Conference Marketing as an Essential Part of DNA

I have been employed for two months now. I am sort of settling in, but can't say I feel inspired - however, who these days gets to be inspired?  You get paid, and you're grateful.  Both the pay and the gratitude will be short-lived.  I am on a fixed term contract, and the person I am covering for is returning to post.  So it is back to the job-seeking for me.  


I haven't yet ramped my search up to the 6 applications a day level I reached in my heyday of unemployed misery.  This time I am going for quality over quantity, and of course I am still employed until the end of February, so any search will lack urgency.  I looked back through my previous applications and saved job advertisements to see if I could spot a pattern in the failed applications.  The pattern soon became clear, I was far too easily sidetracked by job descriptions for which I was eminently unsuitable but highly entertained.  

My favourite amongst the 'vacancies I can't apply for, but just have to read anyway' had to be a marketing role.  The job advert specified "Conference marketing is intuitive and must be an essential part of your DNA.".   Having browsed hundreds, maybe even thousands of job vacancies, this was the first that demanded a specific gene.  I was aware that the our genetic makeup was of interest to medicine and biotechnology, however the marketing firm should be congratulated in linking it to marketing.  It could be seen as an innovative and bold step.  Equally it could also be seen as pretentious crap, but it's a Friday, let's be generous here.  There were, however, several areas for concern raised by the genetic criterion in the role, and, at the time, I was so fascinated by it that I actually drafted a list of questions (now we start to understand why my job search took so long!).  

The advert was placed back in May 2012.  9 months later, I am still quite fascinated by it.  When you consider the money the tobacco industry has poured into marketing, and the lobbying it has undertaken to protect its product, it is almost plausible to believe certain companies would go to such extremes to find a marketing gene.  So next time you are about to dismiss a marketing executive as a pretentious, overpaid git, you are probably right, but do consider that it may be they can't help it, it's all in their genes.  



(i) The Equality Act (2010) restricts what employers and recruitment agencies can ask about in pre-employment medical checks, i.e. it must be directly relevant to the candidate's ability to carry out the role.  In this instance, the company and/or the employer they were representing would have to provide findings in support of a theory that some humans possess a specific marketing gene.  Had they invested in research on this?  Were there any developments resulting from this research?  Is there contradictory evidence available that suggests individuals not in possession of a marketing gene can still have a successful career in marketing and, indeed, can still lead fulfilling lives?  

(ii) Any discrimination based on genetic features is prohibited within the EU.  This may seem somewhat unfair when the marketing company may have spent billions investing in the Human Genome Project in order to identify a possible marketing gene, but had they taken into account the considerable further expense they may have incurred fighting charges of genetic discrimination through the European Courts?  

(iii) If any organisation is involved in gathering human tissue and cells for the purpose of DNA testing, it is first necessary to obtain a licence from the Human Tissue Authority.  Has this been obtained? I've worked in marketing departments, lovely, creative people, but really averse to anything that doesn't have a soundbite, a logo or a pitch and licence applications would definitely be shoved to the bottom of the pile. 

(iv) DNA testing cannot be carried out on individuals without their qualifying consent and valid consent.  This would have been an area of particular concern with candidates for this role because there is a requirement that consent must be given voluntarily.  If a requirement of consideration for this role is that candidates must have submitted to DNA testing, that may suggest coercion.  Such coercion might be illegal and may even lead to a prison sentence.  Did the marketing company adequately obtaining such consent?  

(v) The most fascinating question of all, were they thinking of introducing a breeding programme once sufficient numbers of 'marketing gene' candidates of each gender had been identified?   If so, would such creation of a 'super marketing race' be naturally bred or genetically modified.