View the TED video Chimamanda Adichie: The danger of a single story. (TED Video)
Adichie uses several episodes from her own life's story to deliver her powerful message. User your blog to reflect on Adichie's message . How do you view her message in terms of what you have learned in this module?
This weeks TED video was powerful and eye opening. Chimamanda Adichie was funny and told a very interesting, very pointed story about the “single story”. I believe that we all at some point in our life have experienced the “single story” which is another way of stereotyping. As children, girls may listen to parents reading stories of fairytale endings - the prince always rescuing the princess and they go off to live happily ever after. This single story may well project the single story to the child - a girl needs to be rescued by a man.
Adichie realized this single story when she went to visit Fede and his family in their village. From the sensory messages her mother was giving her she pictured a poor family who had nothing. Her single story was that Fede and his family were poor and had nothing because that was all she was told. She formed her own conclusions as to what their family life was like based on her mother’s reminders that Fede was poor and had nothing.
I have experienced the single story myself. I grew up in the UK, and when you emigrate you find out about all the single stories that people have about the British. The single story that all British people have bad teeth, is one only perpetuated by movies like "Austin Powers". In addition, according to legend - England's beer is flat, their food is bland and the people are a little "pasty". When people say this they are using the information they have been given, their “single story” and made the assumption that I too agreed with them (despite my pretty good teeth). In fact, these single stories fly in the face of the facts too. Free healthcare in the UK means you can visit the dentist or the doctor without charge whenever you want - regardless of status. Because the government funds it, the quality of care is not lacking behind other countries, so this excuse is false too.
Interestingly, Adichie talked about immigration and how she bought into the single story about connecting immigration with Mexicans because when you turn the television or open a newspaper that is all you see. I found it fascinating that one immigrant was just as susceptible to the single story as those in residence already. I too realized that I was doing the same thing without knowing the whole story. We are surrounded by the single story each day through television, newspapers and even social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter.
Adichie made some really wonderful points when she talked about creating a single story and how easy it is to do this by only representing only one side and only that side. Getting the whole story is important. I have tried to break this habit, having realized this through personal experience. Getting a Green Card for example is not expensive. The cost is roughly $2000 per person including a lawyer's fees. When people say that illegal immigrants do not get Green Cards because they can never afford it on the cash jobs they do - I know this to be false. It really is the system that prevents them, not the myriad of other reasons that are given. Illegal immigrants contribute to the economy and cannot at the same time, because a system prevents them from doing so. This video really made me aware that we experience the single story many times over and it is up to us to break the cycle of the single story because only then will we become empowered.
This coincides quite nicely with the lessons we learned about stories in this module. As we tell stories and use them to motivate others and change the way we think about something, the stories should be genuine, factual, and free from the single story stigma. We have to know that single stories have no room in the world of leadership communication. The people we communicate the stories to are going to be using the stories as a foundation of assurance and trust, free from stereotypes and judgment. I think that stories are very effective when used as tools for change, but they have to true stories that do not paint a group of people or countries in a light that could be questionable. Open-mindedness and trust are essential when telling and listening to these stories
November 1, 2014
October 24, 2014
A521.1.4.RB_LloydPayneDamien
Describe a common story in your organization and discuss its implications on the organization. Does this story promote the goals and ideals of the organization? Does it help describe "who we are and what we stand for?" What is the story's impact on the culture of the organization?
There is a story at Merck that goes like this about our corporate responsibility that also hints at our goals and values as a firm. It goes like this:
Merck is a commitment to discovering innovative solutions to the world’s greatest health challenges while growing our business in a sustainable way. This goal informs our decisions and focuses the daily effort of thousands of Merck colleagues around the world as we strive to make a difference.
We apply our scientific and operational expertise, resources and diverse talents to addressing some of the world’s biggest health, social, environmental and economic challenges. And it allows us to deliver greater value to both shareholders and society.
To my mind it is not so much of story, but more of an oft repeated mantra. A statement or a set of commands maybe. I tried hard to look for a story that was told at Merck, but there are really none that were relevant to today. An old story once circulated about how Merck was so concerned about river blindness that it gave it’s medicine away to irradiate it in Africa, but nobody sees the relevance of it anymore – it was a story told by a previous generation of employees, long since retired or cut from the workforce. Anti-stories circulate about how we gave away the vaccine because other companies believed they had a right to royalties from sales we made. This anti-story gained more ground because nobody corrected it; Merck had moved on from that story. In fact, the only reminder of this tale is the enormous bronze statue of an African child leading a blind elder with a stick that sits in the front foyer.
The stories in today’s Merck all reflect around the statements that I quoted above. Executives and managers alike all spout the same story to us every time they speak – it’s almost like being brain washed sometimes. Does it speak to the organizations goals? Absolutely. Merck wants to rid the world of disease, and everything we do on a daily basis should be focused on ridding some disease or another from the planet. In fact, the whole statement is rather laudable – until the last sentence: “And it allows us to deliver greater value to both shareholders and society.” This is where the crux of the matter lies.
Merck is caught in this never ending loop of shareholder value. While the goals and values espouse the curing of diseases, the real purpose of Merck is to make as much shareholder value as possible, and this is seen on the ground. Merck’s ‘transformation’ to a leaner, healthier company meant thousands of job cuts, budget cuts, staffing cuts and cutting of corners. It materialized in the form of a demoralized workforce and the fire sale of corporate headquarters in NJ and the shriveling down of a field force and research and development. Anything that could be cut to make the profitability figures look good for the share price was done.
Employee benefits were slashed across the board, pensions were changed to favor the executive committee who had shorter life spans in charge but were of a greater age. Things that would benefit the company in the long run, but did not show a financial result in the short term, simply disappeared (educational courses, training).
And now there are two ways of looking at the story. To the outsider, it reads as if Merck is doing what it can to make the world we live in a better place. To the insider the reality is that Merck is in it for the money – full stop. Sure, a business has to make money, but corporations whose main goal is to chase shareholder value have been shown to be those that fail in the medium to long term. The impact of the culture at Merck has been disastrous.
If you asked people at Merck today what the culture was, I doubt if you could get a single same answer from two people – unless it mentioned making money for shareholders. Essentially, culture disappeared with the cuts; along with the talent and the future of the company. Most people at Merck live day by day, week by week or year to year, lucky to still be employed and hopeful that they can sustain themselves in an ever less caring employee environment. As more employees accept the new cultureless workplace the executive committee pushes harder to cut costs and raise profitability.
There is a major flaw though, and it’s one that is easily recognizable but not seen in the story. Merck is and always has been a research and manufacturing company. The price of the shares right now looks great, but eventually you run out of things to cut, and the patents run out on the products you were once making but no longer do because generics have taken that market. What then to do now? By the time the realization comes that there is nothing left to cut and that there is no talent left to make any new innovations, Merck’s CEO will be gone (probably retired somewhere on a beach with his handsome stock incentives he cashed in) and the new CEO will take the blame for the demise of a once great company. Probably a merger will take place.
