When the NFL responded to the Ray Rice case, the public demanded some sort of punishment. Many fought to ban him from the league for life, others thought he should be just punished like a normal celebrity. When I tell you that I was on the side of banning him from the league, you probably won't be surprised. As an NFL fan, I felt that the league was withholding information about the case, but as a young woman who one day (hopefully not) may have to deal with a situation like this, I was highly offended. After the public outcry, Rice was finally given the sentence he deserved from the NFL: he was gone from the league!
From the Baltimore Ravens press conference, once Ray Rice opens his mouth, I hear a shaky voice and see a man who doesn't know how to act. His constant stumbles over his words and the use of um during almost every sentence says a lot. Is he sorry? Is he regretting his actions? OR is he sounding like that on purpose? Is the fact that the media is in front of him making him seem apologetic for something? Ray Rice looks extremely uncomfortable in front of the media. With his word choice, I think he knew that eventually he was going to be terminated from the league, so he tried to suck up to the owners and coaches and players and fans, to try and change their minds.
Janay Rice seems quiet and is listening to Ray as he is speaking. The problem I have with this is Ray consistently says "My wife and I feel" "My wife and I know" "My wife and I are", why is he speaking for her? He should only be speaking for himself, especially after what he did to her. Janay's words don't come across as meaningful as Ray's did. She lacks emotions and her face doesn't look happy when she says that she's happy. Her body language seems tense, like she is afraid that if she doesn't say the right thing, Ray will cross her again. No woman should ever be afraid to speak their mind.
After more video was released, I think the Ravens and the NFL finally got it together enough to kick Ray out of the NFL. When I found out he was kicked out, I was not surprised. I actually wish they would have kicked him out earlier. I understand that more information was needed, but if a man hits a woman, that should be a zero tolerance policy of every team.
The Twitter outcry was something to be ashamed of, from both the NFL and the Ravens account. Why did they feel the needs of Janay Rice when she isn't even a member of the organization? She's just a wife of a player. Shouldn't the main subject here be Ray since he is under contract with the team? As for Roger Goodell, he should have taken action earlier.
The Ray Rice jersey exchange was a good way for the Ravens to start the process of getting back in the fans good graces. However, why were only select jerseys taken back? Every return of any Rice jersey should have been accepted. On top of that, a donation from the Ravens to a domestic violence charity should have been made from all the sales of Ray's jerseys. That would have made the event an even better tie in to what was going on.
As a fan of the NFL, I would like to see Goodell resign. There have been so many scandals in the NFL since he became commissioner and he has allowed certain players back into the NFL for doing much worse than Ray Rice. Michael Vick for example, he killed dogs and held dog fighting in his backyard and he's currently playing for the New York Jets. Goodell was also NFL commissioner when the Aaron Hernandez murder case was on going. However, Goodell is not at fault for any of the happenings of these events, he is just the deciding factor in what happens to them after the police and courts deal with them first.
Sunday, November 23, 2014
Sunday, November 16, 2014
Brand Engagement
Tweak's website is extremely user friendly with the use of the scroll bar at the top of the page. Users can quickly access what they want on the site and see all the recent videos and product endorsements fairly easily and upfront on the home page. The one thing I would change about the home page though is the putting the links to the social media pages at the top. The links to the social media platforms are currently at the very bottom and hard to see and access. The website is lacking fun though, everything on the site comes across as a walking advertisement.
Tweak's social media presence is wide, from Facebook to Pinterest. Tweak's Instagram is consistent with the brand because often times the photos posted are inspirational and quirky. The Instagram also features products and different ways of how to use them, as well as video tutorials for some of the harder products to understand. As far as fun, there isn't much fun to it, it's a basic look at the brand personality. Tweak comes across in a strictly business way through their social media profiles with no interaction to the customer, except for liking photos.
