For this week's free post I wanted to write about a very interesting subject that I came across a couple of weeks ago that made me realize that the common phase "what goes around comes around" can also be applied to Marketing in a social scale.
The Greek philosopher Epicurus's theory about "Ethic of Reciprocity" which basically explains "Do not treat others in ways you would not like to be treated" was used as a base for John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham to develop the Utilitarianism's theory which explains that the most ethical behavior is "the behavior that produces the greatest good", in other words is saying that, the good for everybody is always the good for one self too.
For example, if I take my dog out for a walk, and the dog decides to poo in the middle of the sidewalk while nobody is watching but I still pick it up anyway, not only because is the correct thing to do, but also out of respect for everybody else walking that sidewalk later, this ethical behavior will actually benefit me directly since I am helping to the common good of having a city with clean sidewalks and because I expect everybody else to also pick up their dog's poop so I don't step in one later.
Now, the philosopher Immanuel Kant even went further with the idea that overall good is also the individual good, and created the famous "categorical imperative" theory that applies to marketing ethics, and describes the social and catastrophic impact of the unethical use of marketing campaigns in societies and economies.
Is well known that marketers often need to make ethical decisions about their work in daily bases, and can easily come across the question "is something still bad if everyone is doing it?", so this theory explains why is beneficial for the marketers itselves to act ethically.
The theory explains that, is not ok to do something ethically wrong even if everyone is doing it because that would create "Tragedy of the Commons effect", meaning that (taking the dog's poop example), if everyone is letting their dogs' poop on the sidewalk, is still not correct to leave my dog's poop in the sidewalk because I will be part of the problem and contributing to the chaos and not the solution. In other words, the streets will be mined with dogs' poop all over and I will also be stepping into others dogs' poop every time I would go out.
Now, you might ask, what has this to do with marketing, right?
Well for example, if most the marketing companies in America would start creating unethical promotional campaigns that would falsely advertise products or services with untruthful expectations or results, it might bust sales for a short term, but ultimately it would hurt all marketers (even the ones that acted ethically) because "the advertising would lose its credibility, its integrity, and end up destroying the usefulness of this major diffusion of innovation tool". In other words advertising campaigns would lose effectiveness and the efficiency of the markets, since the consumers would lose belief in the advertising campaigns for all products or services and would think twice before spending their money.
Ultimately, the unethical use of marketing campaigns would hurt not only the companies that sell the products or services, but also the advertising companies in general and even the economy of the whole country!
In fact, this subject really touched me because I am from Argentina and consumers have a big disbelief, specially in companies that offer services, such as telecommunication companies, insurance, banks, investment, electricity among so many others, and people have a really bad presumption in the whole market because they know these companies would always try to rip them off, and consequently they buy less, spend less and take twice time to decide weather they want to spend money to buy something or not, because they don't know if the product or service will fulfill their expectations since they don't trust advertising campaigns in general, which contributes to lower the consumer confidence level to spend money in the market, hitting directly the economy of the country.
So, we could just say that if marketers or advertisers act unethically, "Karma" would get back at them by the universal law of "Reciprocity" and hurt them back in the long run.
So, be fair ...or you know what they say... "Karmatic Marketing is a B***"
Paula C.
REFERENCED WEBSITES
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus#Prefiguring_science_and_ethics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_Reciprocity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism
http://www.howimademyfirstdollar.com/blogger/karmic-marketing-the-laws-of-reciprocity/
http://www.marketingprinciplesandprocesses.com/
E-marketing-SEO-search engine optimization-social networking-marketing strategies- marketing analysis-
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Saturday, October 16, 2010
The Advertising Option Icon protecting or profiting ??
The advertising option icon is the new kid on the block of the online community, it is suppose to protect online consumers from unethical adversing and data collection techniques from websites.
This really sounds like a noble organization trying to create a better and safer internet for everyone, but researching their website I learned that this "seal" costs companies $5,000 a year! (unless your online company makes less than $ 2,000,000 of revenue per year), which, I think is genius from a marketing standpoint.
I can see the game plan clearly, this people will populate the internet with this smart looking logo/icon in small business websites that comply with these "self regulatory principles" that they propose and also give this seal to some big companies that have certain online and offline reputation such as "The best business Bureau" and "American Advertising Federation" to give them credibility and the support they need to pursue other big companies to get the seal as well, but this time paying for it.
Basically, these companies will be paying for credibility a $5,000 fee per year with the intention to show costumers that they have an ethical use of data collection and advertising tools and as result to win over the online consumer's confidence and trust.
In other words, this seal sells a perception that a website is safer for the user, so for example, if Walmart has the "advertising option icon" will give the perception of a safer website to the online user, while if Target doesn't have this seal because didn't want to pay the $5,000 fee, the online user may think that Target's website is unsafe and is using unethical advertising data collecting tools and may decide to leave their page and to buy in Walmart's website which does has it. Meaning that having this seal of "trust" ultimately will influence online consumers to change their shopping behavior pushing companies, especially big (where the money is), to get the seal too.
So again, this is not about the consumers but instead about finding new sources of money in the world wide web, which is completely respectful. Now, I just can't stop thinking... Why didn't I think of this before?!
Saturday, October 9, 2010
"Internet Eyes" scam or social project?