The story makes an attempt to describe who we are and what we stand for, but we do not live it in practice. The story lives on the paperwork and as banner heads at the top of corporate memos and websites but in fact, it is fair to say that the story has become just that – a story; but without any meaning. It’s like being told the Star Wars story without a Darth Vader, but when you live there you realize that Ben Kenobi died in his cave and Luke Skywalker chose to help his Uncle run the moisture farm. Darth Vader continues to explode planets with his Death Star unabated, we all wait with baited breath for him to set his sights on Planet Merck.
There is a story at Merck that goes like this about our corporate responsibility that also hints at our goals and values as a firm. It goes like this:
Merck is a commitment to discovering innovative solutions to the world’s greatest health challenges while growing our business in a sustainable way. This goal informs our decisions and focuses the daily effort of thousands of Merck colleagues around the world as we strive to make a difference.
We apply our scientific and operational expertise, resources and diverse talents to addressing some of the world’s biggest health, social, environmental and economic challenges. And it allows us to deliver greater value to both shareholders and society.
To my mind it is not so much of story, but more of an oft repeated mantra. A statement or a set of commands maybe. I tried hard to look for a story that was told at Merck, but there are really none that were relevant to today. An old story once circulated about how Merck was so concerned about river blindness that it gave it’s medicine away to irradiate it in Africa, but nobody sees the relevance of it anymore – it was a story told by a previous generation of employees, long since retired or cut from the workforce. Anti-stories circulate about how we gave away the vaccine because other companies believed they had a right to royalties from sales we made. This anti-story gained more ground because nobody corrected it; Merck had moved on from that story. In fact, the only reminder of this tale is the enormous bronze statue of an African child leading a blind elder with a stick that sits in the front foyer.
The stories in today’s Merck all reflect around the statements that I quoted above. Executives and managers alike all spout the same story to us every time they speak – it’s almost like being brain washed sometimes. Does it speak to the organizations goals? Absolutely. Merck wants to rid the world of disease, and everything we do on a daily basis should be focused on ridding some disease or another from the planet. In fact, the whole statement is rather laudable – until the last sentence: “And it allows us to deliver greater value to both shareholders and society.” This is where the crux of the matter lies.
Merck is caught in this never ending loop of shareholder value. While the goals and values espouse the curing of diseases, the real purpose of Merck is to make as much shareholder value as possible, and this is seen on the ground. Merck’s ‘transformation’ to a leaner, healthier company meant thousands of job cuts, budget cuts, staffing cuts and cutting of corners. It materialized in the form of a demoralized workforce and the fire sale of corporate headquarters in NJ and the shriveling down of a field force and research and development. Anything that could be cut to make the profitability figures look good for the share price was done.
Employee benefits were slashed across the board, pensions were changed to favor the executive committee who had shorter life spans in charge but were of a greater age. Things that would benefit the company in the long run, but did not show a financial result in the short term, simply disappeared (educational courses, training).
And now there are two ways of looking at the story. To the outsider, it reads as if Merck is doing what it can to make the world we live in a better place. To the insider the reality is that Merck is in it for the money – full stop. Sure, a business has to make money, but corporations whose main goal is to chase shareholder value have been shown to be those that fail in the medium to long term. The impact of the culture at Merck has been disastrous.
If you asked people at Merck today what the culture was, I doubt if you could get a single same answer from two people – unless it mentioned making money for shareholders. Essentially, culture disappeared with the cuts; along with the talent and the future of the company. Most people at Merck live day by day, week by week or year to year, lucky to still be employed and hopeful that they can sustain themselves in an ever less caring employee environment. As more employees accept the new cultureless workplace the executive committee pushes harder to cut costs and raise profitability.
There is a major flaw though, and it’s one that is easily recognizable but not seen in the story. Merck is and always has been a research and manufacturing company. The price of the shares right now looks great, but eventually you run out of things to cut, and the patents run out on the products you were once making but no longer do because generics have taken that market. What then to do now? By the time the realization comes that there is nothing left to cut and that there is no talent left to make any new innovations, Merck’s CEO will be gone (probably retired somewhere on a beach with his handsome stock incentives he cashed in) and the new CEO will take the blame for the demise of a once great company. Probably a merger will take place.
The story makes an attempt to describe who we are and what we stand for, but we do not live it in practice. The story lives on the paperwork and as banner heads at the top of corporate memos and websites but in fact, it is fair to say that the story has become just that – a story; but without any meaning. It’s like being told the Star Wars story without a Darth Vader, but when you live there you realize that Ben Kenobi died in his cave and Luke Skywalker chose to help his Uncle run the moisture farm. Darth Vader continues to explode planets with his Death Star unabated, we all wait with baited breath for him to set his sights on Planet Merck.
May 20, 2014
A634.9.5.RB_LloydPayneDamien
Reflect on the three key lessons you take away from the course. Reflect on your perceived value of this course. Include both positive and negative aspects of your experience. What might you have done to improve your learning experience? How might the University or your instructor provide additional support for your learning? Were there topics covered that seem particularly relevant or irrelevant to your experiences and to what you expect to come in future courses?
For me, Ethics is exactly the most inspiring topic that someone could wish for on a course, but it is absolutely vital in today's corporate world. Having said that, even though some of the subject matter was quiet dry, especially in the beginning, I found this an enjoyable course. Some of this has to do with the lecturer, Dr. Powers - who seemed to be well on the ball, participating well in the discussions to further them along, and some of it had to do with the more up to date issues we were asked to think about. In particular I enjoyed the discussions on gun control and on world hunger. It never ceases to fascinate me how many people can object to giving, helping or just plain being moral and ethical about hopeless situations.
In all, I think the course will have a fair bit of value in my corporate career. Ethics in large pharma. companies like mine, that do much business in overseas markets are critically important, as recent news stories about Glaxo break in the Chinese press. Being able to show that I have studied ethics at a masters degree level will help tremendously in my future I am sure. I really didn't have much negative to say about the course. I found almost all of it at least enough to peak my interest. Occasionally, some of the brain work was not wholly inspiring, but will still make a good reference tool.
The group work I felt was not weighted properly. When group work counts for such a small amount of the total percentage, members of every group start strong, and then back off. In the group I was in, the total contribution to the entire group project was 300 words - unformatted, with spelling and grammatical errors - yet they benefit from the hard work of just 2 of 5 individuals. Group work is one of the hardest things to do in life, at work and is also true of these courses. Putting a higher value on that work that reflects how important a skill it is to master is very necessary. Percentage wise, poor group performance should make a one grade difference (from an A to a B or a B to a C) as only this way will people realize the perfect 4.0 they are striving for could really be affected by no effort.
In terms of support from the University, there could be better instruction on the Foliotek side of things. Instructional classes advertised on each course would be helpful, especially to those students with 7 or 8 previous courses downloaded to e-portfolio. I know there is a help desk number, but that doesn't suffice always.
Regarding topic relevancy. Initial theories of consequentialism and deontology were super snooze-worthy, and pretty complex stuff to wade through for a thorough understanding, which is critical for better discussion in future weeks and in reference in other papers. I think an more inventive course would have some tasks that helped to separate out these theories better in the students mind and cement their importance to ethics as a whole. I understand the importance of getting the right background, but was never more than 50% certain of each of the theories, I think Initially at least their relevance to real world practical ethics examples was not clear enough, and this didn't help with trying to digest them.
