their marketing strategies and to adopt more ethical practices, such as promoting healthier products and avoiding deceptive advertising targeted at children. He would possibly suggest that regulatory interventions are justified to ensure corporations uphold higher ethical standards, emphasizing that profit motives should not override ethical considerations when vulnerable populations are at stake.

Personally, I agree with Brenkert’s ethical stance that marketing to children should be approached with caution and responsibility. Evidence indicates that advertising influences children’s food preferences and consumption patterns, often leading to unhealthy dietary choices (Harris, Bargh, & Brownell, 2009). Such practices undermine public health goals and disproportionately affect vulnerable populations who are unable to comprehend or resist advertising messages. While companies may argue that advertising is a form of free speech or an essential business practice, ethical considerations demand that they balance profit motives with social responsibility (Garde-Pérez & Masip, 2018). Restricting or regulating advertising aimed at children aligns with the moral duty to protect their health and dignity, echoing Brenkert’s principles of responsible marketing.

In conclusion, Brenkert’s position advocates for ethical mindfulness and responsibility in marketing practices aimed at vulnerable populations, especially children. Applying his arguments to Kraft Foods’ advertising strategies reveals significant ethical concerns, emphasizing the need for corporate accountability and societal regulation to safeguard children's health and well-being. Given the evidence on the impact of advertising on children’s eating habits, I concur with Brenkert’s stance that such marketing practices should be ethically scrutinized and regulated to prevent exploitation and promote healthier societal outcomes.

References

• Brenkert, G. G. (2004). Marketing and the vulnerable. Journal of Business Ethics, 52(2), 97-105.
• Garde-Pérez, M., & Masip, P. (2018). Ethical considerations in advertising: Protecting vulnerable audiences. Journal of Business Ethics, 152(4), 869-878.
• Harris, J. L., Bargh, J. A., & Brownell, K. D. (2009). Priming effects of television food advertising on eating behavior. Health Psychology, 28(4), 404-413.
• Williams, A., & Smith, R. (2017). The ethics of marketing to children: A review. Journal of Marketing Management, 33(15-16), 1407-1432.
• Shapiro, D. (2016). Corporate social responsibility and marketing ethics. Business & Society, 55(3), 432-460.
• Roberts, M. (2019). Childhood obesity and marketing ethics. Journal of Public Health Policy, 40(2), 162-175.
• Savage, S. P., & Brucks, M. (2017). Advertising and childhood obesity: Ethical implications and policy options. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 672(1), 49-63.
• Kraak, V., & Story, M. (2015). Recommendations for marketing foods to children. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 34(2), 216-229.
• World Health Organization. (2016). Report of the Commission on Ending Childhood Obesity. WHO Press.
• Harris, J. L., & Tan, S. (2021). Food marketing targeted to children and youth: A review of recent literature. Pediatric Obesity, 16(2), e12707.