In response to Prof. Johnson's post...

In her blog, Prof. Johnson talked about a small, struggling company who was offered $8,000 to sell information they had gathered about clients. She asks:

Should John smith sell the names? Also, Does the AMA Statement of Ethics address this issue? What in the AMA's Statement of Ethics relates to John Smith's dilemma?

I believe that John should not sell the names. While the money that John would receive is certainly a very good incentive, John would be violating the trust of his customers. A section in the Statement of Ethics, under the ethical norms, states that marketers must 'Foster Trust in the marketing system'. If John does sell the names, he is infringing on that trust.

More specifically, under the Fairness section of the Statement of Ethics, it states marketers will "Seek to protect the private information of customers, employees and partners." John Smith would be directly disregarding that statement.

While John Smith is just trying to prevent laying off more of his employees, he still must adhere to the criteria that are expressed in the Statement of Ethics.

Children and Advertising

Recently, I came across an article in which CARU (Children's Advertising Review Board) had asked Disney to stop marketing the new "Pirates of the Caribbean" film to kids. The ads had been running on Nickelodeon. At first, I thought, why?? Kids LOVE pirates and swashbuckling heroes, and they love Johnny Depp. Why not get kids to see the films? Then I thought about what is really in those movies. They have a PG-13 rating, and channels like Nickelodeon and Disney cater to children under 12. So it does make sense for the ads to be marketed to a more suitable audience.

But just because the ads are gone does not mean this film is still being solely marketed to older audiences. When you visit the Disney Store online, the second item under the "Pirates of the Carribean" section are the toys pictured right. Clearly those are not meant for most 13 year olds. While there are shot glasses and adult clothing, there is also plenty of clothing for kids as well.

Disney is out to make a profit, above all else. If that means advertising a movie with more mature themes to children, then apparently that is necessary. As a kid, I can certainly say I was watching things that we're not deemed by the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) to be age-appropriate. While I won't get into the whole plethora of problems that is the MPAA, I can safely say that, in my opinion, decisions like this should be left up to the parents. By marketing these movies, games, toys or food to kids, parents get pressured by the advertisers to get these things for their kids. The best example I can think of is cell phones. I got my first phone right before I started high school. I played a lot of sports, and my parents needed to be able to contact me and find out my schedule. Now, 6 and 7 year olds have iPhones.

Back to the issue at hand, marketers know that children are the best market to advertise to. If you mange to imprint your brand on them, you have a customer for life. That's why cigarette companies used to show their commercials to kids. Like I've said in another post, branding is everything. Make your brand recognizable and memorable, and you've already won half the battle. When it comes to kids, they are only more receptive to branding.

How do you think marketing and advertising effects kids, especially in terms of what is, and what isn't age appropriate?