Law was once a profession. That is no longer the case, though there are still demands of professional behavior and professional standards. The profession of law has evolved largely into the business of law. It is not hard to find the vestiges of professionalism. The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar include a chapter of Rules of Professional Conduct. The Florida Supreme Court and bar have jointly created the Latimer Center for Professionalism. Do not misunderstand, professionalism remains integral to and ingrained in the business of law.
Just over forty years ago, the Supreme Court of the United States interpreted constraints on lawyer advertising in Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977). That interpretation is essentially that state advertising regulation must be balanced with the individual professional's First Amendment rights to expression and association. With it, some see the beginning of the legal transformation into the business of law.
Lawyers are not alone. There was a time when physicians did not advertise, nor did hospitals. Some will note that other professions have also entered the advertisement paradigm, such as accountants, dentists, and architects. While there is a recognition that professional advertising is somewhat recent, there is also support that overall advertisement as we know it is a reasonably recent phenomenon. And, the impetus for the evolution of marketing was allegedly based upon an oversupply for which demand had to be generated.
The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) recently published Are Cigarettes Responsible for Modern Marketing Methods? It contends that the modern ubiquity of branding was not the norm in the 1880s (140 years ago). The early adopters of the "awesome power of branding," was pioneered by Camel cigarettes. The BBC contends that following Camel's lead into branding were such companies as "Kellogg's cereal, Campbell's soup and Colgate toothpaste." Branding is the promotion of the name and identity of the producer as opposed to strictly the product.
The article describes various innovations that led to increased smoking but describes the "starring role" of one James Bonsack. He is credited with building or adapting the first mechanical cigarette machine. With it, in 1881, the cigarette went from a "niche product" to a common product. Pre-rolled cigarettes could be machine-produced at a rate of about "200 cigarettes a minute" which was about what a human "could make in an hour." As an aside, this illustrates again technology impacting jobs. But, as the demand was not as significant pre-machine, perhaps few jobs were actually lost?
The result was a significant supply of cigarettes in search of a market, and marketing stepped up to create the demand. Some companies spent as much as "20 percent of" "revenues on promotion," an unprecedented figure. Within forty years, cigarettes had surpassed chewing tobacco, pipes, and cigars - they became "the most popular way for Americans to consume tobacco."
There were public perceptions in the 1990s that smokers unwittingly became addicted to smoking. The U.S. government began mandating the now ubiquitous Surgeon General warnings on packaging in the 1970s. It has now been almost 50 years since those warnings have been present, and yet people start smoking every day. Some feel other countries are doing a better job of warning citizenry of the dangers. See, Cigarette Pack Health Warning Labels in US Lag Behind World (noting more graphic, prominent, and emphatic warnings in other countries).
Despite perceptions, the BBC notes that the dangers of smoking were advertised during the early branding of the products. When one brand promoted its use as an avoidance of candies, "sweet makers were outraged." Candy companies responded with advertisements that informed cigarettes would "inflame your tonsils, poison with nicotine every organ of your body, and dry up your blood - nails in your coffin." That is fairly direct? "Nails in your coffin?" The tobacco companies allegedly responded with the endorsements of physicians who said they smoked those products.
The article notes that decades later the U.S. government eventually banned the involvement of physicians in such advertising. Then in the late 1940s and early 1950s, there was at least some recognition that cigarettes were largely indistinguishable, homogeneous. The manufacturers were faced with admitting the uniformity of their product and competing on price, or turning to the concept of "branding." The authors explain that price competition "erodes profit margins," and contend that therefore the market turned to "branding." The personality and perception of those who smoked became critical. It was the birth of "the Marlboro man" and various slogans appealing to our personal vanity or self-perceptions.
The BBC explains that in a market there is potential for a "consumer surplus." This drives our consumption; it is the "enjoyment the product produces, minus" what the product costs us (price primarily, but the detriments to a product might also be included in "costs"). What does our consumption of a product or service say about us, to us? Does that drive our decision to buy a particular brand of vehicle more than the attributes, benefits, and costs of that vehicle? Can the same be said of the clothes we wear, the restaurants we frequent, or any of our consumer choices? Is branding the overriding driver of our consumption?
The article concludes that these questions may be of concern to us as we make consumption decisions. It suggests that we, as consumers, have to be conscious of the impact that branding has on our decision-making. To some extent that may be influenced by the what and how of branding that is permitted by the government, as the evolution of cigarette advertising has perhaps illustrated. But, in the end, it may simply be up to us individually to make critical decisions about how we consume.
In that regard, we may be challenged by the availability of information. There may be environments in which "the message" might be less clear than others. The BBC notes that despite our modern appreciation for the risks of tobacco, there are still major governments that regulate its advertisement less than the U.S. The article cites China, and the interrelationship between tobacco, taxes, and the role that the prestige of "premium brands," and branding overall may play in consumption. It points out ironies in the more recent shifts of consumption. Its conclusion is that "the power of brands to create credulity is still as strong as ever."
What do you convey? Is your reputation in your profession stellar? Are you marketing a service or product? Or, are you marketing a brand, your brand? Do you seek to influence the perceptions of the community you serve? What do you do to communicate your attributes and strengths, or merely those of your product/service? Or, do you remain above the fray of branding? Some introspection might help us each in better understanding the market and our individual or collective participation in it.
What do you convey? Is your reputation in your profession stellar? Are you marketing a service or product? Or, are you marketing a brand, your brand? Do you seek to influence the perceptions of the community you serve? What do you do to communicate your attributes and strengths, or merely those of your product/service? Or, do you remain above the fray of branding? Some introspection might help us each in better understanding the market and our individual or collective participation in it.
