Methods of Pressure Group Marketing - Literature review Example

DESCRIBE AND CRITICALLY REVIEW THE METHODS OF PRESSURE GROUP MARKETING Introduction Within the global business environment, there are several stakeholders that come together to influence the outcome of market performance and variables. One of these key stakeholders is pressure groups. In most cases, each of the stakeholders has different interests that they seek to protect. Wilson (2005) noted that for most stakeholders such as government and labour groups, they seek to protect their own interests that bring about growth and development for them. With pressure groups however, the approach and rationale for influencing the market is very different. This is because in most cases, the pressure groups focus on the wellbeing of the ordinary person on the market, such that these people will enjoy fair trade and the protection of their consumer rights (Sullivan and Sheffrin, 2003). Because these pressure groups do not directly fight for themselves, their principal methods of marketing have been very different from what exists with other stakeholders, especially for-profit stakeholders. In this paper, the principal methods that are used by pressure groups are described and critically review to find their effectiveness and limitations. This will help in understanding the relevance of the pressure groups and how well they can position themselves to be more useful to society. Overview of Pressure Group Marketing Operating either at the local, sub-national, national or international level, pressure groups can be termed to be organisations that function with the goal of influencing government and other public policy with the aim of protecting and advancing specific interests (Walls, 2003). Because the concept of marketing is basically concerned with the need to trade out one’s ideas to other people, the whole approach to which pressure groups work have been termed as pressure group marketing. This is because like any other marketer, pressure groups would either record positive or negative outcomes, which means that their agenda may either be accepted or rejected. The outcome of such agenda however depends on the degree to which they are able to market their ideas and policies to the general public (Mancur, 2011).according to Wright (2009), the general public is considered the target segment of pressure group rather than the government because once the public buys into the ideas of the pressure group, the influence that comes with this is much higher than when the pressure group has to battle with their voices alone. It is for this reason that this essay seeks to critique various methods used by the pressure groups by way of marketing their ideas and policies to the public and subsequently to the government. Principal methods used by Pressure Groups Taking Direct Action By taking direct action, reference is being made to situations where pressure groups would forego the use of advocacy or the use of government as a middle agent to get directly involved in an issue they want to champion (Clark and Wilson, 2011). For example, in most cases where pressure groups want to get the government to ban a product, the pressure group would explain to government why the product ought to be banned on the market. Using other diplomatic means such as the writing of memos and other correspondence to explain their points, the pressure group would succeed in getting the government consider their case. Given the fact that the government is often the controller of the larger business market, the government can then use regulations to ban the product from the market. An example of this of this is when in 2013 Amnesty International went behind the Syrian government to state its position and solutions to the international armed intervention on Syria, which the group believed would pave way for cases of child labour to go up in the country (Amnesty International, 2013). In such instances, the group would then market its ideas to the manufacturers on the need to stop the production. Very often, the activities of pressure groups that use this method are not known to the public or even the government. The advantage of taking direct action is that it gets the message of the pressure group to the right targets. This is because there is no use made of third parties. Consequently, it is easier for the target group to have a better understanding of the issues being put up by the pressure group. When this method is used, it becomes equivalent to the proverbial speaking from the horse’s own mouth and so all forms of ambiguity and lack of understanding in communication is cleared or elaborated by the pressure group itself (Salisbury, 2009). Another advantage with this method is that it leads to the fast tracking of the change process. The reason this is said is that in most cases where governments and the public are used as middle parties, the pressure group is required to go through a lot of bureaucracies that delay the change process. Meanwhile, most of the issues that the pressure group seek to put across are time bound, meaning they have specific times within which they have to be executed. There are however limitations with this method. For example, because this method does not involve the public, the tendency that the target group will not be under sufficient pressure to act is higher. Indirect Initiative The meaning and implication of the indirect initiative is reflected in its name. This is because under this principal method of pressure group marketing, pressure groups seek to use the voices and influence of other stakeholders to achieve their goals and to get their targeted group acting in a way that they most desire. There are a lot of means in which this method works. Most commonly however, the pressure group resource to the use of the government as their key arbitrator (West, 2004). The reason the government has remained an important stakeholder is because government has the organs that makes it the enactor and enforcer of laws within the country. The case of the Canadian pressure group, Business Council on National Issues (BCNI) resorting to the Canadian government as an arbitrator in tensions that were mounting with the activities of the Quebec sovereignty movement is a typical example. By arbitrating to the government, BCNI got the assurance that the government would either enact laws or veto their authorities to get things done in the favour of the pressure group. A typical example of the indirect initiative is a situation where the Medical Association of the country resorts to governmental intervention to ban smoking in public places. Because government controls the inflow of importation, the government can do this through several means, including the absolute ban on the importation of cigarette. Government could also increase taxes on cigarette so that the importation of cigarette will not be lucrative. Through this indirect way of discouraging the popularity of cigarette in the public domain, chances that there will be success with the ban of public smoking will be easy to achieve. This method has been praised for being less violent and gaining the public support. It has however been criticised for being slow in