A634.5.4.RB- Is Marketing Evil?

Watching commercials during the Super Bowl has become a pastime in itself. Marketing can be really fun and splashy with the use of humor as we laugh and recall our favorite ads. I have the Geico pothole still marked as my favorites in my YouTube account, as well as the CarMax ad about shipping cars to any location that parodies the company with turn of the century ships and ends with the punchline… are you shipping me? Ads can be really eye-catching and beautiful with the use of patterns and colors in print campaigns especially for women’s fashion and products.

 It can also be frankly quite annoying. One small, tiny, insignificant click to check out a pair of Kate Spade multi-colored glitter earrings and suddenly those earrings will follow you all over the worldwide web, even when they are out of stock and will probably never be restocked. Sometimes it seems like marketing can be downright deceptive with the ploys of saying that if you do this then you can get to that and somewhere between this and that I stopped listening, sometimes it is just nonsense. I don’t want to play a game that the consumer cannot actually win. It plays on sensuality and our desires and sometimes deludes us to believe we are selecting good products through misinformation. So, is marketing evil?

Some forms of marketing border on unethical. Even with ethical guidelines in place, I am not entirely sure it makes a difference. What makes those who market special is that they understand consumer psychology and they are as clever as they come. There is no loophole that has not been explored. Take ambush marketing, for example. If a company is too small to enter into a partnership with an event, such as sports games, they can purchase premium seats and put people in specific company shirts so that every time the camera is angled toward the coach there is instant exposure. Kodak actually launched an aggressive ad campaign during the 1984 Olympics and it was easily believed they were the sponsor, when in fact Fuji was the official sponsor. There are now laws in place against Kodak’s marketing move, but the point is, if there is a loophole it will be found (Ambush marketing, n.d.). There are plenty of workarounds that still keep companies within the current legal confines. Is it ethical? To answer that question, it would depend what it is, I suppose. Is it legal… probably legal enough and sometimes that is the only thing that counts to companies. El Sayed & El Ghazaly (n.d.) make a similar argument in terms of the Egyptian channel Melody. The channel takes a provocative angel to get noticed and those in that culture do not believe such a stance is an appropriate way to reach others.

So how can companies balance the need to win with being ethical? I can give merely my opinion. There are talented, well-studied groups of people that go to work to try to answer this question every day. In corporate America it is no secret that the power of the dollar is alive and well and companies want to maximizing profitability, after all that is what most (not all) companies are tasked to do. From a personal perspective, this is even seeping into higher education. If companies make ethical products or services that are truly beneficial to the consumers they seek to serve, this can counterbalance some of the need for borderline behavior. When winning and profit becomes more important than honesty and providing beneficial services, there is a major problem and these issues typically fall within ethics. The only way companies will stop seeking to push boundaries to the brink is for one company to trounce the competition and do it completely above board. I believe only then will there be a chance to see an overall change.

Until then, we will flashback to 1984, where big brother knows what websites we visit and what products we have been courting. Ad retargeting and real-time marketing track our habits for marketing purposes. Out of sight, out of mind? No worries! You will be haunted from page to page. This is another questionable practice in terms of ethics. When we are on the internet do we have the expectation that we are afforded privacy? Is it okay to tempt consumers into making purchases? What if the person that sees the advertisement has a shopping addiction and is simply trying to look up a recipe or a news article? This seems like a good idea, generally, for companies to utilize. For example, if someone decides to go back to school and does some casual searches to try to figure out a degree, a school, tuition pricing and is less familiar with the school and then that person suddenly starts noticing that school’s ads and perhaps does not realize they are being retargeted, the school becomes more reputable seeming because there is more recognition. Oh! This school is everywhere. It must be a good school. Oh! I have heard of this school a lot lately. Sometimes it is the path of least resistance. This one is right in front of me so I will choose it. Is marketing trying to take away our free will and choice? I think so.

As a leader, there is a lot to consider in terms of managing the ethical aspects of a company’s marketing efforts. For me personally, I tend to gravitate toward more traditional methods. Spreading the word and having a presence is different than some of the tricks and ploys used. They make me uncomfortable and that is not the impression I want to imprint upon others. Unless the goal is to be sleazy, there is no need to mislead, deceive, or take advantage of others to make money. That will never be what I am about and I could not be part of a company that was about that, either. It sickens me that certain foods even try to deceive in order to move a unit. I find it unethical when a drink or food makes claims they are infused with pomegranate or blueberry… but there is no trace of either fruit, but are flavored with sugar and artificial flavorings. It creates an implication that you will reap the health benefits touted of those antioxidant rich foods, but unless you are a super consumer that constantly fact checks and simply trust the marketing you will be taken for a ride and your health may pay the price for it. If I have one mission it will be good products/services, good practices. If that means more hard work instead of letting unethical marketing does the work for me, then so be it. Good practices must start somewhere and I volunteer as tribute.