Finally, in future courses I would like to see more group work that deliberately paired groups with opposing views of ethical matters. In week one, each student is asked where they stand on gun control, euthanasia and other contentious ethical issues; and place opposing views together in a group. Then use the group discussion boards in each group to debate topic questions, rather than just discuss both sides. Report could be written on how agreement was reached on the very live topic - and maybe that can be used to suggest ways that governments could proceed. It would be a more dynamic and interesting process than putting together a short report on one subject everyone has to agree on.
For me, Ethics is exactly the most inspiring topic that someone could wish for on a course, but it is absolutely vital in today's corporate world. Having said that, even though some of the subject matter was quiet dry, especially in the beginning, I found this an enjoyable course. Some of this has to do with the lecturer, Dr. Powers - who seemed to be well on the ball, participating well in the discussions to further them along, and some of it had to do with the more up to date issues we were asked to think about. In particular I enjoyed the discussions on gun control and on world hunger. It never ceases to fascinate me how many people can object to giving, helping or just plain being moral and ethical about hopeless situations.
In all, I think the course will have a fair bit of value in my corporate career. Ethics in large pharma. companies like mine, that do much business in overseas markets are critically important, as recent news stories about Glaxo break in the Chinese press. Being able to show that I have studied ethics at a masters degree level will help tremendously in my future I am sure. I really didn't have much negative to say about the course. I found almost all of it at least enough to peak my interest. Occasionally, some of the brain work was not wholly inspiring, but will still make a good reference tool.
The group work I felt was not weighted properly. When group work counts for such a small amount of the total percentage, members of every group start strong, and then back off. In the group I was in, the total contribution to the entire group project was 300 words - unformatted, with spelling and grammatical errors - yet they benefit from the hard work of just 2 of 5 individuals. Group work is one of the hardest things to do in life, at work and is also true of these courses. Putting a higher value on that work that reflects how important a skill it is to master is very necessary. Percentage wise, poor group performance should make a one grade difference (from an A to a B or a B to a C) as only this way will people realize the perfect 4.0 they are striving for could really be affected by no effort.
In terms of support from the University, there could be better instruction on the Foliotek side of things. Instructional classes advertised on each course would be helpful, especially to those students with 7 or 8 previous courses downloaded to e-portfolio. I know there is a help desk number, but that doesn't suffice always.
Regarding topic relevancy. Initial theories of consequentialism and deontology were super snooze-worthy, and pretty complex stuff to wade through for a thorough understanding, which is critical for better discussion in future weeks and in reference in other papers. I think an more inventive course would have some tasks that helped to separate out these theories better in the students mind and cement their importance to ethics as a whole. I understand the importance of getting the right background, but was never more than 50% certain of each of the theories, I think Initially at least their relevance to real world practical ethics examples was not clear enough, and this didn't help with trying to digest them.
Finally, in future courses I would like to see more group work that deliberately paired groups with opposing views of ethical matters. In week one, each student is asked where they stand on gun control, euthanasia and other contentious ethical issues; and place opposing views together in a group. Then use the group discussion boards in each group to debate topic questions, rather than just discuss both sides. Report could be written on how agreement was reached on the very live topic - and maybe that can be used to suggest ways that governments could proceed. It would be a more dynamic and interesting process than putting together a short report on one subject everyone has to agree on.
May 13, 2014
A634.8.3.RB_LloydPayneDamien
In Chapter 12, LaFollette (2007) discusses gun control. Do citizens have a right to bear arms? Answer the question in your reflection blog. State your opinion and follow up your position with supporting documentation. Next, present the opposing side to your stance. Use external sources to enhance your claims.
Gun control. One of the most contentious issues - but only in the USA. You might have guessed I'm British, and having lived in a country where gun ownership is much more of a privilege than a right, I can tell you that the debate about gun control in this country raises my eyebrows some the time, and exasperates me the rest of the time. Before we start this proper, lets do the history.
Gun control in the UK.
Summary: If you want a gun, you need to show a reason. Every 5 years a police officer will come to your house, check out you, your background, your history and your medical records. He will check where you keep the gun and the ammunition, and check you are knowledgeable on the law regarding guns. With his sign off, you will get a gun licence. What guns you have, the number and type, your name and current address are all kept on a national registrar. Most guns are disallowed from keeping at home. Essentially, only shotguns and rifles are allowed.
Gun Control In the USA.
Summary: Anyone can buy any gun, from anyone. The only time you get a background check is if you buy from a licensed dealer. The only time you are required to registrar the gun in most states is for open carry of the firearm. There are no records of how many guns you have, no records that trace where the guns are coming from.
OK, now we have the facts down, lets also consider actualities and dispel some myths. First, the reason the UK and most of Europe wasn't forged with a gun is simply because they were not invented yet. The USA West was tamed with a gun because it was more efficient than using clubs and swords. The UK has seen it's fair share of bloodshed, but most of it was done before the 20th Century. Nobody believes in the UK that they are living in a socialist state, nor that their rights are infringed by registering and having their name on a database if they have a gun. This trade off is perhaps reflected in the deaths per 100,000 by guns. In the UK it is 0.23 deaths. The US - in protection of it's 1787 constitution, accepts 10.23 deaths per 100,000 (GunPolicy.org, 2014). It is number one in gun ownership, deaths, wounding and gun suicides, and yet nobody knows who has what or where or how they are keeping their weapons.
In terms of criminals, criminals have less access to guns in the UK, and consequently there are less armed crimes in the UK. The argument that a criminal in the UK who wants a gun could just as easily get one as in the US does not hold water (Cuccaro, 2013). A criminal in the US just needs to go to gun show and buy one. A criminal in the UK will need to first commit a criminal act to get one, the likelihood he gets caught goes up.
What it, seems to me, gun control comes down to is lobbying. It doesn't have anything to do with facts, because in the cold light of day the facts speak for themselves: guns should be restricted for the good of the many, and most people want more control (Gun control, 2003). Guns are not an inalienable right, just as you cannot shout out Nazi propaganda and racial hated in the USA despite a constitutional right to the freedom of speech (LaFollette, 2007). Where things have gone wrong is that the power to change the constitution to make it that guns laws should be more restrictive is in the hands of the groups that are pro gun. What is even more unintelligible however, is why this is so: "The power of the pistol lobby over politicians is mind-boggling" (Boggling, 2014).
The NRA and other groups like it show no remorse in the wake of national disasters like Columbine or Sandy Hook. Their pro gun arguments are based on freedom rhetoric that doesn't exist or fire up the imagination of the majority of a full scale invasion of Florida by the evil empire or a small scale invasion of your home by the ever lurking criminal element. Guns, they argue, are not only your right, but are absolutely as necessary today as they were in 1787. The argument that if everyone had guns, criminals would be more deterred does not hold water for those bearing arms that are mentally unstable, or in factual accounts of incidents like the Shooting of Senator Gifford where at least two people in the same crowd had concealed weapons but never drew them while the shooter sprayed the crowd.
