For Comm299, we were asked to prepare a speech about an advertisement and state whether or not it is ethical or not. I found it appropriate and relevant to what we are talking about in Comm101 (more so the first few classes). So, here it is:

“On the weekend, I made a trip to Safeway to buy myself some cereal to eat for breakfast.

As I was walking through the cereal aisle, I came across Kellogg’s Rice Krispies.

The Rice Krispies box is typically blue with the title rice krispies and the three signature cartoon characters (Snap Crackle and Pop) who are all eating out of a big bowl of Rice Krispies.

Taking up about one fifth of the box, on a big yellow banner written in big bold letters “Now helps support your child’s immunity”.

But does Rice Krispies really help children’s immunity more than, for example fresh fruit?

On the right of the big yellow banner, it said 25% daily value of antioxidants and nutrients.

It is true to say that it provides 25% daily value of antioxidants and nutrients because it actually does contain Vitamin A B C & E however; there is no clinically proven evidence that links Rice Krispies to a better immune system.

Kellogg’s should really change their advertising strategies and not put false information on their cereal boxes because false advertising makes consumers like us question the ethics of the company which will raise many concerns.

I found this ad offensively false that it deserved to be Google-ed.

I found out that the Federal Trade Commission investigated Kellogg’s and managed to stop such claim, but without requiring Kellogg’s to admit that they were wrong.

If they don’t change and apologize, then the company is simply digging up its own grave.”

Sources

Google images.

True, however there are consequences.

I read an article on the Financial Post and it was about how Canadian companies are putting machines before jobs. Canadian companies are planning on laying off some workers so they can use the money saved for more advanced technology. Friday, Statistics Canada reported that the economy let a net 6,600 jobs go in September. But where will these unemployed workers go? By increasing the unemployment rate, the income of families is going to decrease which will make those families less likely to spend. If they don’t spend, then the circular flow of income and expenditure wouldn’t be the circular flow of income and expenditure because there is no wages paid =>wages received => consumer expenditure and so on…

Although I understand why companies would want to invest on more technology, for the sake of keeping the economy going, we should not encourage the decreasing employment rate.

Sources

http://www.financialpost.com/news/Canadian+companies+machines+before+jobs/3644117/story.html

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Unemployment-Rate.aspx?Symbol=CAD