When I took ethics this semester I thought it was going to be horrible. I expected some boring long class about outdated theories that I would never be able to apply to any of the complex situations that fill everyday life. I figured I would just have to grit my teeth and slog through this class so I could get my diploma and finally move on to making ads and I would just forget everything I ever learned in that musty old ethics class.
And then I went to class on the first day. It wasn’t as exciting as a trip to a water park or anything, but it wasn’t what I expected at all. Yes there were theories that we had to learn, but it was interesting to hear that all of the theories are still applicable to today’s events.
I think the best example of this was the use of the Potter’s Box. I was pretty interested to find out about a system that would not only allow me to take old theories and use them in relation to my own life, but to find out there is a system that will help me make the big decisions in my life is a tool that is invaluable. From now on I know that I won’t have to panic about decisions like if I should quit my job to take a different job, or if I should work on a certain ad campaign if I feel it conflicts with my values because I can always fall back on the Potter’s Box to help me with my choices.
A friend once told me that no matter what happens, if you can come away from any experience with a lesson then you will always come out on top. Well the Potter’s Box is the lesson that I will take away from this class.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Well I Never...
So Groupon has decided that they can’t take the heat. Groupon CEO Andrew Mason is now blaming the agency CP&B for their new controversial ad. Mason said that they relied too much on the agency “to be edgy, informative and entertaining, and we turned off the part of our brain where we should have made our own decisions. We learned that you can't rely on anyone else to control and maintain your own brand.” Groupon has since left CP&B and is currently not seeking another agency.
So who’s to blame for all of this? Is Groupon the villain or does the buck stop with CP&B? Given what we have learned in class I believe that both parties share blame and could have taken steps to make sure that this situation didn’t blow up in their face.
First of all, Groupon should of realized what they where getting into. Groupon wanted to get their name out there and they thought that CP&B would be able to do that. But when CP&B pitched the idea of making light of international trouble, they should have realized that there would be a backlash.
But that doesn’t mean that Groupon is entirely to blame here. CP&B are just as responsible for the controversy that took place. All of this could have been avoided with just one URL for a Tibetan charity in the original airing of the commercial. By adding the URL on the commercial the agency is not only advertising for Groupon, but they are giving out charity information about the subject of the commercial.
So is it ok for Groupon to throw CP&B under the bus for this commercial? No, it isn’t. Groupon needs to pull the commercial and have a press release where they publicly apologize for the commercial by making a donation to a Tibetan charity with the money they may or may not have made from the commercial. By trying to blame the ad agency they are just making themselves look incompetent. By taking responsibility for the ad, they are presenting themselves as a serious company that is able to admit when they are wrong and are trying to make up for it.
So who’s to blame for all of this? Is Groupon the villain or does the buck stop with CP&B? Given what we have learned in class I believe that both parties share blame and could have taken steps to make sure that this situation didn’t blow up in their face.
First of all, Groupon should of realized what they where getting into. Groupon wanted to get their name out there and they thought that CP&B would be able to do that. But when CP&B pitched the idea of making light of international trouble, they should have realized that there would be a backlash.
But that doesn’t mean that Groupon is entirely to blame here. CP&B are just as responsible for the controversy that took place. All of this could have been avoided with just one URL for a Tibetan charity in the original airing of the commercial. By adding the URL on the commercial the agency is not only advertising for Groupon, but they are giving out charity information about the subject of the commercial.
So is it ok for Groupon to throw CP&B under the bus for this commercial? No, it isn’t. Groupon needs to pull the commercial and have a press release where they publicly apologize for the commercial by making a donation to a Tibetan charity with the money they may or may not have made from the commercial. By trying to blame the ad agency they are just making themselves look incompetent. By taking responsibility for the ad, they are presenting themselves as a serious company that is able to admit when they are wrong and are trying to make up for it.
Friday, March 4, 2011
I want my Ethics!
If you’re looking for a code of ethics to subscribe to then you defiantly have some options. There is WOMMA or the Word Of Mouth Marketing Association, there’s the AFF or the PRSA, and the SPJ and the Page Principles, and that’s just to name a few. Each code of ethics is refined to apply to a certain type of public business. The SPJ is the code of ethics for journalists while the AFF deals mostly with advertising and the PRSA is the code of ethics for most PR people. And even though these different codes of ethics deal with the public in different ways, just about all of them advocate honesty and truth in dealings with the public, employers and clients.
While I was scrolling through some of the different codes of ethics I noticed something that caught my eye in the WOMMA code. One of the condition for membership into WOMMA is “Not having been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude or fraud by a court of competent jurisdiction”, something that the AFF, SPJ or the PRSA didn’t mention. I think it’s just common sense to make sure that you don’t allow membership into an organization that deal’s with ethical practices if you have been convicted of something like perjury. I would of thought that maintaining ones own personal ethics would be the first step in finding membership into an organization like the SPJ.