References:

Ambush Marketing | What is Ambush Marketing? (n.d.). Retrieved April 25, 2015, from http://www.marketing-schools.org/types-of-marketing/ambush-marketing.html

El Sayed, H., & El Ghazaly, I. (n.d.). Ethics-Based Marketing : Ethical Articles. Retrieved April 24, 2015, from http://www.ethicsbasedmarketing.net/2.html

A634.4.4.RB- Is Affirmative Action Ethical?

For all intents and purposes I have never really batted an eyelash over affirmative action which is “designed as temporary measures to increase the employment and educational opportunities available to qualified women and minorities by giving them preference in hiring, promotion, and admission” (Andre, Velasquez, & Mazur, n.d., para. 2). I inherently support this action. I am a female so I suppose that technically that I could be included in the scope of special consideration, though I cannot say that I have ever directly benefited personally. Maybe I have and I do not even know it. Ultimately I take no issue with it, but the real question is whether affirmative action is ethical? Ethics is centered on what we ought to do when trying to determine if something is right or wrong (LaFollette, 2007). There has been so much controversy about affirmative action and I wonder if it is misunderstood?  Is it fair? Is it keeping us all from being equal by single out groups for special consideration? Or is it actually helping with equality and opportunity when it otherwise would not have been given?

If I were to solely base my understanding of affirmative action on the LaFollette text I may not have a particularly positive outlook on this topic. While I think his writings were well intentioned, I feel his stance was filled with inflammatory examples riddled with logical fallacy and parallel mistakes in reasoning. One of the main sticking points was that while his definition did include that it is meant to assist minorities and women LaFollette only focuses on African-Americans and goes on to say that if affirmative action can be justified they would be the most deserving recipients (2007). No further indication is made about other minority groups or women and does not include the historical benefits or any arguments that have been made for each. While including each may have made for a longer or even a second chapter, it paints a wholly incomplete picture of affirmative action.

In terms of LaFollette, the focus is rather singular and presents arguments that have been made against affirmative action such as that it is reverse discrimination, it hurts those who have done no wrong, sheds lights on the argument regarding qualification, that affirmative action stigmatizes black, and it minimizes the rights of employers. Arguments for affirmative action include that we still face continuing racism, though it is veiled and indirect in its form today and that there should be equality for opportunity (LaFollette, 2007). Other assorted arguments for affirmative action are tucked into the responses of the arguments against it, such as whites are not thought to be inferior to blacks, white men have never been discriminated against so even in reverse it is not tantamount to what blacks have faced so it does not count as much, and that whites owe blacks punitive damages for that was done by our ancestors so that while we did not do the damage ourselves, we still reap the benefits from generation to generation (LaFollette, 2007). I simply cannot wrap my mind around these comments and my felt sense tells me that they may not be ethical, but one man’s opinion should not color this entire issue of inquiry into affirmative action and the determination if it is ethical. Frankly it is a distorted generalized statement to make about one group or another.

My main concern that I have with most things is that I would like to see true equality in the world. I have come to find that not everyone has an ever inquisitive mind and fact checks multiple sources and dissenting opinions, evaluate them critically and then makes up their mind when they encounter the unknown. If we hear something we tend to take it at face value and this is what makes me feel that affirmative action will continue to be misunderstood. Through misunderstanding is more prejudice being developed? According to Plous (2003) there is a myth about combating discrimination with discrimination and that “the problem with this myth is that it uses the same word -- discrimination -- to describe two very different things. Job discrimination is grounded in prejudice and exclusion, whereas affirmative action is an effort to overcome prejudicial treatment through inclusion. The most effective way to cure society of exclusionary practices is to make special efforts at inclusion, which is exactly what affirmative action does” (para. 8). While that is the aim, I am not assured that it prevents it from being misunderstood. In my opinion, that is a problem. A problem for the aim and a problem for society.

