Marketing and Ethics Essay Example

money itself does not possess inherent moral goodness or badness. As a tangible creation bestowed by God, it is fundamentally good. Money functions as a medium of exchange, with its value conventionally determined within society. However, when money becomes associated with an individual, it can carry moral implications that may be positive or negative.

The significance and role of money in human life depend on its acquisition (whether through honest means, stealing, or cheating) and one's connection to it. Despite its importance, money should not be the sole focus or value in life. It is vital to avoid becoming overly reliant on money in any form. A well-known Bible verse found in Timothy 6:10 (King James Version) declares "For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." This verse is often misquoted as 'money is the root of all evil,' conveying a similar sentiment.

So money can become immoral if it becomes as we mentioned previously. (CF VIOXX later)
It also becomes immoral when profit is the sole rule and objective of an economic activity. Moreover, idolizing money to the extent that it leads to atheism is morally wrong. It is impossible to serve both God AND money. [Bible - Matthew 6:24 (New International Version)]

In general, in the Catholic religion, money has always been seen as something that tends to corrupt individuals. Even though some other religions and cultures may downplay the negative aspects of money (for example, Protestants in the US), earning money will never be regarded positively from a moral perspective.

It may appear challenging to connect

business and ethics, but is it possible?

Despite the apparent disconnect, businesses are established and operated by individuals. These individuals are expected to adhere to ethical principles and possess inherent ethical values, as per Aquinas. Aquinas advocates for a naturalistic outlook on morality, known as the Natural Law Theory.

So that Business and Ethics do not seem impossible. And it is actually a necessity for the business world and people, that they have a link so that everything can keep going the right way. What's more, by listenning to and working with business people, business ethicists discovered that not all business behaviour is purely self-interested. Indeed business people want to make money and be promoted, to be sure, but most of them also want to be good to their families & friends, to be loyal to their country, and be fair. Given these considerations, we can finally modify the first assumption as follows: business & ethics could work together [(Contemporary ethical issues by John W Dienhart and Jordan Curnutt).]

But why respecting the ethic rules ? Even if the relativism theory lies that moral can change from one person to another, the agreements between beliefs and practises of societies are significant as all societies value courage and trusthfulness for example; So that means that a universal moral can be claimed. So in business, most people know what ethic norms are and what are not and it is very important. Indeed Look behind successful, honest businesses and you will see a set of values that have stood the test of time. The nice guy is not always the last one nowadays. Things have changed.

However, there are businessmen who fail

to acknowledge the significance of adhering to ethical rules and norms. As a result, their actions may lead to unfavorable outcomes.

To start, let's discuss the VIOXX case, which is considered one of the most shocking instances in the pharmaceutical industry. VIOXX, a highly successful drug available from 1999 to 2004, was ultimately withdrawn due to strong evidence indicating a significant increase in heart attacks and strokes for patients who used it for over 18 months. This medication was manufactured by Merck and co., and even before its introduction to the market, there were already concerning warning signs. In fact, an internal trial (study 090) conducted in 1998 revealed a higher occurrence of cardiovascular issues among patients who took VIOXX compared to those who did not.

In the initial stage, there are queries regarding the rationale behind the launch of VIOXX. Merck's response is that the preliminary test with only 978 patients was too small to have statistical significance. Although this explanation may have been acceptable in 1999, it becomes concerning when a second trial called VIGOR produced similar results - indicating that taking VIOXX increases the risk of heart attack by five times! At this point, potential harm could have been prevented but unfortunately wasn't. Interestingly, the purpose of the second trial was to compare VIOXX with another drug in terms of stomach damage, and VIOXX performed better. Consequently, the company concluded that any increased risk of heart disease associated with VIOXX was actually due to the other drug's ability to protect the heart, thus absolving VIOXX from any specific issues.

The fact that everyone in the company was aware of the potential dangerous effects of VIOXX,

yet continuously denied any knowledge, is scandalous. What exacerbates the situation is their heavy investment in a deceptive advertising campaign until 2003, resulting in over 2.3 billion dollars in sales. Until 2001, their advertisements conveniently omitted any mention of the risks until they were forced by the FDA to disclose them. Clearly, their main objective was profit rather than people's well-being. Additionally, all employees were instructed to lie and deceive physicians and others to avoid suspicion. They allowed this deception to escalate without considering the consequences. While it is true that speaking up risked job loss for employees, choosing silence was a morally corrupt decision.

