UNETHICAL? You Would Be Surprised . . .

Yes, I am always pointing out examples to my kids.

My son is young (2nd grader), but he already has a basic concept of how it all works. He saw the dvd/soda/chips in the toy section, and responded with "They put those there so you'll see them when shopping for toys, and want them. So they sell more.".

It wasn't all that long ago that being involved with any type of commerce was an activity reserved for the lower classes. "People of quality" owned things, not sold them. Owning stock in a company was admirable, while running the company to generate dividends was not.

Funny how things go around. In our time, many idolize actresses and pop singers. In the not-so-lon-ago, "actress" or "singer" was the equivalent of "whore."

I've always believed that ethics are very personal. They're what you do and how you act when no one is looking.

For example, I may be legally entitled to keep ten fish. If I do, the most likely scenario is that I'll eat one or two right away and put the rest in the freezer. In a few months, I'll end up throwing those freezer-burned fish out, wasting them.

While the law says I can keep ten, my own ethics tell me to only keep what I can use. So I'll come home with one or two, and throw the rest back to fight another day.

Too many people confuse ethics with personal taste. Anything they don't personally approve of becomes "unethical" to them.

It's perfectly legit to say you won't do business with someone because you don't like their style. But you not liking their style does not make them unethical.

Well, stores DID get that name for a REASON! They USED to buy stuff to KEEP(STORE) it, for people to buy. Today, more and more, stores really ARE just doing ARBITRAGE! So, in a way, it IS immoral, even though ORIGINALLY it WASN'T!

Well, he had some rights he degraded, or couldn't sell, and some stuff is GREY MARKET!

That's only what POOR people say!

Business ethics is an oxymoron.

Hi,

I have a slightly different point of view.

When you look at the comments left across the internet as a whole, AND in particular when you look at those left by the typical consumer 'towards' (EG in response to a media story) a large corporate entity which either sells to them, or tries to sell to them via their marketing, then I would make these points based on my observations -

a) people say some 'interesting' things (you don't say!!) - which (for example) can demonstrate an attitude that would lead one to assume that they have an underlying resentment towards those entities, and in particular, their efforts to sell more products to them

b) there is a lot to learn - but often, it's not what you see on the surface at first glance that reveals the most

You could say that if a consumer demonstrated this attitude -

...via their comments, then they need to adjust their attitude.

But I also think that if the above quote is what you think (and where you leave it) when considering these comments from consumers, then you might perhaps benefit by thinking about it differently and looking a bit deeper than the surface.

How about this suggestion - when the consumer says that the behaviour of Walmart (when strategically placing those particular products) is 'unethical', perhaps they are not using the correct word to precisely explain their feelings/beliefs?

And if this were to be the case, any assumption about their underlying attitude could be incorrect, and therefore a waste of time.

What about if they didn't really mean to use the word 'unethical'. Perhaps they don't fully understand the meaning of the word. Perhaps they were in a hurry and just threw it out there. Perhaps the public in general have a propensity towards describing things like this in an 'exaggerated' manner - and perhaps this exaggeration is a subconscious 'backhander' towards marketers in general who have a reputation for using hype and exaggeration themselves?

If a large corporate entity cold calls the same person a handful of times and annoys them, how likely is that person to claim that they are being cold-called 'all of the time'?

If a large corporate entity makes a genuine mistake with it's billing and corrects it once they are aware, how likely is the wronged person to claim that they were 'robbed'?

Etc.

One 'exaggerated' word can make a big difference to the meaning of a sentence. Rather than being bemused by this, or offended (as a marketer) and making comments like the one quoted above, why not examine it further and try to understand what the consumer is really trying to say?

Because not only is it important as a marketer to read between the lines of customer/market feedback and use experience in the appropriate situations to decipher what the market is really saying, but also, the consumer may actually have a point.

