In response to Doug Kendall's Marketing Trash Talking:

Do you think this is effective marketing? Do you think this type of advertisement actually has an adverse effect on these companies?

It may be beneficially to keep the market competative but it does get annoying for the customer and may cause them to boycott both companies as a result it makes both companies suffer. If a company was to use the other company to compare itself in being a better product, why the product is better without use of propoganda or ‘bad mouthing’ the other company it is probably a healthy way of doing business otherwise both companies have the risk of losing as a result of it.

Some examples where it does work is in a towel commericial for example where say a bounty is compared to Charmin or Coke is compared to Pepsi showing the quality is better or worse and what changes in technology is made to the product or industry. This is a good way of marketing because it is supported with evidence or what both companies have done for quality in their product without a biased propoganda.

Some examples where it doesn't work is in political campaignes where the voters get so disgusted with both party's talking about one another and describing either democratics and republicans in a hyper negative way causing voters to not vote and be alienated as a result. A example of this is the Massachusetts election where Martha Coakley and Scott Brown ran against each other. Martha Coakley barley talked in her advertisments except at the end saying she "approves this message". The commericial appears to have propoganda about Scott Brown, a stretching of the truth, or the data was changed to see negatively. An example is her campaigne party suggesting that all republicans are alike, all are pro-military, pro-life, and Pro-George W. Bush. These are people we are talking about and all republicans are not the same or cut from the same group. Also these commericials were played at a such a frequent rate that voters were also alinated. For example if someone was to watch a TV program the majority of the commericials over the break were these campaignes. Scott Brown's campaigne also used a different approach. There were some commericials that indicated a few negative things about Coakley but he took more of a hometown approach. But campaines are one way to drive people away through in fighting no matter which party it is they are both gulity of this.

Another example that has personally drove me nuts is the Apple Macintosh commericial against the PC. The reasoning why I dislike this commericial is because it shows sterotypes about both PC's in Mac's much like the democrats and republicans. For example the Mac people are portrayed as artsy, smug, intellectual, condescending, people while the PC's are portrayed as boring, office types, that appear to have no life, and are very ridgid, structured, and have no personality. These kinds of ads make someone be turned off by the Macintosh company completely. I think taken to this level it does not work no matter who the company is or how sucsessful they are.

John Smith Case

John Smith and his company are in a pickle and he must make a choice to keep the company going or to go bankrupt and money is a issue. Usually when money is involved people tend to let their own ethics/morals go for money’s sake because its usually means of surival unfortuantly.

Its hard to make a choice about this ethically unless you are in John Smith’s positon. Usually when the stakes are high people show their true character, strenght, and courage in these situations. As a bystander my ethics and morals tell me that he shouldn’t part with the names even if it provides him with 8000 dollars and he can potentially save the company by not laying people off but by not giving the names the people will be layed off, the company will go into bankrupcy, and end the business all together. Again if I was financial vested in the company the choice would be harder but my general ethics tell me that its not right to give up the names making it not only a mortal sin to decieve his employees but it may also be against the law.

According to the AMA Statements of Ethics this is illegal or shouldn't be used agains the employees. According to the website www.marketingpower.com their are three key things in modern marketing that must be abided by; 1.) do not harm, 2.) foster truth in the marketing system 3.) embrace ethical values. According to this it would be wrong to give up anyone's information without just cause, their autority or notification, which uses their information in anyway by the other company. In other words John Smith cannot know unless he recieves it in documented writing whether this company will use their information for good or evil. Even knowing that he did this without their consent which is also wrong.

To go in depth on the AMA website cited above the description indicates 1.) Do Not Harm: meaning to not intentially use actions to harm people by abiding the set ethical standards by the choices the company makes. 2.) Foster Truth In Marketing Systems: striving for good faith and fair treatement towards the exchange in business to customers by avoiding any kind of deception what so ever. 3.) Embrace Ethical Values: in use of ethics this means to build a relationship with the customer by enhancing it with confidence by following core values of honesty, responsability, fairness, respect, etc.

With all these things it is pretty clear that if John Smith was to give the names it would be morally wrong and illegal concerning modern marketing. Does anyone argue for giving the names and the reasoning why? Did any one come to their decision with fluid ease or extreme diffuculty? Do you think religious beliefs, culture, or other expierences shape how a person would approach this situation in the real world or answer this question?