Furthermore, individuals who had concerns and attempted to inform patients were either marginalized or faced threats from the company. This was exemplified by the case of Dr. Topol, a physician who ultimately lost his job for attempting to raise awareness. Merk even compiled a list of doctors who needed to be "neutralized" or discredited for criticizing VIOXX. The intimidation tactics employed by Merck were both impactful and forceful. One employee even stated, "We may need to seek them out and destroy where they live."

Despite it being 2009, the company continues to deny, as evident in the article covering the VIOXX trial. Merk prioritized making money over saving people, which is certainly an unethical approach to conducting business by allowing people to die and lying.

The responsibility for the negative consequences of VIOXX lies with both the employees and executives, as well as the FDA. The FDA should have forced Merk to withdraw VIOXX after the second test, but they failed to do so. Furthermore, the FDA never published the study indicating that

VIOXX may have caused over 27,785 heart attacks.

It is evident from that case that Merk acted unethically by making false statements, using unsubstantiated claims, omitting risk information, and promoting VIOXX for unapproved usages and dosages through audio conferences. However, this behavior had severe consequences as discussed later. When marketing dangerous medicines, such unethical actions can have detrimental effects on people's lives. It is important to note that not all pharmaceutical companies engage in such behavior.

However, it appears that this could occur once more if we mention the ALLI pill.

What will happen then? Could it be another VIOXX case?

Let's discuss the "marlboro man," the product of one of the most successful advertising campaigns in history. The marlboro man has captivated people worldwide, and few can deny the allure of the ruggedly handsome Marlboro cowboy, complete with boots, hat, chaps, and of course, a cigarette in his mouth. However, few people remember that the actor who originally portrayed the Marlboro man died of lung cancer due to smoking. (Moral issues in business by W.H.Shaw,V.Barry and G.Sansburry- chapter 6)

In this situation, we can question the extent to which manufacturers exploit advertising. It is arguably unethical as advertisers create or at least stimulate desires for harmful products that consumers would not otherwise want. But they make them attractive! Additionally, tobacco companies demonstrate unethical behavior in two other ways. First, they target teenagers with their cigarette marketing. Second, they have long denied the health risks associated with smoking, particularly cancer (only recently have they included warning images on packs because of legal requirements). Selling cigarettes is similar to selling guns (in most cases, referring to the Blackwater case), as it

cannot be ethical since the product itself is harmful and can lead to death.

One more issue within unethical marketing and advertising occurs when the message is discriminatory.

The Toyota case involved a parody of a Ford campaign, where a man drove his Falcon at high speed in wet conditions. However, in the Toyota ad, it is revealed that he was actually driving his pregnant wife to the hospital. The ad also referenced a controversial Vanity Fair cover featuring Demi Moore posing naked while pregnant. This sparked a debate about whether the ad demeaned or exploited women. Many feminists found it offensive and exploitative, considering it insulting or dehumanizing due to its ridicule of pregnancy and depiction of a headless woman. Consequently, the ad could strongly influence opinions and be perceived as belittling or destabilizing for certain individuals. Another example of discriminatory marketing can be seen in the "Y'a bon banania" ad that used a black man with an African accent to sell cacao powder. Abercrombie and Fitch has also faced legal action for excluding overweight and unattractive people from their brand. On the other hand, luxury brands like Vuitton and Dior exclusively targeting wealthy individuals may be considered unethical. Overall, this raises concerns about our consumer society's ethical nature where purchasing power and superficiality often overshadow genuine values. In conclusion, businesspeople are not required to make unethical decisions to sell products ethically.
Although selling itself is not inherently unethical, it is important to conduct it with ethical guidelines in mind. The VIOXX case illustrates the scandalous nature of decisions that involve dishonesty, omissions, and discriminatory messages being deemed ethical. However, there are companies that manage to sell

while providing accurate and informative information. These companies strengthen their reputation by adhering to ethical practices. It is crucial for firms to carefully consider their actions and uphold ethical standards as failure to do so can have negative consequences on various aspects such as people's lives, health, safety, overall image, and even how women and overweight individuals are treated.