How many extremely successful people teach others to focus on their core market/products in order to succeed and to avoid becoming a 'jack of all trades'? Experts (generally) get paid much more than non-experts - even if those non-experts are skilled at going 'wide'. Is it a better strategy to sell as many different products as possible to any single prospect, or is it better to focus, go deep and be the definitive source?

I seem to recall many a story about businesses that suffered when they tried to be everything to everyone.

My personal opinion is that the consumers who said that they thought it was an 'unethical' move (if you cornered them, gave them time to reconsider and drilled down to find out what they really meant) might tell you that they don't really think that it's unethical, but they think that it's tacky, unnecessary, manipulative, rude, unwise, disrespectful, unhelpful - and overall, likely to give them a general feeling of ill-will towards the seller, to the point that they might consider finding an alternative.

The average consumer is probably a little more sensitive about how their children are being marketed to than they are about themselves. They're big, they can take it. Do you scoff at this and market hard at the children regardless? Or do you consider it a basic human instinct and therefore try to use the 'human touch' to develop rapport with your customer and instead of putting them on their guard, you make them feel safe, comfortable and relaxed in your store/hands? (And I mean this from an 'effective marketing' point of view, not an 'it makes me feel nice and wholesome' point of view.)

There's pushing people, and then there's pushing people just a little bit too far, by pushing a tiny bit - but in a myriad of ways - which as a whole can be perceived as disrespect towards the people who provide the hard cash that creates profits (the customer.)

Now factor in that the majority of people who are marketing to the public are all involved in a 'pushing contest' where they are all pushing the consumer only ever-so-slightly, but in a myriad of ways, at every turn, trying to push just that bit harder than their competitors in order to get the sale and the highest profits.

What happens is that when the 'straw breaks the camel's back' of any individual consumer and they finally vent in the comments section of a media website, they are unleashing the frustration from years of being pushed and nudged by a barrage of marketing from corporate entities at every opportunity - and it is all being released at that moment.

No wonder that they might exaggerate, or use words that have entirely different meanings to what they are really trying to express.

Therefore I feel that assuming that what they are actually saying is -

...is missing the point somewhat.

A toy aisle is for toys. A food store/aisle is for chips and soda and a DVD aisle is for DVDs.

Even a dumb, emotionally-driven consumer knows that.[sarcasm]

If someone thinks that it's truly smart marketing to place those items in the toy aisle, they are about as smart as the person who thinks that customer feedback should be dismissed out of hand because it doesn't make sense at first glance or that customer satisfaction in general is irrelevant - in my opinion.

I'm all for intrusive 'in yer face' marketing - IF - it's cleverly done and achieves it's purpose without costing more (in the long term) in other areas than it gains in the short term.

For me, slapping a bunch of unrelated impulse items into the toy aisle doesn't achieve that. Fail.

It's the same as continually shifting the location of products in a supermarket - not just for testing in order to find a prime position, but in order to force the customer to go on a search hence exposing them to more products during the search.

The marketers who champion this will defend it by saying 'the figures don't lie.' But the figures also don't reflect the long term effects, particularly when combined with a whole bunch of other tactics that produce short term gains at long term cost. Currently, because the supermarkets copy each other, the consumer is trapped because they all do it. But what if some bright spark doesn't and makes a point of it?

Surely recent financial events have demonstrated that the easiest trick to pull is short term profits gained by totally disregarding the long term. It has been known for companies to get too big for their boots.

Thoughts?

Hi Brad,

That's almost precisely my point.

Do you consider the line to be where the law draws it?

Or do you consider that the customer draws their own line regardless of the law, and that it would be wise to at least -

a) know exactly where this is

b) know exactly when you cross it and when you don't

c) consider these factors when you make strategic decisions and draw up a plan that uses that customer line as a datum point - IE - the most crucial part of the equation

It seems that many are advocating that as a marketer one need pay NO attention to where their prospects and customers draw that line and that any kind of marketing (as long as it is within the law) is wise.

