People talk about the large segment of the world population that is poor and therefore supposedly excluded from any international marketing efforts; the World Bank’s former president called them the 3 billion $2-a-day poor. By contrast, international marketers see them as an attractive $6 billion-a-day opportunity for valuable exchanges.
What’s more is that global marketing provides the opportunity to acquire resources without the deployment of force. Why fight if you can trade? Countries that have been historic enemies such as France, England, and Germany are now all united in their close collaboration through international marketing. The field is, therefore, at the very least contributing to freedom from war while providing additional choices for consumption.
But the cost of freedom is rising. Terms such as “free trade” or “free choice” are misleading since they all come with a price. Global marketers pay that price in terms of preparing their shipments, scrutinizing their customers, and conforming to government regulations.
But international marketers can enable the disenfranchised to develop alternatives. Multinational firms can invest in the world’s poorest markets and reduce poverty while increasing their own revenue. With support from shareholders and the benefit of good governance, global marketers can, and should, continue in their role as social change agents. If it is worthwhile to fulfill the needs of large segments of people, even at low margins, then it will be done. International marketers want to create new customers and suppliers and they are delighted when, in the process, they can bring about freedom from extremes of hunger, sickness, and intolerance.
This is part of a three part series on Freedom, Marketing, and Poverty (FMP). Stay tuned for more updates on Mondays.
Also I want to hear what our readers think. Don’t forget to comment below. It only takes a minute to let the world know what you think…
What more can corporations do to help promote greater wealth in poor countries? And do you agree that they have a responsibility to do so?
sending...