WK 1 & WK 5 DISCUSSIONS

WK 5 INITIAL POST (K. ROWLAND)

In this scenario, I think the ethical dilemma is offering low income single parents credit accounts. While it is nice to provide these families the ability to purchase items that may be necessary for their children, but it is more likely that they will spend more than they are able to pay back. In the end, this would cause more harm to the family than good. I do not think the retailer should try this new marketing strategy because it is not ethically sound. If the company wants to serve the greater good, it will not go through with this new strategy. In utilitarianism, the outcome matters, not the act (UMGC, 2021). This means that it doesn't matter what new strategy the company uses, it only matters what comes out of this action. 

I believe that children are often targets of marketing in today's society and I think it makes sense to have different laws and rules for children. "Increased marketing to children has created a phenomenon called ‘Pester Power’, where children constantly nag their parents for the latest products such as toys, clothes, gadgets, junk food etc." (AJFT, 2016). While public tv can not get real time consent before showing commercials, the many streaming services such as Netflix, Youtube, and Hulu could ask parents if they want their child to be shown ads when they signup for a kids account. 

References:

Ajfet. (2016, April 4). Exploitative Advertising Campaigns are Targeting our Children. T1 2016 MPK732 Marketing Management (Cluster B). https://mpk732t12016clusterb.wordpress.com/2016/04/04/exploitative-advertising-campaigns-are-targeting-our-children/.

UMGC. Theories of Consequence Ethics. learn.umgc.edu. https://learn.umgc.edu/d2l/le/content/547083/viewContent/20377287/View.