Where the NRA get the results is by scaring the few: "politicians won't protect Americans because "they're scared of the NRA"" (Boggling, 2014) Not the public, as the public can be a unwieldy beast that can think for themselves. Instead they take aim at the politician. It is far cheaper to scare just one politician into doing nothing than it is to scare the majority of his 200,000+ constituents. And if he or she doesn't scare so easy, they know he always needs funding for something.....
And so the gun control issue rages on - not because the majority doesn't want change, not because the constitution forbids us, as the constitution itself can be amended, not even because more people die in the US from gun violence than any other country that isn't at war. It's not even an issue of whether it is moral or ethical. The ethical debate takes second stage to the other debates. To me LaFollette (2007) is wrong when he says "although I find the idea of a world without hand guns appealing, there are reasons to seek alternatives, especially in countries like the United States with a deeply entrenched gun culture" (p. 194). That's like saying the Russians have a deeply entrenched tank culture because they made so many of them over the years, we should let every Russia own one; or that the UK has a deeply entrenched culture of people owning big cats so we should allow that to continue.
It's an even more pathetic argument when children are allowed access to fully automatic, large clip assault weapons on the excuse that they need this for something other than killing people. At the very least, weapons should be restricted to being properly stored, licensed and the appropriate checks made. There are other solutions. The constitution makes no reference to ammunition being a right. Restricting all ammunition would make guns harmless, but nobody who has made politics their career wants to take a stand and say so.
The argument rages because our political system allows the minority interest groups (the NRA) to effectively bribe it's policies into place for as long as they can keep that bribed official in power. The real answer probably has nothing to do with gun control laws, but more to do with term limits. A representative or senator who can only serve two terms is more likely to do the right thing and more likely to represent the interests of all Americans.
References:
Boggling. (2014, Mar 26). The Charleston Gazette Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/1510222250?accountid=27203
Cuccaro, M. (2013). Independently armed - a warning for liberals. [web log comment]. Retrieved from: http://www.easybakegunclub.com/blog/3149/Independently-Armed.html
GunPolicy.org. (2014). Comparison of Uk and USA gundeaths per 100,000 people. Retrieved from: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/192/rate_of_all_gun_deaths_per_100_000_people/280,194
Gun control. (2003, Fall). Contexts, 2, 60. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/ctx.2003.2.4.60
Gun control. One of the most contentious issues - but only in the USA. You might have guessed I'm British, and having lived in a country where gun ownership is much more of a privilege than a right, I can tell you that the debate about gun control in this country raises my eyebrows some the time, and exasperates me the rest of the time. Before we start this proper, lets do the history.
Gun control in the UK.
- In the United Kingdom, only licensed gun owners may lawfully acquire, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition
- Applicants for a gun owner’s licence in the United Kingdom are required to prove genuine reason to possess a firearm, for example hunting, target shooting or collection.
- An applicant for a firearm licence in the United Kingdom must pass a background check which considers criminal, mental and addiction records
- In the United Kingdom, third party character references for each gun licence applicant are required
- Where a past history, or apprehended likelihood of family violence exists, the law in the United Kingdom stipulates that a gun licence should be denied or revoked
- In the United Kingdom gun owners must re-apply and re-qualify for their firearm licence every five years
- In the United Kingdom, authorities maintain a record of individual civilians licensed to acquire, possess, sell or transfer a firearm or ammunition
- Licensed firearm owners in the United Kingdom are permitted to possess only an approved number of firearms
- In the United Kingdom, carrying a firearm in plain view or carrying a concealed firearm in a public place is prohibited
Summary: If you want a gun, you need to show a reason. Every 5 years a police officer will come to your house, check out you, your background, your history and your medical records. He will check where you keep the gun and the ammunition, and check you are knowledgeable on the law regarding guns. With his sign off, you will get a gun licence. What guns you have, the number and type, your name and current address are all kept on a national registrar. Most guns are disallowed from keeping at home. Essentially, only shotguns and rifles are allowed.
Gun Control In the USA.
- In the United States, the right to private gun ownership is conditionally guaranteed by the US Constitution, as limited by federal law. For similar local rights, see each state.
- In the United States, civilians are not allowed to possess machine-guns, sawn-off shotguns and rifles, silencers, and armour-piercing ammunition without appropriate registration
- In the United States, private possession of fully automatic weapons is permitted subject to federal licensing and registration
- In the United States, non-prohibited persons of minimum age may lawfully acquire, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition without a licence in the majority of states.
- A non-disqualified individual wishing to possess a firearm in the United States must pass background checks which consider criminal, health and mental records, only if the supplier is a licensed firearm dealer
- In the United States, authorities do not maintain a record of individual civilians permitted to acquire, possess, carry, sell or transfer a firearm or ammunition and the law does not require that a record of the acquisition, possession and transfer of each privately held firearm be retained in an official register.
Summary: Anyone can buy any gun, from anyone. The only time you get a background check is if you buy from a licensed dealer. The only time you are required to registrar the gun in most states is for open carry of the firearm. There are no records of how many guns you have, no records that trace where the guns are coming from.
OK, now we have the facts down, lets also consider actualities and dispel some myths. First, the reason the UK and most of Europe wasn't forged with a gun is simply because they were not invented yet. The USA West was tamed with a gun because it was more efficient than using clubs and swords. The UK has seen it's fair share of bloodshed, but most of it was done before the 20th Century. Nobody believes in the UK that they are living in a socialist state, nor that their rights are infringed by registering and having their name on a database if they have a gun. This trade off is perhaps reflected in the deaths per 100,000 by guns. In the UK it is 0.23 deaths. The US - in protection of it's 1787 constitution, accepts 10.23 deaths per 100,000 (GunPolicy.org, 2014). It is number one in gun ownership, deaths, wounding and gun suicides, and yet nobody knows who has what or where or how they are keeping their weapons.
In terms of criminals, criminals have less access to guns in the UK, and consequently there are less armed crimes in the UK. The argument that a criminal in the UK who wants a gun could just as easily get one as in the US does not hold water (Cuccaro, 2013). A criminal in the US just needs to go to gun show and buy one. A criminal in the UK will need to first commit a criminal act to get one, the likelihood he gets caught goes up.
What it, seems to me, gun control comes down to is lobbying. It doesn't have anything to do with facts, because in the cold light of day the facts speak for themselves: guns should be restricted for the good of the many, and most people want more control (Gun control, 2003). Guns are not an inalienable right, just as you cannot shout out Nazi propaganda and racial hated in the USA despite a constitutional right to the freedom of speech (LaFollette, 2007). Where things have gone wrong is that the power to change the constitution to make it that guns laws should be more restrictive is in the hands of the groups that are pro gun. What is even more unintelligible however, is why this is so: "The power of the pistol lobby over politicians is mind-boggling" (Boggling, 2014).