I was also surprised to find that the SPJ code of ethics states that a journalist should “Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable” but it also stated that a journalist should “Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.” This seems like a conflict to me. I understand that people like the President or Congressmen and women are public figures but what about CEO’s of companies? Aren’t they private citizens? They still wield power in our society and some of them, such as the leaders of the tobacco industry, hold sway over our public elections. So do they still get the same consideration as the foreman at a steel mill? I don’t think so. It could be that some of the rules in the SPJ code of ethics are more along like guidelines and that a journalist should use his own judgment when reporting a story. Or they could actually be well defined rules unless you’re trying to nail someone’s ass to the wall.
Speaking of guidelines, this brings me to the AAF. When you read the rules set forth by the AAF they seem pretty straightforward. Don’t purposefully mislead the public. Don’t have spokespeople who lie. Don’t be obscene. Seems like pretty cut and dry stuff. But I guess its all in the interpretation of the rule because I’ve seen some pretty risqué ads before and it seems like they are popping up more and more. But who decides whether or not something is obscene or just art? A&F ads usually feature barely dressed men and women and Paul Rubens used to paint fully naked women, so which one is the smut peddler?
Don’t get me wrong, I fully believe in ethics and that businesses should conduct themselves truthfully and honestly. But it seems like that some of these ethical rules are being bent by many of the organizations that they are supposed to protect.
While I was scrolling through some of the different codes of ethics I noticed something that caught my eye in the WOMMA code. One of the condition for membership into WOMMA is “Not having been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude or fraud by a court of competent jurisdiction”, something that the AFF, SPJ or the PRSA didn’t mention. I think it’s just common sense to make sure that you don’t allow membership into an organization that deal’s with ethical practices if you have been convicted of something like perjury. I would of thought that maintaining ones own personal ethics would be the first step in finding membership into an organization like the SPJ.
I was also surprised to find that the SPJ code of ethics states that a journalist should “Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable” but it also stated that a journalist should “Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.” This seems like a conflict to me. I understand that people like the President or Congressmen and women are public figures but what about CEO’s of companies? Aren’t they private citizens? They still wield power in our society and some of them, such as the leaders of the tobacco industry, hold sway over our public elections. So do they still get the same consideration as the foreman at a steel mill? I don’t think so. It could be that some of the rules in the SPJ code of ethics are more along like guidelines and that a journalist should use his own judgment when reporting a story. Or they could actually be well defined rules unless you’re trying to nail someone’s ass to the wall.
Speaking of guidelines, this brings me to the AAF. When you read the rules set forth by the AAF they seem pretty straightforward. Don’t purposefully mislead the public. Don’t have spokespeople who lie. Don’t be obscene. Seems like pretty cut and dry stuff. But I guess its all in the interpretation of the rule because I’ve seen some pretty risqué ads before and it seems like they are popping up more and more. But who decides whether or not something is obscene or just art? A&F ads usually feature barely dressed men and women and Paul Rubens used to paint fully naked women, so which one is the smut peddler?
Don’t get me wrong, I fully believe in ethics and that businesses should conduct themselves truthfully and honestly. But it seems like that some of these ethical rules are being bent by many of the organizations that they are supposed to protect.
Monday, February 21, 2011
The Handy Dandy Potters Box
We have all had to make tough choices in our lives. Life loves to try to peg us in the face with it’s wonderful little curveballs of moral dilemma. Most people will curse, and fret, and wonder what they did in a pervious life to deserve such special consideration, but just about every single person can agree that them’s tha brakes.
Suppose you are at train station and, just like you, there are about six other people just milling about on the tracks. Now you happen to notice that a train is coming and is currently heading for a group of five people on one set of tracks. Now you also happen to notice that you are right next to a switch that could divert that train, but in doing so you will send it towards the other person in your group who happens to be on the other set of tracks. What do you do? Do you allow those people to be mowed down by the train? Do you save the five by sacrificing the one? A little unrealistic as far as hypotheticals go, but it gets my point across.
That’s where the Potter Box comes in handy. The Potter Box is an ethical system that allows you to take into account the mitigating factors of a problem and, by isolating them and thinking critically about it, allows you to solve your problem. By taking the facts, values, loyalties and principles of the problem and the others involved into consideration you can come to an ethical conclusion and an appropriate course of action.
First you define the situation by establishing the facts. You could potentially save a group of people by killing one, or you could save one person by allowing the train to continue its course.
You also consider that values involved, such as the fact that just about everyone involved has family members and loved ones that would be hurt by these deaths.
Then you have your loyalties, which in this case would be your duty to help your fellow man whenever possible.
And finally you must consider any ethical principles that apply to your situation and find the one that fits with the problem. In this case, the strongest principle is utilitarianism. By saving the five people you are increasing the happiness of the largest group of people. But the veil of ignorance also comes into play because if you where the person who was going to be killed, I’m sure you would rather not be killed. But then again if dying meant saving the lives of five other people you might agree to it.