There really are no differences in the content strategy, except that Instagram is a more in depth look at the brand and the owners life. Since there were really no differences, I wanted to offer some ideas for potential differences. Maybe instead of having everything being an advertisement, features some polls or have a comment section so that users can vote and leave reviews on the different products on the site. I also think the twitter section needs to be featured in a different way on the website, not just a scrolling news feed at the bottom of the page. As I've been told, nobody likes to scroll, so why put your social media pages at the bottom? They are inaccessible and hard to find.
The digital strategy of Tweak is crossed on social media because every product that is featured on Instagram is available or soon to be available on the website for purchase. The social media also helps give a better look at who owns the store and why her personality is so in sync with the brand itself.
Tweak's social media presence is wide, from Facebook to Pinterest. Tweak's Instagram is consistent with the brand because often times the photos posted are inspirational and quirky. The Instagram also features products and different ways of how to use them, as well as video tutorials for some of the harder products to understand. As far as fun, there isn't much fun to it, it's a basic look at the brand personality. Tweak comes across in a strictly business way through their social media profiles with no interaction to the customer, except for liking photos.
There really are no differences in the content strategy, except that Instagram is a more in depth look at the brand and the owners life. Since there were really no differences, I wanted to offer some ideas for potential differences. Maybe instead of having everything being an advertisement, features some polls or have a comment section so that users can vote and leave reviews on the different products on the site. I also think the twitter section needs to be featured in a different way on the website, not just a scrolling news feed at the bottom of the page. As I've been told, nobody likes to scroll, so why put your social media pages at the bottom? They are inaccessible and hard to find.
The digital strategy of Tweak is crossed on social media because every product that is featured on Instagram is available or soon to be available on the website for purchase. The social media also helps give a better look at who owns the store and why her personality is so in sync with the brand itself.
Monday, November 3, 2014
UATweak
Tweak is different from anyone else due to their nature of the store. Tweak is also different because the store encourages adults to become kids again and touch everything. The store is hands-on and makes the customer enjoy the experience through play. The store is authentic because of the emotions one receives when they come into the store. The store is a happy environment where people can relax and feel comfortable. Tweak is talkable from the second a customer walks in, from the happy greetings they receive to the playing with products, to the final moment when they pay.
The value proposition of Tweak is that all the gifts come prepared. That is what Tweak prides themselves on. Easy shopping and easy gift giving. The value proposition fits in with the brands personality through the owner, Tara. Tara likes to make things easier for people, and what do most people not enjoy? Wrapping gifts. Tara puts the joy back into gift giving by simply helping people pick a present that doesn't require any other thought after the present is bought.
The organizations personality is one that comes shining through. Tara has told me in person that she only hires "elfs" and not sales associates. That is enough to make me want to work there! She gives the fun back to the customer by letting them play. Playing is highly encouraged in Tweak, even for the little ones, where the kids have a coloring table and chalkboard set up. Tara finds their artwork and posts it on Instagram.
The brand itself is for happy people, and from what I can tell you about Tara, she is that happy person. Tara also sells inspirational gifts, giving each of her customers words of wisdom as they buy gifts. When I was shopping through Tweak, I found a book called 5. I bought 5 not knowing what to really expect from it, but found Tara telling me that it was a time capsule book. She told me to write down all my goals and wants and dreams and wishes and to bury it for 5 years. While roaming through the store, she offered me inspirational insights on each of her products.
The value proposition of Tweak is that all the gifts come prepared. That is what Tweak prides themselves on. Easy shopping and easy gift giving. The value proposition fits in with the brands personality through the owner, Tara. Tara likes to make things easier for people, and what do most people not enjoy? Wrapping gifts. Tara puts the joy back into gift giving by simply helping people pick a present that doesn't require any other thought after the present is bought.
The organizations personality is one that comes shining through. Tara has told me in person that she only hires "elfs" and not sales associates. That is enough to make me want to work there! She gives the fun back to the customer by letting them play. Playing is highly encouraged in Tweak, even for the little ones, where the kids have a coloring table and chalkboard set up. Tara finds their artwork and posts it on Instagram.
