Cause-related marketing relationships are good for the community in the ways you described and more. The more subtle effects include bringing the affected community together (because everyone likes to see famous people, especially if they are helping a cause close to their hearts. Also, cause-related marketing relationships raise awareness and money for a particular cause. A disadvantage that you could consider regards the corporation's reputation. If a reputable company chooses to support a particular charity, and later that reputable firm is caught red-handed or even just suspected of unethical behavior, that controversy will negatively affect the reputation of the non-profit organization despite that organizations participation status in the questionable behavior.
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Respond to Matt DaCosta's Post
Cause-related marketing relationships are good for the community in the ways you described and more. The more subtle effects include bringing the affected community together (because everyone likes to see famous people, especially if they are helping a cause close to their hearts. Also, cause-related marketing relationships raise awareness and money for a particular cause. A disadvantage that you could consider regards the corporation's reputation. If a reputable company chooses to support a particular charity, and later that reputable firm is caught red-handed or even just suspected of unethical behavior, that controversy will negatively affect the reputation of the non-profit organization despite that organizations participation status in the questionable behavior.
Case of John Smith
Case of John Smith.
Questions: Should John smith sell the names? Also, Does the AMA Statement of Ethics address this issue? Go to the AMA website (American Marketing Association) and look at their Statement of Ethics. What in the Statement relates to John Smith's dilemma?
No. The AMA Statement of Ethics does address this type of issue when it states "Foster trust in the marketing system." Selling the names may seem like it could be ethical because he would be saving those jobs; however, it would clearly destroy trust between the company and the public. If such trust was destroyed, the public could react in a negative way toward John's company. It would not end up mattering if he had or had not sold the names - the bad press would lead to bad business and more layoffs eventually.
Questions: Should John smith sell the names? Also, Does the AMA Statement of Ethics address this issue? Go to the AMA website (American Marketing Association) and look at their Statement of Ethics. What in the Statement relates to John Smith's dilemma?
No. The AMA Statement of Ethics does address this type of issue when it states "Foster trust in the marketing system." Selling the names may seem like it could be ethical because he would be saving those jobs; however, it would clearly destroy trust between the company and the public. If such trust was destroyed, the public could react in a negative way toward John's company. It would not end up mattering if he had or had not sold the names - the bad press would lead to bad business and more layoffs eventually.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)