Marketing exists because we legally allow a modicum of dishonesty in sales. Just as our legal system is not founded upon truth, rather the ability to deliver the most convincing arguments within the framework of your budget, so may our sales strategies do likewise. Unless sales images, inferences and definitive claims are completely without merit, and/or the true cost of products and services are significantly in excess of that portrayed, or the products/services are actually found to physically harm consumers, everything is allowed. There is no “truth in advertising”.
Alternatively, all products could be reviewed in an objective manner and listed in an encyclopedic index via which we may compare them in a ROI manner, determining how to best use/invest our available resources (call it the universal product assessment service, UPAS). Obviously we would need to continue to educate our universal product/service evaluators (so you don’t end up with biased services such as Angie’s List) and determine the acceptable manner in which to deliver new products to the market that have not yet been UPAS evaluated and listed. Moreover, we would be challenged by new generations of all products.
Too bad that we don’t have a UPAS service for potential elected officials as well. Such would keep discourse focused upon relevant issues and limit expenditures.
However, because a UPAS doesn’t exist, I’ll keep working in marketing, in spite of imbalanced playing fields and the pervasiveness of lack of “truth in advertising”.