Reference no: EM132260374
Case Study
Advertising is very blunt. These days advertising is strictly for the money. Usually a company doesn’t care whether their product is harming the customer or not. Their main objective is the money. Better Foods has competition with other products because of relaxed health claims. These companies are claiming their products to be something that is not.
“What is the purpose of advertising in a free market society? Are there minimum standards of honesty that should be adhered to, or are advertisers free to do whatever the market will bear? How can consumers tell the outrageous health claims from honest ones so they can make a reasonable decision?” I believe the purpose of advertising in today’s society is so every business has a fair chance of competition. Businesses can do whatever they want to the prices with as little regulation as possible to maximize profits. I believe advertisers can do whatever the market will bear, but honesty should be required for claims and purposes of the product. Also, a company, in my view, is required to use honesty if the dishonesty may lead to discontinued use of a product. For example, a company that sells bed sheets can say the sheets are the most affordable around, but they may be made of an itchy material. The purpose of this claim is to offer a cheap bed sheet, not to offer comfort. In these times, I believe the only way a consumer may judge dishonesty from honesty in health claims is to do research on everything they buy. Nobody has time to do this research, thus we buy many products that claim they are healthy.
“What advertising strategy should Better Foods adopt? Should it follow the lead of its competitors? Could it point out the misleading advertising its competitors are doing? Should it advertise more honestly and take the moral high ground even if it leads to a further decrease in sales?” If Better Foods had the upper hand before the relaxed health claims, they should claim perhaps the ingredients are less. For example, they could state two grams of sugar instead of 24. By doing this, Better Foods wouldn’t be following the steps of its competitors because there would be nothing misleading about it. The company could point out what the other companies are doing by stating the quantity of ingredients or quality of the ingredients. I think Better Foods should take the moral high ground because sales might decrease right away, but they could increase later down the road if consumers realize the company is looking out for them.
Advertising is very blunt, which is why companies have so much freedom in the market. Companies want money, so they lie about having “healthy” food in order to achieve the consumer’s interest. Better Foods was at risk of competition, but if they do the right thing they’ll benefit in the long run.
Questions
1) What is the purpose of advertising in a free market society?
2) Are there minimum standards of honesty that should be adhered to, or are advertisers free to do whatever the market will bear?
3) How can consumers tell the outrageous health claims from honest ones so they can make a reasonable decision?”
4) What advertising strategy should Better Foods adopt?
5) Should it follow the lead of its competitors?
6) Could it point out the misleading advertising its competitors are doing?
7) Should it advertise more honestly and take the moral high ground even if it leads to a further decrease in sales?