The NRA and other groups like it show no remorse in the wake of national disasters like Columbine or Sandy Hook. Their pro gun arguments are based on freedom rhetoric that doesn't exist or fire up the imagination of the majority of a full scale invasion of Florida by the evil empire or a small scale invasion of your home by the ever lurking criminal element. Guns, they argue, are not only your right, but are absolutely as necessary today as they were in 1787. The argument that if everyone had guns, criminals would be more deterred does not hold water for those bearing arms that are mentally unstable, or in factual accounts of incidents like the Shooting of Senator Gifford where at least two people in the same crowd had concealed weapons but never drew them while the shooter sprayed the crowd.
Where the NRA get the results is by scaring the few: "politicians won't protect Americans because "they're scared of the NRA"" (Boggling, 2014) Not the public, as the public can be a unwieldy beast that can think for themselves. Instead they take aim at the politician. It is far cheaper to scare just one politician into doing nothing than it is to scare the majority of his 200,000+ constituents. And if he or she doesn't scare so easy, they know he always needs funding for something.....
And so the gun control issue rages on - not because the majority doesn't want change, not because the constitution forbids us, as the constitution itself can be amended, not even because more people die in the US from gun violence than any other country that isn't at war. It's not even an issue of whether it is moral or ethical. The ethical debate takes second stage to the other debates. To me LaFollette (2007) is wrong when he says "although I find the idea of a world without hand guns appealing, there are reasons to seek alternatives, especially in countries like the United States with a deeply entrenched gun culture" (p. 194). That's like saying the Russians have a deeply entrenched tank culture because they made so many of them over the years, we should let every Russia own one; or that the UK has a deeply entrenched culture of people owning big cats so we should allow that to continue.
It's an even more pathetic argument when children are allowed access to fully automatic, large clip assault weapons on the excuse that they need this for something other than killing people. At the very least, weapons should be restricted to being properly stored, licensed and the appropriate checks made. There are other solutions. The constitution makes no reference to ammunition being a right. Restricting all ammunition would make guns harmless, but nobody who has made politics their career wants to take a stand and say so.
The argument rages because our political system allows the minority interest groups (the NRA) to effectively bribe it's policies into place for as long as they can keep that bribed official in power. The real answer probably has nothing to do with gun control laws, but more to do with term limits. A representative or senator who can only serve two terms is more likely to do the right thing and more likely to represent the interests of all Americans.
References:
Boggling. (2014, Mar 26). The Charleston Gazette Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/1510222250?accountid=27203
GunPolicy.org. (2014). Comparison of Uk and USA gundeaths per 100,000 people. Retrieved from: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/192/rate_of_all_gun_deaths_per_100_000_people/280,194
Gun control. (2003, Fall). Contexts, 2, 60. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/ctx.2003.2.4.60
May 11, 2014
A634.7.4.RB_LloydPayneDamien
Watch theses two videos from business ethics speakers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUJ00vNGCPE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLxbHBpilJQ
and discuss how your organization portrays its values. Share any examples where behaviors were portrayed positively by your leaders or an instance where someone was unethical in your work environment.
Values at Merck are important, of that there can be little doubt. They are printed in multiple formats and pinned to every company pin board, they adorn the bottom of every PowerPoint presentation as a tag line, they are emphasized in every employees' development plan as headings under which you should find things to improve, and they are clearly stated at every meeting. Two things stand out though. If asked, I could recite the cub scout promised that I learnt over 30 years ago and was a part of for about 4 years of my life. If asked, I couldn't tell you one of Merck's values from the top of my head - and I've seen them for 5 years also.
What does that tell you about Merck's values. For me it means that they are just tag-lines, they are words with no connection, they are ineffective and therefore useless. I bet on a pop quiz almost all employees at Merck couldn't get more than three total and yet could recite something like the cub scout promise straight away. Other authors agree: "only 58 percent [of employees] thought their organization communicated its values clearly" (Company Values, 2005). Is this important? I think so. If people don't know the values in everyday life at work, what makes you think that any of them would know when what they do do not uphold those values? I think if you are going to have a set of values you should at least make sure their is a connection to all employees with them. Merck has spent a long time doing some good things, but it has spent far longer disassociating itself with it's own employees. Curing river blindness is a very laudable project, one which has not benefited Merck financially but has given employees something at least they could remember about what Merck does. I still am not convinced that even in that great example, Merck employees are connected to river blindness though.
The second and most real problem is that the values are not lived up to by anyone. It is forgivable that the lowest employee on the totem pole has not yet grasped the seriousness of not giving his all every day, or perhaps the middle manager who employs his friend rather than the best person for the job. What is totally unacceptable is the way the executives behave, and it seen across all companies. A recent survey suggested that "Fewer than half of respondents (45 percent) think management behaves in away that's consistent with organizational values" (Company Values, 2005).
While workers are strictly budgeted to specific hotels and only allowed certain amounts of money for breakfast, lunch and dinner - the executive committee only ever stay in the most expensive hotels, blow more money on dinner for themselves than I could get through in a year and never bat an eyelid. Meanwhile, the company also cuts thousands of jobs in the best interest of stakeholder returns and reduce pay and benefits for employees across the board.
The results of poor value adherence is obvious. The talent pool decreases, the ability to attract new talent becomes harder, and the morale shoots downwards quicker than a roller-coaster on the flip side of the lift hill. "If a leader is out of tune with his/her employees and clients, then companies experience a high people turnover as employees flee the company like rats abandoning a sinking ship" (Sylvestre-Williams, 2012). Very soon, even the shareholders are dissatisfied because the company, having cut it's way to profits, no longer has the talent to produce the innovation it strives for in it's values. The vicious circle is so pervasive it is almost unstoppable. A change in leadership - one that understands the importance of ethics, the centrality of values and the absolute recognition that every employee must have a connection to the company's values and standards.
References:
Sylvestre-Williams, R. (2012, Oct 06). Company values are necessary. Prince George Citizen Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/1095469895?accountid=27203
COMPANY VALUES COMMUNICATED BADLY. (2005). The Business Communicator, 6(5), 3. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/221226343?accountid=27203
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUJ00vNGCPE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLxbHBpilJQ
and discuss how your organization portrays its values. Share any examples where behaviors were portrayed positively by your leaders or an instance where someone was unethical in your work environment.
Values at Merck are important, of that there can be little doubt. They are printed in multiple formats and pinned to every company pin board, they adorn the bottom of every PowerPoint presentation as a tag line, they are emphasized in every employees' development plan as headings under which you should find things to improve, and they are clearly stated at every meeting. Two things stand out though. If asked, I could recite the cub scout promised that I learnt over 30 years ago and was a part of for about 4 years of my life. If asked, I couldn't tell you one of Merck's values from the top of my head - and I've seen them for 5 years also.
What does that tell you about Merck's values. For me it means that they are just tag-lines, they are words with no connection, they are ineffective and therefore useless. I bet on a pop quiz almost all employees at Merck couldn't get more than three total and yet could recite something like the cub scout promise straight away. Other authors agree: "only 58 percent [of employees] thought their organization communicated its values clearly" (Company Values, 2005). Is this important? I think so. If people don't know the values in everyday life at work, what makes you think that any of them would know when what they do do not uphold those values? I think if you are going to have a set of values you should at least make sure their is a connection to all employees with them. Merck has spent a long time doing some good things, but it has spent far longer disassociating itself with it's own employees. Curing river blindness is a very laudable project, one which has not benefited Merck financially but has given employees something at least they could remember about what Merck does. I still am not convinced that even in that great example, Merck employees are connected to river blindness though.
The second and most real problem is that the values are not lived up to by anyone. It is forgivable that the lowest employee on the totem pole has not yet grasped the seriousness of not giving his all every day, or perhaps the middle manager who employs his friend rather than the best person for the job. What is totally unacceptable is the way the executives behave, and it seen across all companies. A recent survey suggested that "Fewer than half of respondents (45 percent) think management behaves in away that's consistent with organizational values" (Company Values, 2005).
While workers are strictly budgeted to specific hotels and only allowed certain amounts of money for breakfast, lunch and dinner - the executive committee only ever stay in the most expensive hotels, blow more money on dinner for themselves than I could get through in a year and never bat an eyelid. Meanwhile, the company also cuts thousands of jobs in the best interest of stakeholder returns and reduce pay and benefits for employees across the board.
The results of poor value adherence is obvious. The talent pool decreases, the ability to attract new talent becomes harder, and the morale shoots downwards quicker than a roller-coaster on the flip side of the lift hill. "If a leader is out of tune with his/her employees and clients, then companies experience a high people turnover as employees flee the company like rats abandoning a sinking ship" (Sylvestre-Williams, 2012). Very soon, even the shareholders are dissatisfied because the company, having cut it's way to profits, no longer has the talent to produce the innovation it strives for in it's values. The vicious circle is so pervasive it is almost unstoppable. A change in leadership - one that understands the importance of ethics, the centrality of values and the absolute recognition that every employee must have a connection to the company's values and standards.
References:
Sylvestre-Williams, R. (2012, Oct 06). Company values are necessary. Prince George Citizen Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/1095469895?accountid=27203
COMPANY VALUES COMMUNICATED BADLY. (2005). The Business Communicator, 6(5), 3. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/221226343?accountid=27203
May 4, 2014
A634.6.3.RB_LloydPayneDamien
Benjamin Franklin's self-improvement program included 13 virtues that he felt were important guides for living along with principles for each that would, in his opinion, define a person of good character. He developed a scorecard for evaluating how well he measured up to his own ideals. Throughout his life, Franklin tried to live by these virtues though not always successfully.
Review Ben's 13 Virtues (http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/pop_virtues_list.html) and take the Virtue Quiz (http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/exp_virtue.html) to find out how you measure up against Franklin's virtues.
Select three of Franklin's virtues and reflect upon them in your blog. Ask yourself, how can I include them in my daily life?
Taking the quiz was actually quiet enlightening because it gave the three virtues that I need to work on more, so we will discuss these here. Firstly, this is how I measured up to Mr. Franklin's set of virtues:
"You're on the right path. Even though you made a few choices that didn't reflect Ben's plan for becoming more virtuous, overall you scored pretty well. Although Franklin gave up on his formal effort to be more virtuous, he devoted much of his life to self-improvement."
Having read the list of virtues, I do think they are all very laudable. How easy it is to live up to that list is hard to say, and will depend greatly on the individual, but also on the time period that they are living in. I say this because this obviously wasn't the easiest thing to accomplish in Ben's day - even he gave up on one of the virtues. Today's society has changed much since then - there are far more distractions, working days are longer, both parents usually work now, and we keep our kids at home longer - sending them through the education system rather than putting them to work. There seems to be more to be done today than even there was 60 years ago when the women were still expected to raise the family while the husband earned the income.
Living up to Ben's virtue may well produce a much more satisfying life though. Not sweating the small stuff, being always mindful of others really is just a list of 'you will reap what you sow'. Again, this isn't easy, as sometimes the harder route is the one that is less travelled, and with added peer pressure, and the need in modern society to get on and be liked is hard to accomplish while always being that pious. The three virtues to work with though were as follows:
Resolution:
"Ben believed that resolutions were meant to be kept. You should consider a plan to better keep yours next New Year". This is very good for me. I can keep resolutions, but I rarely need to make them. When I do, I try very hard to follow them through to the end, but much of this depends greatly on fitting it all in to a busy schedule. I once decided I needed more exercise and started 30 minutes of hell every morning at 6am with Gillian Michaels. That witch really laid it on thick, but after a couple of days I was feeling better and could feel I had more stamina and felt much healthier. After 9 weeks into the 12 week course I was doing well - but my schedule at work changed and I didn't finish it. As usual I spent a week kicking myself for not doing so and then quickly forgot about the whole thing. Funny thing was that after 9 weeks I didn't lose 1lb. I guess the food you eat while you exercise is more or just as important.
Sincerity:
Ben would support the saying, "He who lives in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". He believed one should think innocently and justly. Rather than participating in potentially harmful gossip, try talking about ideas more and other people less.
I'm terrible at participating in gossip - harmful or otherwise. I know it is a fault, and I guess I use it as a way of gaining trust more than anything else in a perverse sort of way. I know it is an area I should do better on and will have to if I am to be seriously considered again as the replacement for the Chief Pilot. Don't get me wrong - I'm not the one for embellishing the truth, but I'm not afraid of the truth either. Most of the gossip for pilots revolves around decision making: i.e: who can make a decision in a timely manner and who cannot. I don't suffer fools lightly, and I also won't say anything I would repeat directly to their face. I think this gives me an image of being a bit hard, bordering on a little hurtful, but the truth sometimes does hurt. I'm not going to bully someone with the truth, if they want I'll help them remedy the situation and support them while they do it. The problem is, if they don't think you are sincere in the first place they are hardly likely to ask.
Tranquility:
Ben didn't sweat the small stuff. Think about what's REALLY important to you in life, and worry less about the smaller annoyances.
I won't sweat the small stuff, but I will worry about smaller annoyances. Take the car for example. I like my car just the way it is, and I can be fussy about the kids not bringing in juice boxes, cookies and chocolate into the car, where invariably it ends up all over the seats. My kids know the rules - no food without prior approval in dad's car. I'll get annoyed if my wife overrides me and gives me "the look" when I wont let anyone get in the car fully loaded down with half melted ice cream cones. But I stick to my guns, which is annoying to them, but keeps my car looking good. My wife's car by contrast probably could sprout legs and walk off at any time, the mutated pieces of food and drinks bottles all gelling together in that primeval soup she calls a foot well and taking flight. Is the foot well REALLY important - no. Will I stay up all night worrying if the wife borrows my car? - no. My car is the last spot where I really am in control, and I'm clinging to it for dear life!
As for the other virtues, I think I'm including them all in my daily life to at least a good extent.
Temperance, Silence, Order, Frugality, Industry, Justice, Moderation, Cleanliness, Chastity and Humility are all brought about through marriage, kids and the church in that order - so I don't think I've got too much to work on. Having just said that, perhaps a bit more on the humility side would be good!
Review Ben's 13 Virtues (http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/pop_virtues_list.html) and take the Virtue Quiz (http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/exp_virtue.html) to find out how you measure up against Franklin's virtues.
Select three of Franklin's virtues and reflect upon them in your blog. Ask yourself, how can I include them in my daily life?
Taking the quiz was actually quiet enlightening because it gave the three virtues that I need to work on more, so we will discuss these here. Firstly, this is how I measured up to Mr. Franklin's set of virtues:
"You're on the right path. Even though you made a few choices that didn't reflect Ben's plan for becoming more virtuous, overall you scored pretty well. Although Franklin gave up on his formal effort to be more virtuous, he devoted much of his life to self-improvement."
Having read the list of virtues, I do think they are all very laudable. How easy it is to live up to that list is hard to say, and will depend greatly on the individual, but also on the time period that they are living in. I say this because this obviously wasn't the easiest thing to accomplish in Ben's day - even he gave up on one of the virtues. Today's society has changed much since then - there are far more distractions, working days are longer, both parents usually work now, and we keep our kids at home longer - sending them through the education system rather than putting them to work. There seems to be more to be done today than even there was 60 years ago when the women were still expected to raise the family while the husband earned the income.
Living up to Ben's virtue may well produce a much more satisfying life though. Not sweating the small stuff, being always mindful of others really is just a list of 'you will reap what you sow'. Again, this isn't easy, as sometimes the harder route is the one that is less travelled, and with added peer pressure, and the need in modern society to get on and be liked is hard to accomplish while always being that pious. The three virtues to work with though were as follows:
Resolution:
"Ben believed that resolutions were meant to be kept. You should consider a plan to better keep yours next New Year". This is very good for me. I can keep resolutions, but I rarely need to make them. When I do, I try very hard to follow them through to the end, but much of this depends greatly on fitting it all in to a busy schedule. I once decided I needed more exercise and started 30 minutes of hell every morning at 6am with Gillian Michaels. That witch really laid it on thick, but after a couple of days I was feeling better and could feel I had more stamina and felt much healthier. After 9 weeks into the 12 week course I was doing well - but my schedule at work changed and I didn't finish it. As usual I spent a week kicking myself for not doing so and then quickly forgot about the whole thing. Funny thing was that after 9 weeks I didn't lose 1lb. I guess the food you eat while you exercise is more or just as important.
Sincerity:
Ben would support the saying, "He who lives in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". He believed one should think innocently and justly. Rather than participating in potentially harmful gossip, try talking about ideas more and other people less.
I'm terrible at participating in gossip - harmful or otherwise. I know it is a fault, and I guess I use it as a way of gaining trust more than anything else in a perverse sort of way. I know it is an area I should do better on and will have to if I am to be seriously considered again as the replacement for the Chief Pilot. Don't get me wrong - I'm not the one for embellishing the truth, but I'm not afraid of the truth either. Most of the gossip for pilots revolves around decision making: i.e: who can make a decision in a timely manner and who cannot. I don't suffer fools lightly, and I also won't say anything I would repeat directly to their face. I think this gives me an image of being a bit hard, bordering on a little hurtful, but the truth sometimes does hurt. I'm not going to bully someone with the truth, if they want I'll help them remedy the situation and support them while they do it. The problem is, if they don't think you are sincere in the first place they are hardly likely to ask.
Tranquility:
Ben didn't sweat the small stuff. Think about what's REALLY important to you in life, and worry less about the smaller annoyances.
I won't sweat the small stuff, but I will worry about smaller annoyances. Take the car for example. I like my car just the way it is, and I can be fussy about the kids not bringing in juice boxes, cookies and chocolate into the car, where invariably it ends up all over the seats. My kids know the rules - no food without prior approval in dad's car. I'll get annoyed if my wife overrides me and gives me "the look" when I wont let anyone get in the car fully loaded down with half melted ice cream cones. But I stick to my guns, which is annoying to them, but keeps my car looking good. My wife's car by contrast probably could sprout legs and walk off at any time, the mutated pieces of food and drinks bottles all gelling together in that primeval soup she calls a foot well and taking flight. Is the foot well REALLY important - no. Will I stay up all night worrying if the wife borrows my car? - no. My car is the last spot where I really am in control, and I'm clinging to it for dear life!
As for the other virtues, I think I'm including them all in my daily life to at least a good extent.
Temperance, Silence, Order, Frugality, Industry, Justice, Moderation, Cleanliness, Chastity and Humility are all brought about through marriage, kids and the church in that order - so I don't think I've got too much to work on. Having just said that, perhaps a bit more on the humility side would be good!
April 23, 2014
A634.5.4.RB_LloydPayneDamien
After reading the article by El Sayed and El Ghazaly (n.d.), discuss your views on the following:
1. Do you feel ethical guidelines make a difference to marketers?
There is no such thing as ethics in marketing, if there were, we probably wouldn't buy anything based on an advert on TV. Let me just explain what I mean. For me, it is all about the small print. Car adverts are the case in point. Cars are pretty innocuous items - they probably are not going to kill you on the first try, we all know what they are, what they do and how to use them. They come in different sizes and colors and have different price tags, but essentially they are a mode of transport from A to B. But marketers don't want us to think like that. Marketers want us to think of cars as a status symbol, as the living image of a greener planet, as an extension of our personality, a lifestyle choice or the most technologically capable machine available. But the small print tells you a different story. You can never read it all, it's so tiny and lasts just a few seconds on TV. But when the voice over says "Enjoy 0% finance for 60 months" the small print at the bottom says "not all people will qualify, 0% based on credit scoring, offer does not exist in CT, NY, DE and NV, Some restrictions may apply". On the radio it says all those things so fast you better have a tape recorder.
In other words - good luck getting 0% from us sucker. We have a get out of jail card for every eventuality. And lets face it, with the business model they have set up in commissions etc, it is in no salesman's interest to be giving everyone 0% finance. So you can put as many ethical guidelines down as you like - the game of marketing is about finding a way around those guidelines, and attracting customers. Luring them in is the job of marketing. Period. Landing them in the boat is the job of Sales. If the general populace had the attitude that everything they saw in a piece of marketing was somehow not really true and were more skeptical, perhaps then marketing departments would work harder on gaining trust; but while the guidelines are self enforced, expect more of the same.
2. How can companies balance the need to win with being ethical?
By telling the truth. The one asset that consumers hold, that is the most underrated by marketing departments - is intelligence. People with intelligence can spot a poor deal most of the time, and so sometimes, not telling us the whole truth is as bad as lying to us outright. It's concealment, and those with intelligence never buy into concealment. The fact is, either you have a good product or you don't, and never has the phrase "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" been more appropriate. Your marketing may get you the sale once, but then you are dead to me from that point on. Marketing departments rarely care - especially if their product is essentially rubbish. There have been things I have bought that have turned out to be a waste of time. I once bought gold coins from a newspaper article I read all about gold. I kept the article, I ordered the gold coins. I kept both for many years and then when the price of gold was very high I went to sell them. Turned out these were not gold coins - they were gold plated replicas! After seething, getting angry, feeling robbed and then slight depression, I reread the article, and sure enough, in very very small print was the hint (not the actual words, but the hint) that this wasn't an actual article, but an advertisement, and that the coins may not be 100% pure gold. Never again. They won - but they only did it once, and frankly, probably well within the ethical guidelines.