The brand itself is for happy people, and from what I can tell you about Tara, she is that happy person. Tara also sells inspirational gifts, giving each of her customers words of wisdom as they buy gifts. When I was shopping through Tweak, I found a book called 5. I bought 5 not knowing what to really expect from it, but found Tara telling me that it was a time capsule book. She told me to write down all my goals and wants and dreams and wishes and to bury it for 5 years. While roaming through the store, she offered me inspirational insights on each of her products.
Sunday, October 26, 2014
Tweak 99: Come Happy, Leave Happier
Tweak's brand is a fun, imaginative, creative store where all fun can be had. Tara's history of the brand started in 2012, where she opened her first store in Hollywood. On her website, Tweak shoppers are exposed to the products, the mission of the store, and told that "if you break something, you must say sorry". Tara is a free spirit and throughout her brand, her personality comes through. By offering everything from books to home accessories, Tara's store offers gifts for any age and saves her customers the time and money by pre wrapping all the gifts in the store.
Timeline of Tweak: 2012: Store opens!
2013: Awarded "Best Of LA Shopping"
2014: Still having fun!
Tara's mission statement for her store isn't called a mission statement, she likes to call it "Tweakism". She believes that these 17 things are what her missions are on a daily basis:
Playing is essential to being happy.
The only acceptable answers to “Hi. How are you?” are Fantastic! Tremendous! Stupendous! Ok, fine, or good are simply not good enough.
The power of yes, smiling, and eye contact.
None of us actually needs anything. However, we do believe in items that enhance our lives. They must be purposeful, convenient, educational or downright fun.
Value is getting more for more.
You don’t have to offer everything, only the best.
Products have energy and are 3D memories.
Shopping small. We have huge respect for the courage it takes to either leave one’s comfy job or to risk one’s savings to invest in a creative concept, manufacture it and bring it to market.
“Jumping”- facing fear and embracing change.
Quality needs to make a comeback.
You’re only as good as your word.
Big companies who strive to have happy employees.
Good manners.
Children should be encouraged to imagine.
Customers should leave better for having spent some time with us.
Tearing gift wrap paper is the best part of getting a present. It’s all about the reveal.
There’s always time for a bow.
I was first introduced to this brand when I went to Los Angeles in 2013. I was shopping with my friend and we stumbled across this store and decided to poke around. We enjoyed the inspirational books & toys and had a great time. Tara, the owner, offered wisdom and creative ideas for all the products I was interested in buying.
The brand is perceived by the public as a fun and kid friendly store. The majority of people who shop there have said they enjoyed their experience because of the quirky items that Tara sells and the access to the toys and games on lower shelves for the kids.
Monday, April 7, 2014
Michael Vick & The Jets
Let me start off this post with a little warning. I am a die hard New York Jets Fan. I will forever bleed Green & White.
Am I happy that the New York Jets (finally) got rid of Mark Sanchez. Oh yes. However, most of the flack now is coming from the signing of Michael Vick, former Eagles QB. Everyone knows that Michael Vick was caught and charged with dog fighting. Heck, he even served time, like he should have!
My problem is, all I ever see on the New York Jets Facebook comments is all about the fans that will no longer support the organization since they hired a "Dog Fighter". I am an animal lover, I really am. I have 2 dogs & 3 cats and fish and rabbits and a hamster, so I can understand why people are upset that he was signed...but what I don't get it is why people feel that just because the Jets signed Michael Vick, why can't you still root for the same team?
The New York Jets have thousands of other players on their team. You're going to walk away from a franchise because you are upset about your new QB? If that's the case, then how come the same feelings aren't held toward people like Ray Lewis or Richie Incognito?
In case you don't know, Ray Lewis is a linebacker for the Baltimore Ravens. In early 2000, he was charged with murder and aggravated assault on two men the night of the Super Bowl. Richie Incognito on the other hand was using racial slurs. I know this sounds a little messed up, but racial slurs & murder are okay, but someone who has been caught & has served their time for dog fighting isn't getting any slack?
