We witnessed the destruction of Hurricane Sandy. Homes ruined, lives loss. While individuals were doing what they could to help, others saw an advantage to exploit. American Apparel took up an opportunity. But should they have?

There is nothing wrong with a good sale. But the wording of this ad nitpicks at the people affected by the storm. The sale is only for them, apparently they are bored, next 36 hours (what is this supposed to mean? Buy stuff before you get washed away?)

Their actions do not align with the company’s own Code of Ethics:

• Adhere to a high standard of business ethics and not seek competitive advantage through unlawful or unethical business practices.
• Refrain from taking advantage of anyone through manipulation, concealment, abuse of privileged information, misrepresentation of material facts or any other unfair-dealing practice.

They pursued people in a fragile state to make a profit. I doubt people want to shop in that condition, but American Apparel made them feel special by manipulating them to cause opposite shopping behaviour. The creators of this campaign forgot their moral compass. They should have been thinking of corporate social responsibility (donate the sale money at the least.) Like I said, there is nothing wrong with having the sale, but these words are twisted with profit driving thoughts and not genuine care for the situation.

“They crossed the line.” How do we draw the line? Is there a standard social norm or are there various lines? Last year in COMM 101, students wrote a blog post on ethics. Easily, I could have copied my old post here. I feel that is a huge factor with ethics is the ease of doing something considered wrong. I went against self-plagiarism, but am amazed how naturally ethics became involved.