Personally I hate trains and I have no idea why I’m at this train station in the first place, but if I was in this situation and was forced to make a decision, I would sacrifice the life of the one to save the five. This is the conclusion I came to with the Potters Box. I feel that by saving the five people I am not only saving them, but the families and loved ones of five different people. Whereas by killing the one person I am only affecting that person’s immediate family and friends.
The Potters Box is a pretty handy tool once you get the hang of it. And it can be used to figure out other problems as well, not just ones that have life and death consequences. I feel that using this tool in your daily life and help take some of the stress out of living. And that’s something I think more people could use.
Suppose you are at train station and, just like you, there are about six other people just milling about on the tracks. Now you happen to notice that a train is coming and is currently heading for a group of five people on one set of tracks. Now you also happen to notice that you are right next to a switch that could divert that train, but in doing so you will send it towards the other person in your group who happens to be on the other set of tracks. What do you do? Do you allow those people to be mowed down by the train? Do you save the five by sacrificing the one? A little unrealistic as far as hypotheticals go, but it gets my point across.
That’s where the Potter Box comes in handy. The Potter Box is an ethical system that allows you to take into account the mitigating factors of a problem and, by isolating them and thinking critically about it, allows you to solve your problem. By taking the facts, values, loyalties and principles of the problem and the others involved into consideration you can come to an ethical conclusion and an appropriate course of action.
First you define the situation by establishing the facts. You could potentially save a group of people by killing one, or you could save one person by allowing the train to continue its course.
You also consider that values involved, such as the fact that just about everyone involved has family members and loved ones that would be hurt by these deaths.
Then you have your loyalties, which in this case would be your duty to help your fellow man whenever possible.
And finally you must consider any ethical principles that apply to your situation and find the one that fits with the problem. In this case, the strongest principle is utilitarianism. By saving the five people you are increasing the happiness of the largest group of people. But the veil of ignorance also comes into play because if you where the person who was going to be killed, I’m sure you would rather not be killed. But then again if dying meant saving the lives of five other people you might agree to it.
Personally I hate trains and I have no idea why I’m at this train station in the first place, but if I was in this situation and was forced to make a decision, I would sacrifice the life of the one to save the five. This is the conclusion I came to with the Potters Box. I feel that by saving the five people I am not only saving them, but the families and loved ones of five different people. Whereas by killing the one person I am only affecting that person’s immediate family and friends.
The Potters Box is a pretty handy tool once you get the hang of it. And it can be used to figure out other problems as well, not just ones that have life and death consequences. I feel that using this tool in your daily life and help take some of the stress out of living. And that’s something I think more people could use.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Ethics in Business
Why do we need ethics in business? We need ethics in business for the same reason we need ethics in our day to day lives. If you consistently are trying to get one over on the people around you, then eventually the people around you aren’t going to put up with you anymore. The same can be said for businesses. Businesses that continually try to trick their stock holders and consumers with eventually get a reputation as the type of corporation that lies to people and then people won’t have anything to do with them.
Corporations need to behave ethically because it’s in their own best interest to do so.
Take Taco Bell for example and this recent news about their meat not being up to FDA regulations. This is going to haunt Taco Bell, and depending on how they handle it later on, this could become something they are known by. Taco Bell already has a reputation for having less than quality food, and now if they become know for not having any meat in their meat. Then that’s just one more thing to drive people away from Taco Bell, and that means less money for that corporation. If Taco Bell had behaved ethically and made sure that they where actually meeting FDA regulations on their food, then they wouldn’t have this problem.
If you are in the business of serving food, then you should make the food you serve your business. In today’s age, where information is so readily available, they fastest way to lose a customer is to lie to them. Even small lies can come back to bite you. Employers lead by example, whether they know it or not, and to tell your secretary to tell a client you out just because you don’t want to take his call just lets they secretary know that its ok to lie. Why shouldn’t she after all? The boss does it.
Corporations need to behave ethically because it’s in their own best interest to do so.
Take Taco Bell for example and this recent news about their meat not being up to FDA regulations. This is going to haunt Taco Bell, and depending on how they handle it later on, this could become something they are known by. Taco Bell already has a reputation for having less than quality food, and now if they become know for not having any meat in their meat. Then that’s just one more thing to drive people away from Taco Bell, and that means less money for that corporation. If Taco Bell had behaved ethically and made sure that they where actually meeting FDA regulations on their food, then they wouldn’t have this problem.
If you are in the business of serving food, then you should make the food you serve your business. In today’s age, where information is so readily available, they fastest way to lose a customer is to lie to them. Even small lies can come back to bite you. Employers lead by example, whether they know it or not, and to tell your secretary to tell a client you out just because you don’t want to take his call just lets they secretary know that its ok to lie. Why shouldn’t she after all? The boss does it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