its implementation due to bureaucracies (Monibot, 2011). Getting Involved The pressure groups are said to be getting involved when they play roles that are in-between direct action and indirect initiative. In the UK, Animal Aid used this method of getting involved as an example with the group involved its own members, as well as the government and other stakeholders to lobby for the creation of state funds for zoological gardens in that country (Black, 2013). There are many commentators who prefer to refer to this principal method as the advocacy method. This is because the pressure group is not only seen telling stakeholders what they feel is the right thing to do but are also seen putting some words into action and practice. The commonest example that can be cited with the use of the getting involved is the use of public education. In the same example with the banning of smoking in public places, the pressure group would market its ideas by ensuring that it first targets the general public, particularly people who smoke. After this, the group would keep campaigning and educating these people as to why their practice of smoking in public is not acceptable or is harmful. With such an understanding established among the people as why they do not have to smoke in public, the influence made to government to make laws to ban smoking will be easily accepted by the public as an initiative that will be for their own benefit and good. The strength of this method therefore is that it guarantees public adherence and compliance. This is because the public is made to understand the rationale behind the changes because the changes are enforced. However, there is a limitation with this method as it requires so much resource to both get involved and lobby its way through (West, 2004). Under Pressure One of the principal methods used by pressure groups is directly related to their name, which involves the need to put government under pressure. In this method, the principal strategy is to appeal to the public to support the pressure group in its fight to get its message across to the government. The under pressure method can therefore be described to be a cumbersome method that involves the need to first gather sufficient support from the public so that there can be much weight behind the pressure (Salisbury, 2009). For example, most modern day pressure groups use this as a principal method by resorting to the use of the media, knowing that the media give very wide coverage and consistent pushing of agenda they deem right. This method has often gone outside the use of formal protocols involving talks and discussions with governments. This is because it has often involved the use of protest match, demonstrations and public gatherings, even though they are all done in a very peaceful manner. To most commentators therefore, the under pressure method is suitable in cases where all other diplomatic options and choices have been exhausted by the pressure group (Walls, 2003). This principal method used by pressure groups in the marketing of their ideas and opinions has its own weaknesses and strengths. As a last resort, the under pressure method has been termed as a forceful way of getting the right thing done through a peaceful means. This means that the chances that after using this method, the pressure group will succeed with its marketing are higher. Most realism philosophers who believe in proactive persuasion have also praised this method for being proactive and highly involving (Mancur, 2011). This is because by using this method, all that the pressure group does is to make the its intensions widely known to the general public. This way, the public becomes the ultimate judge of the actions of the government, whether they are right or wrong. These strengths notwithstanding, there are times that the use of this principal method has resulted in violence when activities of the public are not well controlled. While engaging in protest match or demonstrations, the control of the public may get out of hand, leading to violence. There are instances also where the public may take the law into its own hands when it feels that the government is being unfair to it, based on the understanding that is created from the advocacy of the pressure group. Conclusion From the discussions so far, one would appreciate that pressure group marketing is very important for the welfare of society. This is because pressure groups do not work in isolation or for their own good but in the interest of the public. In most cases, the ideologies and interventions of pressure groups are up in the public domain for public debate and discourse. This is what makes the issue of pressure group marketing very appealing to the general public. With this noted, it can be concluded that the rate and probability that pressure groups will always succeed with the marketing of their ideas is not always automatic. Much of the rate of success depends on the selection of the principal method of marketing and how well the pressure group can utilise the method. Throughout the discussion, the strength and weaknesses of each method has been identified. It is the responsibility of the groups to critically evaluate the circumstances around the issues they want to stand for before selecting an appropriate method. Very often, it is important that the pressure group will have a very good understanding of the market variables before selecting any of the methods outlined above as none of the method is absolutely perfect or absolutely imperfect. This is because there are instances where some of the methods work perfectly but other cases where they do not work well. References Amnesty International (2013). Syria: Possible international armed intervention after alleged chemical weapons attack. [Online] Available at http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/syria-possible-international-armed-intervention-after-alleged-chemical-weapons-attack-2013-08-3 [23 April, 2014] Black E. C. (2013). The Association British Extra Parliamentary Political Organization, 1769-1793. Harvard University Press: Harvard Clark P. B and Wilson J. Q. (2011). ‘Incentive Systems: A Theory of Organizations’ Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 134–135. Mancur O. (2011). The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups (Revised edition ed.). Harvard University Press: London Monibot, G. (2011). The Captive State: The Corporate Take-Over of Britain. Pan: London Salisbury R. H. (2009). "An Exchange Theory of Interest Groups". Midwest Journal of Political Science. Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 1–32. Sullivan, A. and Sheffrin S. M. (2003). Economics: Principles in action. Pearson Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, New Jersey Walls D. (2003). The Activist's Almanac: The Concerned Citizen's Guide to the Leading Advocacy Organizations in America. Simon & Schuster/Fireside: New York West, D. B. (2004). Knowledge Center Built on the Thematic Theme Framework., "New Social Movements: Ontario. Wilson J. Q. (2005). Political Organization. Princeton University Press: Princeton Wright J. R. (2009). Interest Groups and Congress, Lobbying, Contributions, and Influence. Longman: London Read More