Marketers must ensure honesty and transparency by offering truthful products and providing consumers with comprehensive information.

Having bad ethical policies can harm a company's reputation and competitiveness, ultimately leading to customer loss. Some business owners may think that implementing an ethical strategy compromises their competitive advantage. However, in a world where corporate scandals in accounting and marketing are causing legislators and business leaders to prioritize the "triple bottom line" of people, planet, and profits, it is increasingly clear that being ethical does not hinder success. In fact, as consumers become more globally aware and demand honesty and transparency, it is highly advantageous for companies to embrace an ethical stance. Ethical and environmentally conscious practices not only attract customers and enhance a company's reputation but also significantly contribute to its financial profitability by reducing costs.

Let's consider a few examples. One example is contributing to the local community, such as finding a local supplier. This not only reduces transport and delivery costs but also helps reduce pollution from road traffic. Additionally, it ensures that the money spent remains in the local economy and supports it, indirectly leading to the employment of people who may then purchase the company's products or services.

Another example is helping an association, which can strengthen the company's image. As Charles Handy, a renowned management guru, says,

"the companies that survive longest are the ones that work out what they uniquely can give to the world." Implementing an ethical purchasing policy, such as obtaining the fairtrade mark, and finding suppliers who share the company's goals (such as recycling, waste reduction, using energy-efficient/chemical-free/non-renewable production processes,and avoiding animal testing) are important.

Most of the time when selling ethical products or services companies exceed customer expectations by offering high-quality long-lasting products accompanied by excellent customer service.

Respecting ethics sets companies apart, increasing sales and profile, and giving a competitive advantage. Being part of an ethical supply chain is important for customers as it brings a closer relationship between organizations, offering competitive advantage, cost reduction, and maintaining a loyal customer base. Successful companies build long term, transparent, and consistent relationships (e.g., Camelot company in the UK, known for their ethical policy) (Cf Business on a shoe string p 12-50).

In summary, respecting ethics has several advantages: creating value and attracting customers while providing a competitive edge. However, creating an ethical strategy involves more than exploiting another niche market. The internet's viral effect allows consumers to spread ideas and opinions rapidly through email and blogs, highlighting both the sincere and insincere.

The risk of marketing ethical credentials is that, if you are seen as underperforming, customers may accuse you of hypocrisy and abandon you en masse. For example, Google faced public backlash when it removed content that the Chinese government objected to in its Chinese language version, contradicting its corporate policy of "do no evil." Another case is Starbucks, who claimed to be dedicated to ethically and sustainably sourcing their coffee but was discovered by Oxfam to have attempted to hinder

Ethiopian farmers from trademarking their famous coffee names, potentially causing them to lose up to 47 million pounds annually in earnings.

Companies must ensure that their standards are faithfully followed to avoid being mistrusted by customers. Customers will be hesitant to support companies that deceive or only adopt ethical practices for the sake of appearance. Unethical behavior and disregarded ethical policies can greatly harm a company's reputation, trustworthiness, and competitiveness. Moreover, dishonesty towards customers provides a strong incentive for them to leave the organization.

Other examples can be said. A company that only cares about its customers until they purchase then, does not care and does anything about service recovery: that is not a very ethical way of doing business, and it is another reason that will make customers leave. Also, subliminal advertising, if discovered, is seen as non-moral as it "forces" customers to buy without their agreement in a certain way (it coerces and manipulates): it will negate the firm's image too and make the customers go.

Engaging in non-ethical behaviors can have severe ramifications, including the potential for financial ruin or significant monetary losses for a company.

Unethical decisions in the VIOXX case resulted in loss of life for some individuals. Once the mistake was exposed, the company had to financially compensate for the damages, leading to numerous lawsuits that greatly affected its finances. Merk ultimately paid hundreds of millions of dollars in punitive and compensatory damages, a significant amount that could potentially cause bankruptcy. These events can strain relationships among doctors, laboratories, medical representatives, and even individuals due to a lack of trust. As a consequence, doctors may choose to boycott products from Merk laboratory by

not prescribing them.