WARNING: Some of the images on this page may be graphics. They might also be disturbing.
There once was a girl who bought
some zippers online. The zipper company tried to charge the girl more than the
price listed on the website and generally treated the customer poorly, so the
girl made a YouTube video about her experience. The president of the company
found the video and then started harassing the girl by calling her stupid and
disgusting. He also started giving out the girl’s personal information by
forwarding her e-mails to other customers.
The goal of this harassment was to
get the girl to take down her YouTube video, as it served as a negative strike
against the company. Instead, the girl got a unique and large niche to vow
never to use that website due to the company’s behavior.
That girl was me. As you can tell, I
have some personal views about ethics in business.
Ethics, according to Merriam-Webster
dictionary, is the “rules of behavior based on ideas about what is morally
good and bad.” The problem with this definition is the key word rules. There are no written rules.
Nothing is in black and white.
So, how should a business conduct
itself if there are no rules to follow? Does that mean they can get away with
more, or they have to be even more careful about what they do? I say the answer
is both.
If there are no general set rules,
other than ones a company sets or ones dictated in law form, a company can
theoretically get away with almost anything. This is only if they’re not
caught.
After all, an
ethical business, figure head, or news article is generally one you can trust.
The more the consumer trusts your product, whether it is tangible, intangible,
or information based, the more likely they are to partake in that product. One
can manipulate this trust if ethical business practice is too hard for them,
but the danger of being found out can be more damaging during this practice.
MCDONALDS: THE GOLDEN ARCHES OF ANTI-TRUST
 |
McDonald’s has had a Monopoly
contest for years: you go and purchase your fries and large sprite and you get
tile pieces similar to the game of Monopoly. The collection of certain pieces
resulted in a large prize such as cars or cash.
It was advertised
that everyone had a fair chance to win, but consumers noticed that it wasn’t
all that fair. When the FBI investigated this, they found that the business
that worked with McDonalds, Simon Marketing (more specifically, Jerome
P. Jacobson, their Chief of Security), stole game pieces, making it
impossible for the general public to win (Apgar, 2008) .
Even though the case happened more than 10 years ago, customers are
feeling less and less joyful over the once booming contest, despite McDonalds
claims that the contest is more popular than it has ever been in the past,
according to “McDonald's
Monopoly game: A great promotion gone bad?“.
PRACTICES THAT WILL GET YOU INTO HOT COFFEE
In terms of the media, one
exclusion of facts, whether accidental or on purpose, can either invalidate
your entire outlet, or forever shroud a topic in inaccuracy and falseness.
In 1992, an older woman was driving
and drinking McDonald’s coffee when she spilled the coffee and burned herself. She
sues, gets millions of dollars, and the general public uses it as an example
for years in damages related cases.
Except that’s not how it happened.
According to Texas Trial
Lawyers Association, Stella Liebeck wasn’t even driving that day. In fact,
the car was parked when she fiddled with her coffee. Also, she did not merely ‘get
burns’. Liebeck “received
third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body”, was in
the hospital for eight days, and went through treatment for two years.
 |
Not only have that, but McDonald’s coffee sold their
coffee at 180-190 degree Fahrenheit, which is hot enough to cause third -
degree burns. McDonalds knew about these risks and had been reprimanded for it
before. More than 700 people had been burned prior to this case, including
children and infants. One case resulted in prolonged disability.
The worse part about the case was
that McDonald’s left their consumers in the dark about the danger. They refused to acknowledge Leibeck’s injury,
but the law was thankfully on her side.
Despite this, the case lived in
infamy. The media said the Lieback and other citizens like her “take advantage of America’s legal system.” I
also joked about the woman who sued McDonalds, until I saw the documentary “Hot Coffee,” which told
the truth about the incident.
This
event happened when I was a child. Why did it take almost twenty years for me
to find out the truth? If the media skewed this event this badly, what else have
they convinced me to believe? How much of what’s discussed on the news is
information I can trust and how much is misrepresented due to a station’s
personal morals and beliefs? What facts are mangled so badly due to the media’s
ongoing game of telephone that the wreckage could be compared to Mrs. Leibeck’s
wounds?
What
is ethical about how anyone handled the “scandalous” coffee case?
What
is ethical about advertising prizes an average consumer has no chance to win?
What
is ethical about a business calling a girl disgusting for posting a negative
review about their company?
I
said before that ethics equaled trust, but ethics is more equivalent to
professionalism. The book “Mixed Media: Moral Distinctions in Advertising,
Public Relations, and Journalism” mentioned that calling someone unethical is
the same thing as accusing them of being unprofessional.
In
the end, who in their right mind would want to do business with someone
unprofessional?
0 comments:
Post a Comment