Unit 20 how marketing functions in a society.

The active vocabulary of the unit

to anticipate	to turn a blind eye to	to be exposed to
coincidence	to hanker for	adland thinker
to determine	bizarre	to pitch for
commodity	regardless of	to garner
to cease	underprivileged	to be receptive to
to become fused	religious revelation	counterpart
scourge	outrageous advertising	to shatter
to begrudge	to obtain reparations	acumen
to be put at risk	penance	to deny
stance	innocent	to enlighten a policy

1. Arrange the following words in the alphabetic order. Define the word

formation type in every case and state the parts of speech they belong to. Translate the words into Ukrainian.

1) safeguard, 2) unemployment, 3) coincidence, 4) encourage, 5) underprivileged, 6) begrudge, 7) selfishness, 8) unstable, 9) questionable, 10) restriction, 11) pollution, 12) regardless

2. Translate the following Ukrainian words into English. What suffix do their English equivalents have? Find some of the equivalents in the text below.

1) суспільство, 2) суверенітет, 3) можливість, 4) активність, 5) якість, 6) процвітання, 7) продуктивність, 8) кількість

3. Scan the text and say what limitations of the free market economy the author mentions. Discuss them in pairs. Text a How marketing functions in a society.

The marketing function is usually seen as anticipating consumer wants and then proceeding to satisfy them. While many see evils in the capitalist system of which marketing is a part, the richest countries in the world are those which have adopted the market economy. Is that a coincidence or is it cause and effect?

It seems a fact that the people in capitalist societies are generally better dressed, less hungry and live longer. Prices are determined by the forces of demand and supply. The people choose which goods are going to be produced and, just as importantly, which goods are not going to be produced. They vote with their pounds, liras, francs, marks and pesetas. If people like a particular product or service, they will buy it, and that will encourage the suppliers to produce more of the same product. If people do not “vote” for it, production of the commodity will cease.

It seems natural that the notion of a political democracy becomes fused with the concept of consumer sovereignty. Yet we need to understand the limitations of the free market philosophy. It is dangerous to think that the price mechanism can solve all the problems which face our societies. For example, unemployment remains the scourge of capitalism and no society can be described as either fair or efficient while large numbers of our population are denied the opportunity to work. The sick and underprivileged must also be cared for, whether or not they have money of their own to spend. Those of us who begrudge giving aid to the less fortunate must expect to pay a high price for our selfishness. We may enjoy material prosperity, but the society in which we live may become ugly and unstable.

Another major criticism can be levelled at what is produced in the free economy. The quality of our lives is no doubt improved by much of what we produce, but the value of some activities is questionable.

For example, if some people want to drive sleek sports cars at 100 miles per hour on the motorways, do we allow the world’s car market to provide them with such cars, even though the lives of innocent road-users are put at risk?

Cigarette manufacturers in a market economy, facing restrictions on television advertising as a result of a government which sees their product as “dangerous to health” may export their deadly cargoes to less sophisticated overseas markets. Nuclear waste is sometimes similarly exported to developing countries with less protected populations.

Of course it can be argued that people should be able to smoke tobacco if they want to, but do we take the same liberal stance in relation to hard drugs? Perhaps the market for heroin is after all just like any other market?

If we take the view that pornography is simply a matter of taste, do we turn a blind eye to those who hanker for young children, or have other equally bizarre sexual tastes? Is it acceptable that the ozone layer is sacrificed at the altar of short-term business profits? Should entrepreneurs be allowed to maximize their profits regardless of the social costs of pollution?

What if one state applies rigid safeguards while another fails to do so? What if one company has enlightened (but costly) environmentally friendly policies, while its competitors take profit where and how they can?

Increasingly the world is a single economic unit. In the words of the English poet John Donne (1573-1631):

“No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the Continent, a part of the main … Each man's death diminishes me, for I am involved in mankind. Therefore, send not to know for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee.”