So you don't want to support Michael Vick...But this is my problem. IF (and that's a big IF) the Jets make the playoffs, all the fans who "hate" Michael Vick will come back in full force. I cannot stand fake fans and bandwagon fans. Support your team, win or lose.
Am I happy that the New York Jets (finally) got rid of Mark Sanchez. Oh yes. However, most of the flack now is coming from the signing of Michael Vick, former Eagles QB. Everyone knows that Michael Vick was caught and charged with dog fighting. Heck, he even served time, like he should have!
My problem is, all I ever see on the New York Jets Facebook comments is all about the fans that will no longer support the organization since they hired a "Dog Fighter". I am an animal lover, I really am. I have 2 dogs & 3 cats and fish and rabbits and a hamster, so I can understand why people are upset that he was signed...but what I don't get it is why people feel that just because the Jets signed Michael Vick, why can't you still root for the same team?
The New York Jets have thousands of other players on their team. You're going to walk away from a franchise because you are upset about your new QB? If that's the case, then how come the same feelings aren't held toward people like Ray Lewis or Richie Incognito?
In case you don't know, Ray Lewis is a linebacker for the Baltimore Ravens. In early 2000, he was charged with murder and aggravated assault on two men the night of the Super Bowl. Richie Incognito on the other hand was using racial slurs. I know this sounds a little messed up, but racial slurs & murder are okay, but someone who has been caught & has served their time for dog fighting isn't getting any slack?
So you don't want to support Michael Vick...But this is my problem. IF (and that's a big IF) the Jets make the playoffs, all the fans who "hate" Michael Vick will come back in full force. I cannot stand fake fans and bandwagon fans. Support your team, win or lose.
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
Ethically Justifiable Stories, Are They or Aren't They?
This is my final blog post about media ethics for credit, but I'll be uploading more things as the media sheds light on some of it's biggest issues! To sum up the story that we had to read and what happened, take a look at the link, Megan Meier Suicide. This story got national attention, but it came from your small, hometown newspaper. A newspaper where Steve Pokin, wrote an article where he had not named the accused. He waited to write the article until after charges would have been filed. In the article we read, it specifically talks about how a judgement call was made on behalf of Pokin. Was it the right judgement call?
In my opinion, Pokin made the right decision. In stories like this, most people would rather not remember who did it but who was the victim of it. Can you remember the name of the gunman who was at Sandy Hook Elementary School or do you remember more names of the victims who were taken away from their families? If I had to choose a side, I would have sided with Pokin. Just like I believe Bok and his Valuation Hedonism would have. Bok's Hedonism wants to give the most pleasure or least pain. Does Pokin try to give the most pleasure or least pain to the victim, accused, and the community by not naming the accused? I think he does, but it easily backfired on him. After Pokin decided not to name the accused, extreme backlash occurred. Pokin started to become a victim of cyber bullying himself. Isn't the purpose of media supposed to be bringing light onto these stories and trying to prevent them from happening again? Wouldn't people not want to do exactly what this story is trying to stop? Did trying to protect those that are innocent until proven guilty work?
On the flip side though, a bigger paper immediately named the neighbors. The story in the St. Louis Post gave the names of the neighbors & others involved. Was that ethical? In choosing an ethical perspective for this side of the story, I would have to go with Communitarism. Obviously, as even stated in the article, a professor even stated that the outcry of the public could be "attributed to a social need to curb outrageous behavior when controls like prosecution don't seem to work". Communitarism is just that, putting the communities needs first before individual needs. Also on this side of the story though, was putting the names out there the right thing to do? In cases like these, you want the people who committed such an act to face the humiliation and rejection that comes with the act they committed. So was the Post ethical? Absolutely.