Another argument is that if we stop viewing each other in terms of differences we can prevent racism and there would no longer be a need for affirmative action that we could all just be as equals. This is called colorblindness. While this statement sounds intuitively plausible, the reality is that color-blind policies often put racial minorities at a disadvantage (Plous, 2003). “Unless preexisting inequities are corrected or otherwise taken into account, color-blind policies do not correct racial injustice -- they reinforce it” (Plous, 2003, para. 2). Although En Vogue made a compelling song, “Free Your Mind” that sings ”Free your mind and the rest will follow, be colorblind, don’t be so shallow” where I feel  this really is the ultimate goal, regardless we still have to remain cognizant in order not to have an out of sight, out of mind mentality. When we hurt one group, or two groups, we are overall hurting each other and ourselves.

The bottom line is that ethically, I believe that if you see something then you need to do something. That is exactly the intent of affirmative action. There is still a lot of wrong and we should do something about it. While it seems like we are starting to come a long way to become open and civic minded, there are still heinous instances occurring every day to discriminate against others. This means that this is everyone’s problem and we all need to do our part to coexist and that means that everyone deserves equal opportunities.

References:

Andre, C., Velasquez, M., & Mazur, T. (n.d.). Affirmative Action: Twenty-five Years of Controversy. Retrieved April 18, 2015, from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v5n2/affirmative.html

LaFollette, H. (2007). The Practice of Ethics. Malden, MA; Blackwell Publishing

Plous, S. (2003). UnderstandingPrejudice.org: Ten Myths About Affirmative Action. Retrieved April 18, 2015, from http://www.understandingprejudice.org/readroom/articles/affirm.htm

A634.3.5.RB- The Harder They Fall

I am not really competitive with anyone other than myself and I often find myself being complacent with my current professional role without vision to climb. Maybe I am afraid of heights, or just weary. This is not to say that I am not interested, though I worry whether I am made of the “right” stuff. Obviously as I am studying leadership, at some point for me to grow, I will need to move past the point of theorizing and actually translate what I have learned into practical experience. I honestly do not feel the gravitational pull toward power that would require me to spend my energy maneuvering strategically while I am at work… I would just rather do the work when I am at work… call me crazy. According to the Kramer article this may be a great detriment to any rise in my corporate status. “There is something about the pursuit of power that often changes people in profound ways. Indeed, to get to the apex of their profession, individuals are often forced to jettison certain attitudes and behaviors—the same attitudes and behaviors they need for survival once they get to the top” (Kramer, 2003, para. 8).

As I value my principles I am often baffled by the competitive acquisition that is commonplace in American culture. Schor calls this new consumerism where we make comparisons to reference groups that are not parallel to the level that we are currently at and instead try to reach four of five times above where we are economically (1998).

One solution to these problems emerged on the talk-show circuit recently, championed by a pair of young urban "entry-level" earners: live the faux life, consuming as if you had a big bank balance. Their strategies? Use your expense account for private entertainment, date bankers, and sneak into snazzy parties without an invitation. Haven't got the wardrobe for it? No matter. Charge expensive clothes, wear them with the tags on, and return them the morning after. Apparently the upscale life is now so worth living that deception, cheating, and theft are a small price to pay for it. (Schor, 1998, p. 8).

 I have pondered what we would be like as a society should we take away positioning ourselves for the next great thing and the negative aspects associated with it. Then I realize what I think society would actually be like and it would not be peaceful, it would be like turning back the hands of time, which may be a bit of an over diluted reduction. I imagine we would see the same power struggles as centuries ago. Trade having business aspiration for anything that someone else may want to have. In polite society CEO status etc. is the ultimate prize.

There are lots of extremely smart and ambitious individuals vying for just a few top slots. Moving up the ranks can be like competing in a high-stakes tournament: As you make it through successive rounds, the pool of worthy candidates narrows, the margin for error is much smaller, and the competition intensifies. This winnowing process means just a handful of people will attain prominence or success. In some contests—such as those for CEO of a major corporation, head of a mainstream motion picture studio, dean of an elite law school, or president of the United States—there can be only one winner. (Kramer, 2003, para. 9).

Prior to modern day issues, there were still those out there with the winner takes all mentality who sought power, riches, and spoils of circumstances that were more preferential than what they had. Countries tried to overthrow one another to gain land. Kings and Queens married off their children to form alliances between countries in order to protect their own interests. Pirates pillaged and plundered. Barbarians killed to get what they want, not embarked upon negotiations or aimed to climb the social or corporate ladder. If you were lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time and found something worth having, or if you were creative or intelligent enough to make something desirable, there were always those lying in wait with enough strategy and power to seize it forcefully. This is still true today. We see it in the form of war. We also see it in a more benign form that comes with an ethical price when winner takes all competitors engage in reckless behavior and folly (Kramer, 2003). It doesn’t matter what it comes wrapped in today, such as the next CEO position, the concept is the about the same. Kramer calls this winner takes all (2003). I see this as a major dilemma in society, at work, and in our personal lives.

