https://blogs.ubc.ca/ryantaggart/2013/09/23/microsofts-anti-iphone-ads-backfire/

Clearly, there is a recognizable difference between the approach of Microsoft and Samsung in terms of criticizing the iPhone. Technically, advertisements that attack a specific product/service is legal, but a firm must be very cautious of not allowing their ads to be associated with slander or libel. The U.S. law states that ” Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation.” In addition to this, “advertisements must be crafted very carefully to avoid accusations of slander of libel, which means they should only present facts which are on public record. However, attack ads are not required to provide a fair or balanced portrayal of those fact.”. Essentially, an ethical advertisement must respect three moral principles, which are respect to “truthfulness”, “social responsibilities”, and the “dignity of each human person”.

Based on these grounds, I don’t believe Microsoft has done anything immoral in terms of falsifying facts to deceive the public about the product, but rather, insert a different perspective towards the iPhone in a dull and negative manner. They’ve highlighted specific features in a negative light such as the “colors” used, “plastic”, “cheap”, etc. The unfavorable public reception may be caused by the unhumorous acting and uninteresting criticisms raised by Microsoft, instead of “slander” or “libel” that may be treated as unethical. Just a poor attack by Microsoft that’s all.

Sources:

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-attack-ads.htm

http://www.carroll.edu/msmillie../busethics/ethadvertising.htm

In 2013, Google has released a futuristic and stylish cyber-glasses that aims to provide the consumer the most essential and important functions of smartphone in a innovative, hands-free manner. They are also trying to form partnerships with sunglass retailers to provide prescriptions to accommodate consumers with different eye grades. Currently, the Google Glass is not available in the consumer market but only available to a very specific target segment that are willing to pay a premium price. And if you want to get your hands on this new technological advancement, then you’re going have to pay $1500.

In a variety of markets, most commonly in technology markets, there is a very niche market where eager and early adoptors of new technology possess a very high willingness to spend on these products. Big electronic companies like Apple, Microsoft, and Sony are very familiar with this unique pricing strategy called Price Skimming. Specifically, this applies to market segments of consumer who are inclined to pay a premium price to be the first group of consumers to have their hands on this new hardware. To a certain extent, this strategy is very beneficial in the long-run because the people who get it first may have a better knowledge on reviewing new technology and “the $1,500 cost weeds out the potential Google Glass audience so that the only people who will spend the money are those sincerely interested in wearables and mobile technology.”However, at a certain point in time, this niche segment will eventually become saturated and price will go down to capture different segments. When Google eventually prices the Goggle Class lower than the initial price, this may indicate that it is starting to sell it to general consumers with different willingness to spend.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1uyQZNg2vE

This is a completely new product and is only one-of-a-kind. Making sure it enters the consumer market optimally is crucial to its success and pricing is undoubtly a very important factor.

Sources:

http://gigaom.com/2013/08/08/why-google-glass-costs-1500-now-and-will-likely-be-around-299-later/

Recently, Bell Canada has announced a new technology for advertising through “[using] information about its customers’ accounts and Internet use to target ads to them”. The information that will be retrieved from customers’ include “Internet activity from both mobile devices and computers, including Web pages customers have visited and search terms they have entered; customers’ location; use of apps and other device features; television viewing habits; and “calling patterns.” Account information shared will include product use including type of device, payment patterns, language preferences, postal codes, and demographic information.” All in all, this data will allow them to profile different types of customers and streamlining specific types of advertisements that will be relevant to the user. This proposal has been closely associated with the big network providers in the US such as Verizon and AT&T where they would also send targeted ads customers emails, texts or on-screen notifications on their mobile devices.

Although this can be perceived as a revolutionary improvement in advertising, this strategy has displeased privacy advocates and many customers.

Canada’s Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart has announced that they will be investigating Bell’s new scheme of gathering customer data and information that is used for target advertising. They have also been receiving many complaints regarding this issue as it is a possible breach of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act.

General reaction from the public may seem very related to recent events, specifically the controversial leak of the NSA Surveillance Program by Edward Snowden where it details the PRISM program in which big companies like Google, Yahoo, Skype, Apple, Youtube, Facebook, and other major companies acted as a gateway for the government to access emails, photographs, and documents from billions of users.

The indiscriminate retrieval of user data is personally troubling. Having big companies possibly know your consumption habits, personal information, conversations, current location, all for the sake of targeted advertising may seem quite infinitesimal compared to its potential of complete government surveillance.

Sources:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/marketing/bell-customer-phone-and-internet-data-will-be-used-to-target-ads/article14984876/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/privacy-commissioner-to-investigate-bell-s-data-collecting-1.2158593

http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2013/jun/09/nsa-whistleblower-edward-snowden-interview-video

http://www.verizonwireless.com/news/2012/12/verizon-selects.html

When it comes to marketing, not a lot of attention usually goes to ethics. More often than not, a marketer focuses on the desires and needs of the customer and strategises on how to emphasise and communicate the value of a particular product/service. Along the process, the marketing of that product/service may compel the customer to buy it and allow the customer to either feel good, or even bad, about themselves. There are existing ethical issues in marketing and drawing the line of what type of advertising is good or bad may be very tricky.

An example of an unethical marketing strategy is false advertising. There are a set of marketing regulations which firms should comply by, such as the Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice by the Canadian Marketing Association. According to these rules, “Marketing communications must be clear and truthful. Marketers must not knowingly make a representation to a consumer or business that is false or misleading.” However, some companies have violated these rules and go through the legal consequences of doing so.

In the early 2000s, there was a growing trend towards the use of “ionized” bracelets. The most renowned company that produces these types of bracelets is called Q-Ray. The company proposes that these bracelets help “provide significant pain relief from arthritis and other chronic conditions”. In addition, they propose that it helps increase strength, vitality, endurance, flexibility, etc. A brand called Power Balance also developed a similar type of wristbands are endorsed by some of the world’s top athletes and celebrities. These claims generated some skepticism and criticisms due to the lack of scientific backing, which led to the Federal Trade Commission investigation and a $87 million dollar ruling against the false claims of Q-Ray bracelets. The FTC started giving out 250,000 refund checks to consumers who were misled by the company.                                                         

Welcome to UBC Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!