I think the most compelling side of this story has to be Pokin's. Pokin made a judgement call, one in which he thought was right. I would love to have gotten in the mindset of his to figure out how he came to the decision not to name the accused perpetrators. When people commit these horrible acts of rage, anger, or sadness, we are always left with the question of why? and in all honesty, we never really get to find out. Take Sandy Hook Elementary School for example. Many people, including myself, have wondered why would someone go to an elementary school and shoot children and teachers? There are so many questions left up in the air, especially the big one of WHY. However, in situations like that though, most perpetrators usually kill themselves in the end, because they don't want to face the consequences. In an odd way, I feel like Pokin was trying to prove a point with his thought process on not naming the neighbors. I'm wondering if Pokin wanted to see what kind of reaction he would get for not naming them versus if he did name them? If Pokin was trying to prove that when people don't get all the information that they want, they become nasty and demand it, I think it was well proven.
Another alternative to this story would have been Aristotle's Golden Mean. Aristotle's Golden Mean would have been helpful in the fact of choosing the middle option instead of not naming the accused or full on naming the accused. Would Aristotle have said to just name the ages and gender? Would Aristotle have said to give an area of an address? I think that would have been better then just putting it all out there. In Aristotle's case, he would have picked the middle of two extremes. One extreme being naming them and the other extreme being not naming them at all. Was justice served to either extreme? I don't think so.
In my opinion, Pokin made the right decision. In stories like this, most people would rather not remember who did it but who was the victim of it. Can you remember the name of the gunman who was at Sandy Hook Elementary School or do you remember more names of the victims who were taken away from their families? If I had to choose a side, I would have sided with Pokin. Just like I believe Bok and his Valuation Hedonism would have. Bok's Hedonism wants to give the most pleasure or least pain. Does Pokin try to give the most pleasure or least pain to the victim, accused, and the community by not naming the accused? I think he does, but it easily backfired on him. After Pokin decided not to name the accused, extreme backlash occurred. Pokin started to become a victim of cyber bullying himself. Isn't the purpose of media supposed to be bringing light onto these stories and trying to prevent them from happening again? Wouldn't people not want to do exactly what this story is trying to stop? Did trying to protect those that are innocent until proven guilty work?
On the flip side though, a bigger paper immediately named the neighbors. The story in the St. Louis Post gave the names of the neighbors & others involved. Was that ethical? In choosing an ethical perspective for this side of the story, I would have to go with Communitarism. Obviously, as even stated in the article, a professor even stated that the outcry of the public could be "attributed to a social need to curb outrageous behavior when controls like prosecution don't seem to work". Communitarism is just that, putting the communities needs first before individual needs. Also on this side of the story though, was putting the names out there the right thing to do? In cases like these, you want the people who committed such an act to face the humiliation and rejection that comes with the act they committed. So was the Post ethical? Absolutely.
I think the most compelling side of this story has to be Pokin's. Pokin made a judgement call, one in which he thought was right. I would love to have gotten in the mindset of his to figure out how he came to the decision not to name the accused perpetrators. When people commit these horrible acts of rage, anger, or sadness, we are always left with the question of why? and in all honesty, we never really get to find out. Take Sandy Hook Elementary School for example. Many people, including myself, have wondered why would someone go to an elementary school and shoot children and teachers? There are so many questions left up in the air, especially the big one of WHY. However, in situations like that though, most perpetrators usually kill themselves in the end, because they don't want to face the consequences. In an odd way, I feel like Pokin was trying to prove a point with his thought process on not naming the neighbors. I'm wondering if Pokin wanted to see what kind of reaction he would get for not naming them versus if he did name them? If Pokin was trying to prove that when people don't get all the information that they want, they become nasty and demand it, I think it was well proven.
Another alternative to this story would have been Aristotle's Golden Mean. Aristotle's Golden Mean would have been helpful in the fact of choosing the middle option instead of not naming the accused or full on naming the accused. Would Aristotle have said to just name the ages and gender? Would Aristotle have said to give an area of an address? I think that would have been better then just putting it all out there. In Aristotle's case, he would have picked the middle of two extremes. One extreme being naming them and the other extreme being not naming them at all. Was justice served to either extreme? I don't think so.
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Data Mining, ethical or unethical?
So I got to be discussion leader this week in class...Woo Hoo! It was super fun and I'm actually quite happy that it is over.