Ethically where does this leave us in terms of the dilemmas we face? Leaders have to wear different hats and it can become difficult to shift from one to another and have the appropriate competencies and personalities to make it all the way to the top. Sometimes you think to yourself… why not me? So off you go to leverage for power and as Kramer puts it, winner wants all. If I were to put myself in another’s shoes I can rationalize where genius to folly syndrome occurs (Kramer, 2003). You work so hard in high school to perform well academically and pad your resume with impressive accomplishments. It seems fun at first even if it is competitive, but the stakes are not as high or as dire. You likely do not have bills to pay or mouths to feed, though for some, not getting into the right Ivy League institution could be seen as a travesty in itself. The same is done throughout your college career to get to the next place you are going, the work force/ professional level. These life events are a series of foothills. Each becomes more arduous than the one previous and each time you make it to the top you have to start over, already exhausted. It is a constant upward trek. The brief reprieve of finishing and the sense of victory wear off and you keep climbing. Maybe it is new consumerism that Schor discusses that makes us feel like we need at all right now.

At some point one has to wonder, when does the hard work end? Sadly it doesn’t. Just because you ascend does not mean you are exempt from the work, the work just changes. The perks are what tempt us into faltering because why would you have these things if you had not earned them? Moderation can seem inconvenient. To stay on top, one must keep the same work ethic that got them to the top, if not a better one now that so much visibility is placed upon you as a product of being at the top of the pyramid. It is truly and endurance journey and not many are truly cut out for the multifaceted versatility an ethical leader needs to possess in order not to crash and burn.

From a societal perspective, I worry about our culture. My generation was one of the first to really tap into the millionaire lifestyle and try to emulate it. Sure there was always someone trying to keep up with the Jones, but then someone had to go and try to keep up with the Kardashians, which means whatever you are doing, you do it all over television and you publicize your every move heavily. Status and material possessions has become tied to personal identity and the entitlement is on its way to spinning out of control (Schor, 1998). It reminds me of The Great Gatsby. Gatsby built himself up with his lies of who is was and wear he came from, positioned himself to get one thing- Daisy, put all of his eggs in one basket, let his ego misguide the truth about himself that he was unstoppable and could not be defeated in anything, made some incorrect calculations, and ultimately became his on undoing. It is a tragic tale dressed in gorgeously gilded trappings. What was once a school reading requirement plays out in the media regularly. Life has imitated art. “One might think that reality would splash a little cold water now and then on leaders’ splendid illusions” (Kramer, 2003, para. 26).

For me individually I have always been afraid to fly too close to the sun. I take Icarus’s tale seriously. I am a safety girl and crave playing it safe. My childhood shaped who I am and tamed my ambition, which I had plenty of when I was younger. Risk is not in my vocabulary unless you mean painting a wall a wild color or dying my hair an artistic shade of purple, but those are not permanent decisions, they can be easily changed. What I thought I would have forever, my parents and my childhood home, were taken from me so soon and now I realize that nothing is permanent, not even an anticipated tenure at the top. I am often baffled by those who get to the top and dethrone others on the way there, how they can believe that their stay will be long-term when it could be temporary in comparison to the life-span of a full-fledged career.

There is not a point where I would not feel constantly on edge because I know how quickly what you have can be taken away. Without ambition or expectation, I became depleted of my drive to ascend and found solace in clinging to my principles that keep me rooted firmly in the ground. If I could get to the next level this would be an asset. For that same reason it is why I have sustained the same level exactly where I am. The beautiful and assuring fact is that leaders are needed everywhere, especially those who hold ethical decision-making as a core value. While I may not be the next great CEO of a large multi-national company, there is a place for me to shine my light, which may be through the arts and also the field of education. Just because I am not the crowning achievement atop the pyramid, I am still comfortable knowing I have an important role in keeping the pyramid strong and holding it up through my own unique contributions. If more people felt the same then maybe there would be less of the same dilemma played out repeatedly. 

References:

Kramer, R. (2003, October 1). The Harder They Fall. Retrieved April 9, 2015, from https://hbr.org/2003/10/the-harder-they-fall

Schor, J. (1998). The overspent American: Upscaling, downshifting, and the new consumer. New York, NY: Basic Books.