In this week's post, professor Anthony Miyazaki, talks about a very interesting subject.
A UK firm called Internet Eyes, would pay YOU to catch criminals right from your home computer desk, by alerting the store administrator about suspicious activity instantaneously by instant message and a picture capture of the particular moment.
At first I thought WOW! this is a great idea!...but then, I really started to think about all the different aspects and issues of this concept and I stared to doubt about my initial thought.
First, is not so simple, in order to become a user observer you have to subscribe to the website by filling out a registration form with all your personal information for their database and accept their privacy policy agreement, etc ...but to complete your subscription...guess this..
YOU HAVE TO PAY! Yes, pay.
There are 3 subscription packages for the observer user starting at £1.99 per month (which equals to $ 3.176 USD), but it doesn't end there, this company will pay for your time watching the cameras for suspicious activities the following:
- More than 30 hours per month - £0.50 – (equivalent to $ 0.798 USD)
- More than 45 hours per month - £1.00 (equivalent to $ 1.596 USD)
- More than 60 hours per month - £1.50 (equivalent to $ 2.394 USD)
On top of this, the website will not pay the observers for every time the catch a criminal, instead, they will pay only to 1 user out of thousands users with the most points (which are gained every time you catch a criminal) the amount of a £1,000 (equivalent to $ 1,596 USD).
In my opinion this is ridiculous, from the user point of view, I would feel less foolish If I would do it for free only as a public service function.
This company wants to portrait this website's concept like is some kind of SOCIAL PROJECT, similar to the "Neighbourhood Watch", when in fact they only care of making profit from the two ends of the rope, with a membership to the subscriber observers and a membership to the affiliated business.
I do understand this is a business, and there is nothing wrong about making money with an online profitable innovative business idea, but I don't like that this company markets this site like some kind of online community service or novel idea.
Moreover, I started to research about this website online and I ended up in their Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/pages/Internet-Eyes/108455634071 and I got surprised by the amount of angry messages and complains about this website not working properly, not paying the rewards or people calling it a SCAM and even against HUMAN RIGHTS! haha I know that person perhaps went a little too far, but the point is a lot of reviews online don't trust and don't recommend this website..bottom line this company needs to do some major online PR, if they want to gain trust and expand globally, specially because they are an ONLINE based business.
To conclude, I believe this idea has potential and the website could be a better and bigger online community if they would reshape their current business model by offering free registration to user observers, pay a small reward every time an observer catches criminal activity (confirmed by administrator), keep the contest price for person with most points (most catches) as a bonus and keep charging affiliated businesses to receive the service of thousands of good willing anonymous observers..and why not adding some non intrusive, tailored, small advertising ads to the sides of the screen (like facebook) to get some extra income.
Do you agree?
REFERENCED WEBSITES
http://e-marketingforsensiblefolk.blogspot.com/2010/10/internet-eyes-are-watching.html
http://interneteyes.co.uk/community/index.html
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Internet-Eyes/108455634071
http://www.geek.com/articles/news/internet-eyes-will-pay-you-to-watch-security-camera-feeds-2010106/
http://www.cartoonstock.com/
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Creative Destruction
Creative destruction is an economic theory introduced by sociologist Werner Sombart and popularized by Joseph Schumpeter in 1975 which basically explains that when a innovation provides much more utility than the product that is replacing originates creative destruction.
This phenomenon is always happening around us, for example: the rock wheel in the stone ages was replaced by the wood wheel, and this one got replaced by the iron wheel, which was finally replaced by the rubber and the plastic tire wheel.
More over, we can see creative destruction all around us these days thanks to technology innovation. A current example of this issue is what professor Anthony Miyazaki mentions on his blog this week about the demise of the non-internet media, like newspapers or magazines providing the whole content online and even some ceasing to distribute physical papers anymore, such as the Seattle Newspaper in March 2009.
I believe that this is a natural process of change and companies should be smart and see ahead of the curve to make the necessary business model restructures to accompanied the changes in technology and accommodate to the audience's new needs and take advantage of the new market before others. Take the example of Blockbuster, they had more than 10 years to restructure into a fully digital movie rental store but they failed to so and kept the same system they had since the invention of video tapes, and now is paying the consequences filling for bankruptcy last September. Despite all this, I believe that if Blockbuster makes the necessary business model changes and restructures, still has chances to re-float and become the most relevant source of movie rentals in America once again, since this brand has gained the trust of millions of Americas for decades and that is something that Netflix (biggest competitor) is still working on.
Another example of companies moving along with technology is one that a friend of mine shared with me over Facebook a couple of weeks ago, from the company Newsday which had launched a brand new IPad application in addition to their regular online edition. Watch here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeVyOKq-KXU. Maybe MAC should consider making IPads fly kill proof now :).
I think that the future of technology and internet will keep changing the way we use technology for entertainment, work, social interaction and live our everyday lives. In this process some products will become obsolete just like the rock wheel in the stone age became obsolete after the wood wheel and so on. Products like the physical newspaper, magazines and dvd's don't have too much future and should not base their revenue over the physical product distribution. But other products like the physical books (not textbooks), I believe will remain in the market, in a very small scale, at least for a lot more decades to come.
Do you agree?
REFERENCED WEBSITES
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

