In the case of Chonda-Za
1) In what way is Chonda-Za's operation ethically defensible and indefensible? How does the ethical defensibility depend on the ethical criteria being used? How can this be applied to real life examples?
2) In what ways does the case represent and misrepresent the nature of marketing communication? How can this be applied to a real life example?
(My previous answers to this case were too vague as I'm still unclear on how to apply ethics, thanks!)
THE STANDARD ETHICAL CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING MARKETNG COMMUNICATION/ STRATEGIES
Monopoly: The communication of Chonda-Za in no way establishes is monopoly, nor does it create any barriers to entry. So, by this criterion there is nothing unethical being done by Chonda-Za's.
Marketing and inflation: The expenses incurred by the customers do not in any way lead to any inflationary pressures on the economy, nor do they have any perceptible effect on the general price level of the economy. Using this standard criteria we cannot say that Chonda-Za's was unethical.
Strategic alliances: Chonda-Za's in no way formed strategic alliances to the detriment of the customers and as such does not go against this ethical standard. Also, the case does not give any reason to believe that it kept others out of business. There is no other business with which Chonda-Za's is aligning with.
The challenges to legitimate managerial authority: Chonda-Za's services were usually used by lonely and single persons and not by married persons, nor were marriages broken because of Chonda-Za's communication and as such this cannot be called unethical.
Internal control and protection: Apart from the solace and comfort being provided by Chonda-Za's there was no evidence that it excercised any control over the clients or was there any protection which put ...