A634.2.4.RB- Theories of Ethics

Recently I began my first ethics class and while I may have only dipped my toe into the ocean of theories that are available in order to critically think about and examine practical issues, I am still unsure which one I most closely follow. Two of the major theories are Deontology and Consequentialism. I am almost fearful that I am not consistent in my views, in fact, I am confident enough in myself and my decision-making to acknowledge that I am not consistent… and I might be okay with that. While I think there is a rather lazy convenience in approaching moral theories like a pick and choose buffet, another way to view it is that while no theory is perfect one can sidestep the flaws and create their own best of album of ethical decision-making. I think that each theory has really important ideas that I have unknowingly incorporated into my life and I would like to put both theories in the hot seat for a moment to look at the best and worst of what they have to offer.

Deontology: The road to hell is paved with good intentions

Deontology is concerned with following moral rules and principles regardless if the end consequence is not that great. For example, if I threw a baseball and it went through my neighbor’s window, I should tell the truth that it was me regardless of the trouble that I would get into both financially and the standing relationship that I may end up damaging. If telling the truth is a moral obligation, and deontology says that it is, it must be done no matter what. Another interesting way to look at this is being a Good Samaritan. If I came upon someone who was severely injured I should help them. If I am the only one around, I am better than nothing. I do not have medical training, unless you count knowing how to dilate pupils, which we aren’t. My obligation would be to try to help in any way I can. If a car was coming and I tried to move the person out of the road and paralyzed them accidentally because I moved them, is not really an important factor in deontology. I had a good intention to help and do the best I could. It is unfortunate that the end result is as it was. If life was looked at in timeline format, what we did in the beginning and then in the middle are very important, no matter how it turns out.

Consequentialism: If it doesn’t work out, then you are just a jerk

Consequentialists would not agree that it is what we do in the beginning or the middle, but that we get to the best overall end result that benefits the most people possible. I think Jack Bauer and 24 is a great example. In order to save the world, so what if he has to murder at least 273 people (after the premiere of 24: Live Another Day), most of who are threatening the peace and civility that society tends to enjoy. When it comes to saving the world, I could get behind consequentialism! However, if I am going about my everyday ho-hum routine and there is a turtle, kitten, puppy etc. or all three in the road and I intend to preserve an animal’s life and I swerve… as long as my intended outcome to save the animal is completed then I have carried out my intention. It gets a little messy when I think about what if I wreck… into a tree… and kill myself… or other people… I still saved that cute little animal. This is where consequentialism and utilitarianism tend to converge; did I serve the greatest good? Did I actually produce the best end result? For the turtle I did. Here is where I start pointing fingers a little bit. If Jack Bauer killed all of those people and then failed to save the day, then he has just killed a bunch of people. How does he explain himself? There is no end result to justify those actions according to a consequentialist outlook. If you do whatever it takes and fail, then you are just a jerk. It does matter what you intended because the outcome doesn’t stand up to justify the means to get there.

Best of both worlds?

To play the devil’s advocate if I married the two together to have a true deontologist-consequentialist union then I would have the follow the rules explicitly and still come up with the best outcome. So, Jack Bauer would not be able to kill his way through the world, he would have to incarcerate or stun the people and take great care from beginning to end. Now… if we were to do the pick and choose thing, he would kill his way through the world of criminals and bad guys and if he were to fail, it would only be a temporary setback. I mean, come on, it is Jack Bauer we are talking about! Then he would just keep on going until he produced the best consequences.

Fun and games aside, there is divergence between these two theories and those who hold these viewpoints may also diverge. All deontologists have a one size fits all approach, and likely the same for consequentialists because what is to say which action in fact does hold the most weight, there are places for wiggle room. According to LaFollette the main goal is to critically think about what we do and why we do it (2007). Our careful reflection can assist in understanding how to approach practical issues in an ethical way. If we cannot agree as a society, as a set of one people, what is the most moral and ethical way to behave, our actions still must be morally evaluated when it comes to how our actions affect others. Most can agree on this fact (LaFollette, 2007). Because it is so important how our actions affect others, this is why I do not feel compelled to be discouraged by how I pick and choose between the theories. If I am constantly evaluating how to honor others and still respect myself through the journey and try to have good consequences after everything is said and done it might be okay that I lack consistency. Then again, I may be trying to justify my actions.

References:

LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell