Social media marketing gives more democracy to the community.

Very much contemporary issues, you are raising now & again in recent past.I think in a competitive market scenario accross the world-marketing is more democratic than politics.When you have only two dominating parties in a country & they do not or can not behave like marketers.You can not import politicians to crfeate a competitive environment.In a case like Bangladesh,Pakistan & India most of the people are immotionally attached with the political parties,where marketing strategies might not be applicable as are in US & EU.I think,we need to have a model to coup with this idea.

The Geneve Convention stablished at 1970 years [controls roads, travels ,airports]urged some protocols that originated figurative representing arguiments , as misery , melting , barriers ,enrichment control. included extraterrestrial isolation, and technology development . Carlos Eduardo Alves Resende RJ Brazil

Professor Quelch’s presentation of the argument in his and Katherine Jocz’s new book, Greater Good, at the IPA in London last week, was certainly (as he claimed it might be) stomach churning.

Less so for the broad thrust of what he was arguing – that ‘marketing is more democratic than democracy’, which can only be viewed as a provocation – but more for the fact that the claim appeared to be made on a narrow assumption of what democracy actually is.

On this basis of the presentation, and not the book, there are five broad critiques of it that can be made:

1. There was no definition of democracy given, not even a narrow one. Instead there was an assumption that democracy was merely ‘voting’, with the act being analogous to making a purchasing decision. But most political scientists will tell you that democracy is far, far more than just the expression of a preference. At a minimum, and definition of democracy worth the name must also include:

· The rule of law
· An independent judiciary
· A free press
· An unfettered legislature
· A restrained executive.

If one starts to explore the relationship between marketing and democracy from this wider vantage point, however, one starts to see that the claim that the former is more democratic than the latter is mis-stated. What is being claimed is actually that ‘marketing makes firms that supply markets more accountable than democracy does for politicians supplying the political market’. Which is a different, and more defensible claim. But one that’s not as catchy or attention grabbing.

2. ‘Marketing’, for want of another term, has had some sort of relationship with modern politics (and therefore democracy) for the best part of the last 50 years, if not longer. From Bernays to Saatchi, to name to high-profile marketing practioners, the idea that marketers have not offered advice nor had it taken by politicians is wrong. If, as Quelch claims, democracy is in such a dire situation, marketing has a greater share of the blame than just an ‘unintended’ one. And saying more marketing will solve the problem is merely a circular argument.

3. Quelch claims that marketing, through its ability to help consumers sift information, express choice and so on, helps people to become better citizens too. If so, does this therefore mean that we were ‘less good’ citizens before this point? How is this provable? What is the metric?

What appears to be happening here is a conflation with the idea of being a consumer with that of citizenship, which in reality shrinks the possibility of what citizenship can be. It becomes merely the claiming of one’s rights while holding others accountable while expressing the claim to those rights.

But this is a shallow vision of what citizenship can be – what of patriotism? Community? The common weal (to use a term that has fallen out of favour amongst social theorists of all stripes)? – and makes the citizen’s relationship with the state not only to be the most important aspect of citizenship, but reduced to one being the provider of services, and the other recipient of them.

However, the state does – has to – do more than merely provide. Protect for one, as well as do what the market won’t. Which, it should be remembered, is a lot.

4. There are many models of democracy available to us too, not just the US and UK one that Professor Quelch appears to have based much of his analysis on. Are his claims re marketing and democracy testable against other democratic models – a system of proportional representation for example, or the German Länder system? It would be hard to claim that the latter system is one where there is not enough accountability, for example.

Not acknowledging the variety of democratic systems out there lets down Quelch’s argument.

5. Missing – most damningly, perhaps – from Quelch’s presentation was the recognition that the political world is acutely aware of the failures of accountability that compares marketing too. Most politicians are aware of emerging democratic deficits; hence one of the solutions is to ask the marketing world for its help.

And, bluntly, the political market is always imperfect, and known to be imperfect, as this quotation shows. It’s lengthy, and old but still is acute in summing up the limits to what democracy can achieve when thought of in a ‘market’ framework:

Free elections are created by free men, not vice versa. The machinery or election will not call up, establish, or guarantee political freedom. The belief that it will reveals our trust in ‘the market’, our belief that competition of itself makes excellence prevail. Our faith in the electoral process is based entirely on myths of the market. We think we can be ‘open’ to all political alternatives (we cannot). We think we welcome all competitors for power (we do not). We think this will give us the best rulers available (it does not). We think the freedoms we possess were wrought by this process (they were not). We think the process will work automatically for others (it will not). If our freedoms are impaired, we think… this comes from some failure in the voting process (it does not). And we hope to cure all such discontent by repairing, restoring, or improving the process (we cannot). We think that voting is freedom’s ‘invisible hand’.