For clarity - I am in no way saying that you should never cross it and I'm not suggesting that Walmart didn't consider a) b) and c).

What I am saying is - it's wise to consider a) b) and c) above.

And I'm saying that if Walmart did consider this, they got it wrong - in my opinion.

Amy,

My point in posting the article is it's a joke... maybe a sham would be more appropriate.

They are merely reinventing themselves and yet it's more like smoke and mirrors. They just did this 'remodeling' at the store I have here, but here's what they have done.

They have dropped literally 3000 items from their inventory. Items that were quality items, but they couldn't seem to keep in stock. Poor management in ordering.

The truth to this is now they can carry less popular items that people will have to buy for lack of choice. They don't know any different, kind of like they will accept less because that's all there is.

They have cut employees hours to just under the minimum to qualify for benefits and still skirt labor laws concerning overtime or extra pay.

There's a lot more but the point is they are the 900 Gorilla that are bent on driving out the competition to corner the market. They are well on their way.

As a side note, our newly remodeled store is already reverting back to the dump it was before they started and is still the worst run business I have ever seen. The problem is there is no competition to turn to.

Thanks,

John

That's interesting.

I always wondered why IM products were sold at something 7 dollars (ie $27, $47, $97 etc.). Why not the good old fashioned $**.99 prices?

Is that where they got it from?

We all agree that we're here to learn more about making money.

What we seem to disagree about is how deeply we think about it, and whether we think through long term consequences.

So when Walmart has driven all its competition to the wall what will happen?

You'll still get the crap service and dirty stores. The only difference will be that they'll raise their prices because they'll have a monopoly.

You won't shop at Walmart because it's cheaper. You'll shop there because it's the only store for 30 miles around.

Cheap has a cost. A big cost.

Now let's look at a similar situation.

China is scouring the world buying up all the resources necessary for electrical and hybrid cars, quite apart from expanding their production of conventional cars. China has massive cash reserves, cheap labour and a cheap currency.

The odds are, they will give the American car industry the coup de grace (and maybe the Japanese car industry, too).

So, in 15 years time, when the only cars you can buy in America (if you have a job) are Chinese, how will you feel?

As a marketer you will say, "it's just business".

But, as a human being who sees 25% of his friends and family without jobs, how will you feel?

The British car industry went west (well, east, to be exact) a long time ago and what used to be the industrial powerhouse of the world now depends on dodgy banks and service industries to barely keep afloat.

But that's fine. It's just business. I'm happy to see my country go to the dogs as long as I can make a few quid.

Martin

You know from a health perspective you could make a pretty good argument that selling chips and soda to ANYONE is unethical.

But going along that line of thinking that would also make parents who let their children eat chips and drink soda irresponsible (which may also be true in a way) and people who buy chips and soda for their spouse irresponsible etc etc.

You have to be careful about putting your own set of values on to someone else.

But I think it's also important that you DO act ethically yourself and go out of your way to do what you know is right.

If you have to wonder if something you're doing is ethical then it probably isn't.

Acting with honesty and integrity is simply a better way to live your life.

Kindest regards,
Andrew Cavanagh

It's all about context.

*** CHEAP LIQUOR ***
AA meeting in back room

"Well, we figured that people who buy cheap liquor might be alcoholics, so we thought we would HELP them by hosting an AA meeting that was convenient for them to attend. It's a perfectly selfless thing. What we actually WANT is for the people who give us money to go into the back and learn to control themselves, so they don't give us money anymore! Honestly, it breaks our hearts every time people come out of that AA meeting and just give us more money for the very thing that causes their problems."

Do you believe a word of that? I sure as hell don't.

However, Walmart's low prices are designed to attract people who have little money. People with little money frequently have so little money because of poor impulse control. So Walmart offers to help you with your poor impulse control by providing lower prices so you can save money, and then exploits that poor impulse control by shoving impulse purchases in your face across the entire store.

They offer to help you with your problem, then exploit that exact same problem for profit.