This is a commercial by Intel Japan promoting the Ultrabook, a sleek, light laptop with the Intel processor inside. The first marketing lecture made me reflect on my most recent big purchase: the HP Envy Spectre XT Ultrabook. Research about Ultrabooks led me to dozens of ads, and interestingly, this was the one I remembered the most clearly and the one I showed to other people.

This ad says nothing about the Ultrabook’s points of parity (fast Intel processor, good screen resolution, basic computing functions) nor its points of difference (ultra-portable at 3-4 pounds, 20 second start-up speed, long battery life), but somehow, this ad kept running in my head during my research period. Is it the awkward but lovable tiger? Or the catchy repetition of “urutorabook”? Whatever it was, it worked as the perfect hook to make me research the Ultrabook more thoroughly. Nevertheless, not all the people who saw this felt that way. Many hated it–said it was unfocused, random, confusing.

I see this as all-or-nothing marketing. Either the consumer will be intrigued enough to look into the product, or be completely turned off from the get-go. This may be very effective marketing in Japan because of the culture, but Intel should be careful–with the deterioration of international boundaries through the Internet, localized commercials may affect consumer choices all over the world.

Cost-benefit analyses are helpful in getting the most bang out of a buck—but what really constitutes “cost” and “benefit”? When looked at from an ethical perspective, are businesses really doing enough when calculating costs?

Toyota issued a recall in 2010 for certain models. Allegations arose claiming that Toyota knew of the sticky gas pedals back in 2007 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/25/us-toyota-recalls-idUSTRE62O3HL20100325), or as early as 2003 (http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2010/08/toyota_lawsuit.html).

Toyota received thousands of complaints before starting recalls. It’s not hard to guess why: to issue a recall of millions of vehicles would cost much more than paying for a couple of accidents, so they didn’t. The cost of a recall early on would be not worth the benefit.

And here lies the main ethical issue: how do companies include the unquantifiable in their cost-benefit analyses? Do they assign monetary value to lives and emotions? Should they always value life over money, no matter the amount? Both suggestions will cause problems to arise for both the consumers and the company. Assigning monetary value to lives and emotions wouldn’t be morally acceptable, and no amount would seem enough to a victim’s family. If life is always valued over money, the company would have a lot more to lose, thereby driving up the prices, which will also make consumers unhappy.

It’s a rock and a hard place.