With in regard to both the Target article that I read & the article from the Boston Globe, selling data about someone and they don't know is unethical. I can fully understand sites like Amazon sending out weekly emails with subject lines reading "Because you bought this, you might like these..." but now places are using it to send you things that you don't even consider buying. Within regards to Target sending out baby product coupons to young teens, I can understand why people would consider that to be unethical, especially if your teen is not pregnant. But isn't it a parents job to discuss sex and the consequences to their teen? Shouldn't parents educate their young teens on how unprotected sex can cause problems? If Target had a way to send coupons to people by age and gender, this would be wiser and easier.
Targeted marketing happens every day, we are just so desensitized to it that it doesn't appear to us with an affect anymore. How many times have we gone to the grocery store and had coupons printed out at the register for a product that we've never used before? I know from past experience that a coupon printed out for my 19 year old brother for condoms. Marketing happens on a daily basis, and like we talked about in class, sex sells.
I don't really think the Target manager had an ethical obligation to the customer, but then again, it depends on some things. Did this Target manager have a child? Would he have been upset if his teen daughter got ads from other stores for baby products? Was the Target manager offended by this? However, the manager couldn't have done anything about it since it was the company he worked for. Companies usually have guidelines for customer service, especially this kind of customer service. The manager had to really just apologize and go to his superiors about what to do. However, the father was right by apologizing when he found out that it was his mistake and that he knew his daughter was pregnant. That was the right thing to do, both ethically and morally.
Target mixing up their coupon ads is still targeted marketing. I got a coupon book from Target a few weeks ago and now it's put by section, Mom, Dad, Daughter, Son, Pets, etc. It's still targeting certain people of the home. Of course, this also happened a lot when I was younger. Toys R Us used to send out their big toy catalog every year. This was fun and exciting but it was always by section, Girls Toys, Boys Toys, Teen Toys...You would never see a Barbie on the same page of a Hot Wheels car. Gender roles also play into marketing as well since society thinks girls should act differently from boys.
In the PRSA Code of Ethics, The Disclosure of Information struck me for this news story. Granted, the father didn't know at first that his daughter was pregnant, but when he apologized when Target called him, he disclosed that his daughter was pregnant. Would this make Target send her more coupons related to her pregnancy? Any data that anyone discloses is usually put into some sort of date base, as proved by the Boston Globe article.
Ethical perspectives for this story are hard to come up with and discuss. Kant's Categorical Imperative is the first thing that comes to my mind. Kant focuses on the action and if the action is considered ethical. Is Target being ethical by sending out baby coupons? Well, did they know that the girl was under the age of 18? It's hard to tell. Communitarism would be another ethical tool to solve this issue. Communitarism is when the community interest tramps individual interest and brings social justice. Would not shipping out coupons to people under 18 hurt Target in the community? In my opinion, Target is so widely known and popular with so many age groups that I don't think it would hurt them at all. Aristotle's Golden Mean would work best for me in this situation though. Is Target trying to be the best they can be? Yes, Target is trying to use marketing to help their customers save money, but not ethically. They are trying to sell items to people who may not use it or may not feel that those coupons may be needed.
Looking at this story from a privacy point of view is important though. Since this girl is considered a teen, why would she be getting coupons for baby products anyway? In chapter 10 of our book for class, Newton explains that he believes privacy needs to be redefined to say "Privacy is the right of an individual to keep thoughts and information to him or herself". Did this young girl need to tell her father that she was pregnant? Since teen pregnancy can be a controversial issue, was this young girl trying to protect her privacy? The sad thing about this is that stores and media live and thrive by invading people's privacy and taking that away from them.
Personal story here about when I worked in a grocery store. When I worked at the A&P for a little while, we would hand out coupons. These coupons would print from the register at the end of a customers order for use on their next shopping trip. My brother is now 19 and he came in to buy razors, but instead he was printed a coupon for condoms. Would it be ethical to give someone under the age of 18 a coupon for condoms? Would it even be ethical to consider selling condoms to someone under the age of 18? How do we prevent these issues?
