Uptown Cigarettes Controversy and Discrimination in Marketing - Assignment Example

Uptown Cigarettes Controversy and Discrimination in Marketing Introduction Discrimination in marketing prevails without knowledge of the marketer since it emanates from well-planned and executed strategies. These strategies exist in firms as salient resolutions to yielding the expected market segment and accruing the preexisting benefits competitively. Further, discrimination in marketing may prevail whenever marketers identify specific groups of consumers as the potential users of the new products that they target to implement in the market. At such a point, other groups of consumers may exist in different demographic market segments who remain to be potential users of the newly introduced products (Reynolds, 2003). Therefore, Reynolds’ implementation of a cigarette marketing campaign for the African-American population is adversely a discriminatory approach in marketing since the other races in the country may have intended to use menthol cigarettes over the non-menthol ones. The following is an analytical approach to establish the controversy of discrimination in marketing cigarettes in the uptown market segment. Facts in the presence of discrimination in uptown cigarette controversy Critically, it is indicated that the African-American cigarette smoking population contains a relevantly higher ratio of menthol cigarette smokers compared to the other races in the country. Emphasizing on Reynolds’ information concerning the demographic variability of menthol cigarette smokers in the uptown market edge, the norm is that there exists discrimination in the established marketing approach despite the fact that the cigarettes sell for 70% of the black population. Researches assert that the white population together with other American races, influences 30% of the total market sales outcomes. This is a clear indication of the existence of marketing discrimination in the uptown market segment (p. 1). Arguably, Reynolds set an ideal platform to reveal the existence of discrimination in the uptown market segment. Based on the fact that most of the advertising, pricing, and promotion approaches of menthol cigarettes is redirected to the African-American population, it is evident that marketers in the segment often engage in discrimination. The intentions of precise marketing approaches are born to yielding profitable market segments over competitors. Further, it is knowledgeable to marketers that users of a certain commodity perceive belongingness after being associated with the marketing and promotion practices. Therefore, Reynolds concern in marketing cigarettes for the uptown market cigarette smokers and precisely the black population is a critical approach of yielding segmental growth since the included demographic segment will perceive the need for brand loyalty (p. 2). Understandably, the remaining percentage of menthol cigarette smokers in the American population emanate from other races. It is reasonable to establish that the other races that perceive menthol cigarettes as the ideal smoking products shall feel sidelined whenever the promotion and advertising approaches are directed to the majority population. Marketing scholars indicate that all consumers of a given product often seek value and satisfaction thus a continued use of certain products indicates that they already have accrued the desired effects from the product (p. 3). In exchange to satisfaction, consumers often show continued purchases of the products and formidably become part of the product. Now, marketing to a certain population that seems to hold the majority population of consumers shall lead to assumptions about the existence of other groups of consumers. Therefore, whenever the menthol cigarette advertising and marketing approach fails to assert the importance of other groups of consumers in the strategies, then the sidelined groups will perceive bias and discrimination at the long run. According to Reynolds, the resolution that the American tobacco industry assumed to reach the then discriminated African-American population forced market penetration as the race, acknowledged that the producers were knowledgeable about their needs thus they sought to deliver the desired products to them. In turn, the discriminatory approach drew more blacks into the tendency of smoking menthol cigarettes unlike other races. Consequently, the marketing, pricing, and advertising approach was influential to the increased mortality rate, citing on the abusive nature of the adverts to lure the African-American population into the segment (p. 4). Discrimination in the uptown menthol cigarette segment seemed persistent and on the edge since the companies sought to use African-American icons in disseminating the required influence of the black population. Further, this race perceived belongingness to the tobacco industry as the tobacco firms profusely injected donations and grants to organizations related to the blacks. This is a potential point of revealing the existence of discrimination in marketing since the firms revealed their determination to influence the African-American population into consuming menthol enriched tobacco products over other races (p. 5). Presumably, the firms knew that such an approach was salient to influencing the desired race since it is in every consumer’s mindset to show loyalty to a brand that in turn applauds the presence of the consumer. Therefore, marketing prevails as discriminating when targeted to a specific race since it will seek to influence people related to the given race towards consumption of the product being marketed. Citing to the menthol cigarette advertising and marketing approaches, it is knowledgeable that the producers and marketing personnel to the tobacco-manufacturing firms sought to influence the black population that bore the least population of smokers in the initial stages. In terms of gender, discrimination in marketing prevails whenever a product is marketed to a specific group of consumers, for example the male population holding to the fact that the female population might also bear a profitable margin of potential and the willing consumer population of the product in question (p. 6). In the case of menthol cigarette marketing approaches, Reynolds asserts that the firms used the television and radio media to reach the consumer markets. This prevails as a discriminatory approach influential to the uptown controversial phenomenon since while still marketing for the black population, the marketing approaches failed to accommodate the female gender as potential users of the commodities. Research indicates that in the 1950s, 25% of the total smokers of the white race were suffering smoking-related diseases compared to 20% of the African-American smoking population. However, over the last six decades, the graph has changed advertently and currently, most of the patients suffering from the tobacco-related diseases emanate from the African-American population. This is significant to the prevalent effects of discrimination in the marketing of the health hazardous commodity. Estimates reveal that the plight of marketing discrimination for tobacco products in the American society is detrimental since it has led to an increment in the mortality rate of the black population. In consideration of the above evaluation, discrimination seems to be evocative that the firms established marketing and advertising strategies to tame the African-American male population over the females (p, 10). The advertising approaches aired in the American media in the late 20th century seemed to reflect the generation X and Y generations of the African-American population over the Baby Boomers of the same race. Critically, this is an indication that the American tobacco-producing firms were knowledgeable about the factual that the Baby Boomers were less desirable in acquainting them profitable market share as they were rooted in the past knowledge of cigarettes as products consumed by the upper class of the American white population. On the contrary, such a resolution perfects the argument on the presence and prevalence of discrimination in mentholated tobacco products since the marketing approaches sought to deliver the message to certain generations bearing defined ages over others in the same race. Conclusion The study on uptown cigarettes controversy serves to the best of acquainting a learner with profound knowledge since it defines the verge of discrimination in marketing. Critically, there is evidence that American cigarette-producing firms embarked on aggressive marketing approaches to lure the African-American population into the consumption of mentholated cigarettes with the notion that such an approach would serve to yield a profitable market segment. On the contrary, the approach was detrimental to the philosophical outlook of any marketing oriented firm since it established discrimination in the phases of gender, race, and demographic variations. References Reynolds, R.J. (2003). Targeting African-Americans: 1988-2000. American Public Health Association, 93(5),822-827. Read More