(Garry Wills, Nixon Agonistes, p 455)

The clear implication is that it is not, and that freedom’s source is not derived merely from the expression of preference in a voting booth.

While the general idea that marketing should go on the front foot to protect itself, and remind the world of the benefits that it brings is right, not defining the terms that are being used in the arguments that are being made ultimately weakens the arguments. If we want ‘democracy’ to take our concerns about the freedom to market and sell products freely seriously, we should do the political system the respect of understanding it fully and properly and not reducing it to the lowest common denominator. Or people will know us guilty of the sins they already think we are guilty of.

To touch on one of Rishi Dastidar’s points, John Quelch and I, in our book, Greater Good, consider four models of democracy: European-style parliamentary governments that use proportional representation to elect legislatures; British-style parliamentary governments that use first-past-the-post, single-member districts; Latin American-style presidential governments that use proportional representation; and U.S. presidential governments that use first-past-the-post. Evidence in the political science literature suggests that the U.S. and Latin-America models fare poorly relative to the others, or to the consumer marketplace, regarding, for example, accountability.

But given that it is virtually unheard of for established democracies to switch from presidential to parliamentary governments and rare to switch from winner-take-all to proportional representation, can we draw on marketing to strengthen citizens’ participation in the U.S. or British style political system and thereby make political parties more representative of citizens and more responsive to their interests?

Likewise, can we draw on marketing to improve the quality of government-provided products and services? Peter Drucker said that ownership is not the critical issue in providing goods and services to the public. What matters is managerial independence and accountability and whether resources are allocated on the basis of results so as to produce good outcomes. What do you think?

To touch on one of Rishi Dastidar’s points, John Quelch and I, in our book, Greater Good, consider four models of democracy: European-style parliamentary governments that use proportional representation to elect legislatures; British-style parliamentary governments that use first-past-the-post, single-member districts; Latin American-style presidential governments that use proportional representation; and U.S. presidential governments that use first-past-the-post. Evidence in the political science literature suggests that the U.S. and Latin-America models fare poorly relative to the others, or to the consumer marketplace, regarding, for example, accountability.

But given that it is virtually unheard of for established democracies to switch from presidential to parliamentary governments and rare to switch from winner-take-all to proportional representation, can we draw on marketing to strengthen citizens’ participation in the U.S. or British style political system and thereby make political parties more representative of citizens and more responsive to their interests?

Likewise, can we draw on marketing to improve the quality of government-provided products and services? Peter Drucker said that ownership is not the critical issue in providing goods and services to the public. What matters is managerial independence and accountability and whether resources are allocated on the basis of results so as to produce good outcomes. What do you think?

The question asked was,"Which do you think is more democratic, politics or marketing?"

My reply would be simple,"Neither. Both politics and marketing are examples of Darwinism at work: Survival of the fittest !"

As is often said," Democracy = The Mockery Easy !"

Raj Bose
Faculty - University of Phoenix

Mr. Dastidar i feel you took too much time explaining your view but you missed the realization of this blog. Democracy, in its simplest level is all about the "right" to agree or disagree which is "voting" period.

As a fellow marketer, we know that we have the ability to present things in a way that will get the readers/viewers blood bubbling and attention caught up into what we want them to see. I feel according to the definition of democracy the two (politics and marketing) are tied up.

Neither one is more democratic than the other. Marketing tends to be viewed as a way of showing a topic and letting people decide, but subliminaly marketing can allow consumers to think they have control but its fashioned in a way that it doesnt let the consumer know that the marketer has made up your mind for you, because we presented you with the only few options that someone else will be choosing from for you. And politics are designed in the same way.

With this you can make an comparison with super delegates, the congressional reps and retailers. Get it or do i have to further expand?

I found this a very interesting concept. I certainly need to read more on this to grasp the total meaning of it all. But I do get the feeling of what he is trying to convey! Marketing is better then Democracy....AMAZING!

Advertising has reached an all time low according to public opinion. No longer can we respect an appreciate advertising, we literally have to investigate the truthfulness of the advertiser.

It seems that the book is not much more than a marketing ploy itself