With in regard to both the Target article that I read & the article from the Boston Globe, selling data about someone and they don't know is unethical. I can fully understand sites like Amazon sending out weekly emails with subject lines reading "Because you bought this, you might like these..." but now places are using it to send you things that you don't even consider buying. Within regards to Target sending out baby product coupons to young teens, I can understand why people would consider that to be unethical, especially if your teen is not pregnant. But isn't it a parents job to discuss sex and the consequences to their teen? Shouldn't parents educate their young teens on how unprotected sex can cause problems? If Target had a way to send coupons to people by age and gender, this would be wiser and easier.
Targeted marketing happens every day, we are just so desensitized to it that it doesn't appear to us with an affect anymore. How many times have we gone to the grocery store and had coupons printed out at the register for a product that we've never used before? I know from past experience that a coupon printed out for my 19 year old brother for condoms. Marketing happens on a daily basis, and like we talked about in class, sex sells.
I don't really think the Target manager had an ethical obligation to the customer, but then again, it depends on some things. Did this Target manager have a child? Would he have been upset if his teen daughter got ads from other stores for baby products? Was the Target manager offended by this? However, the manager couldn't have done anything about it since it was the company he worked for. Companies usually have guidelines for customer service, especially this kind of customer service. The manager had to really just apologize and go to his superiors about what to do. However, the father was right by apologizing when he found out that it was his mistake and that he knew his daughter was pregnant. That was the right thing to do, both ethically and morally.
Target mixing up their coupon ads is still targeted marketing. I got a coupon book from Target a few weeks ago and now it's put by section, Mom, Dad, Daughter, Son, Pets, etc. It's still targeting certain people of the home. Of course, this also happened a lot when I was younger. Toys R Us used to send out their big toy catalog every year. This was fun and exciting but it was always by section, Girls Toys, Boys Toys, Teen Toys...You would never see a Barbie on the same page of a Hot Wheels car. Gender roles also play into marketing as well since society thinks girls should act differently from boys.
In the PRSA Code of Ethics, The Disclosure of Information struck me for this news story. Granted, the father didn't know at first that his daughter was pregnant, but when he apologized when Target called him, he disclosed that his daughter was pregnant. Would this make Target send her more coupons related to her pregnancy? Any data that anyone discloses is usually put into some sort of date base, as proved by the Boston Globe article.
Ethical perspectives for this story are hard to come up with and discuss. Kant's Categorical Imperative is the first thing that comes to my mind. Kant focuses on the action and if the action is considered ethical. Is Target being ethical by sending out baby coupons? Well, did they know that the girl was under the age of 18? It's hard to tell. Communitarism would be another ethical tool to solve this issue. Communitarism is when the community interest tramps individual interest and brings social justice. Would not shipping out coupons to people under 18 hurt Target in the community? In my opinion, Target is so widely known and popular with so many age groups that I don't think it would hurt them at all. Aristotle's Golden Mean would work best for me in this situation though. Is Target trying to be the best they can be? Yes, Target is trying to use marketing to help their customers save money, but not ethically. They are trying to sell items to people who may not use it or may not feel that those coupons may be needed.
Looking at this story from a privacy point of view is important though. Since this girl is considered a teen, why would she be getting coupons for baby products anyway? In chapter 10 of our book for class, Newton explains that he believes privacy needs to be redefined to say "Privacy is the right of an individual to keep thoughts and information to him or herself". Did this young girl need to tell her father that she was pregnant? Since teen pregnancy can be a controversial issue, was this young girl trying to protect her privacy? The sad thing about this is that stores and media live and thrive by invading people's privacy and taking that away from them.
Personal story here about when I worked in a grocery store. When I worked at the A&P for a little while, we would hand out coupons. These coupons would print from the register at the end of a customers order for use on their next shopping trip. My brother is now 19 and he came in to buy razors, but instead he was printed a coupon for condoms. Would it be ethical to give someone under the age of 18 a coupon for condoms? Would it even be ethical to consider selling condoms to someone under the age of 18? How do we prevent these issues?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)