3. Is it ethical to track your buying habits or web visits to target you for marketing purposes?
Yes. I may not be like most consumers, but I accept that advertising is a reality. Nothing I do is going to stop advertising, so I would rather receive adverts for the things that I am interested in than a slew of adverts for things that are totally irrelevant. What hasn't been sorted out yet is when to show me these adverts. For example: If I am walking down the street or in a mall, and marketers knew I had been looking at DVD reviews for a certain movie, then just as I passed the local FYE store an advert came up on my phone that said if I bought that particular movie right now they would give me a 10% discount, then I would probably buy it - and I would be grateful. Of course, this would mean they would have access to my phones GPS and my phones search history - but I have nothing to hide, have at it. If my phone chimed every 20 paces for an innocuous advert for women's underwear or a special offer from Re-Bath, I'm going to get rid of the phone. Marketing departments need to change the world of marketing themselves and see the bigger picture. Phone manufacturers need to help them before we dump their phones for the equivalent of a Google search engine (remember why we all started googling stuff? It's because Google search had no adverts!) Right now, what they are good at is the equivalent of carpet bombing; what they need to get perfect at is the targeted and precise strike. The push back they get on ethical boundaries and privacy is because carpet bombing isn't helping anyone. My guess is that precision advertising (ie: adverts at the right time and place) will actually be welcomed, and laws will change to suit the marketers. Unfortunately, giving marketing the access to this is right now akin to letting the wolf watch your sheep. Nobody trusts them to do the right thing.
4. As a leader, how will you manage the ethical aspects of your marketing efforts?
I won't, because what's the point? I'm not saying that I will deliberately flout the ethical considerations of the product - but the marketing department is paid to be the people that help sell a product - and they should know under current conditions how to best do that. After all, they have the guidelines, the support of the marketing community and they know the laws. My concern as a manager is to make sure that what they do doesn't tarnish the image of the company, and balance that with making sure the company provides shareholders with the lifestyle they have become accustomed to. I'll overview to make sure that they don't break any laws - but really, if you can't beat them you should join them. Will I be encouraging them as much as I can to change the system like I just described above? Sure will. Will I be the guy that the world credits with the way we see adverts in the future, all precise and targeted? I doubt it.
1. Do you feel ethical guidelines make a difference to marketers?
There is no such thing as ethics in marketing, if there were, we probably wouldn't buy anything based on an advert on TV. Let me just explain what I mean. For me, it is all about the small print. Car adverts are the case in point. Cars are pretty innocuous items - they probably are not going to kill you on the first try, we all know what they are, what they do and how to use them. They come in different sizes and colors and have different price tags, but essentially they are a mode of transport from A to B. But marketers don't want us to think like that. Marketers want us to think of cars as a status symbol, as the living image of a greener planet, as an extension of our personality, a lifestyle choice or the most technologically capable machine available. But the small print tells you a different story. You can never read it all, it's so tiny and lasts just a few seconds on TV. But when the voice over says "Enjoy 0% finance for 60 months" the small print at the bottom says "not all people will qualify, 0% based on credit scoring, offer does not exist in CT, NY, DE and NV, Some restrictions may apply". On the radio it says all those things so fast you better have a tape recorder.
In other words - good luck getting 0% from us sucker. We have a get out of jail card for every eventuality. And lets face it, with the business model they have set up in commissions etc, it is in no salesman's interest to be giving everyone 0% finance. So you can put as many ethical guidelines down as you like - the game of marketing is about finding a way around those guidelines, and attracting customers. Luring them in is the job of marketing. Period. Landing them in the boat is the job of Sales. If the general populace had the attitude that everything they saw in a piece of marketing was somehow not really true and were more skeptical, perhaps then marketing departments would work harder on gaining trust; but while the guidelines are self enforced, expect more of the same.
2. How can companies balance the need to win with being ethical?
By telling the truth. The one asset that consumers hold, that is the most underrated by marketing departments - is intelligence. People with intelligence can spot a poor deal most of the time, and so sometimes, not telling us the whole truth is as bad as lying to us outright. It's concealment, and those with intelligence never buy into concealment. The fact is, either you have a good product or you don't, and never has the phrase "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" been more appropriate. Your marketing may get you the sale once, but then you are dead to me from that point on. Marketing departments rarely care - especially if their product is essentially rubbish. There have been things I have bought that have turned out to be a waste of time. I once bought gold coins from a newspaper article I read all about gold. I kept the article, I ordered the gold coins. I kept both for many years and then when the price of gold was very high I went to sell them. Turned out these were not gold coins - they were gold plated replicas! After seething, getting angry, feeling robbed and then slight depression, I reread the article, and sure enough, in very very small print was the hint (not the actual words, but the hint) that this wasn't an actual article, but an advertisement, and that the coins may not be 100% pure gold. Never again. They won - but they only did it once, and frankly, probably well within the ethical guidelines.
3. Is it ethical to track your buying habits or web visits to target you for marketing purposes?
Yes. I may not be like most consumers, but I accept that advertising is a reality. Nothing I do is going to stop advertising, so I would rather receive adverts for the things that I am interested in than a slew of adverts for things that are totally irrelevant. What hasn't been sorted out yet is when to show me these adverts. For example: If I am walking down the street or in a mall, and marketers knew I had been looking at DVD reviews for a certain movie, then just as I passed the local FYE store an advert came up on my phone that said if I bought that particular movie right now they would give me a 10% discount, then I would probably buy it - and I would be grateful. Of course, this would mean they would have access to my phones GPS and my phones search history - but I have nothing to hide, have at it. If my phone chimed every 20 paces for an innocuous advert for women's underwear or a special offer from Re-Bath, I'm going to get rid of the phone. Marketing departments need to change the world of marketing themselves and see the bigger picture. Phone manufacturers need to help them before we dump their phones for the equivalent of a Google search engine (remember why we all started googling stuff? It's because Google search had no adverts!) Right now, what they are good at is the equivalent of carpet bombing; what they need to get perfect at is the targeted and precise strike. The push back they get on ethical boundaries and privacy is because carpet bombing isn't helping anyone. My guess is that precision advertising (ie: adverts at the right time and place) will actually be welcomed, and laws will change to suit the marketers. Unfortunately, giving marketing the access to this is right now akin to letting the wolf watch your sheep. Nobody trusts them to do the right thing.
4. As a leader, how will you manage the ethical aspects of your marketing efforts?
I won't, because what's the point? I'm not saying that I will deliberately flout the ethical considerations of the product - but the marketing department is paid to be the people that help sell a product - and they should know under current conditions how to best do that. After all, they have the guidelines, the support of the marketing community and they know the laws. My concern as a manager is to make sure that what they do doesn't tarnish the image of the company, and balance that with making sure the company provides shareholders with the lifestyle they have become accustomed to. I'll overview to make sure that they don't break any laws - but really, if you can't beat them you should join them. Will I be encouraging them as much as I can to change the system like I just described above? Sure will. Will I be the guy that the world credits with the way we see adverts in the future, all precise and targeted? I doubt it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)