The McKinstry Advertising Situation - Assignment Example

Ethical Case Name Course Lecture Date Question 1 Facts Mckinstry is an advertising firm that uses personal and permanent relationships with clients to maintain contact with clients. Mckinstry has an ongoing relationship with a firm which manufactures laser and radio sensors. Mckinstry is to handle the account of the electronic firm which manufacturers police laser sensors and enable speeding drivers to slow down before they are caught for speeding. Speeding is a major contributor to accidents; speeding is a factor in 69 per cent of accidents, while speeding is a major factor in 86% of accidents that results in serious injury and death. However, other factors contribute to accidents including intoxication. An accurate measurement of the extent speed contributes to accidents is not available. Owing to the fact that the new device will allow drivers to over speed, Marilyn Schaefer and associate at McKinstry has refused to take the advertising account of the electronic firm. Schaefer argues it is unethical to market a device that will allow over speeding and cause more injuries and deaths on the roads. However, the electronic firm insists that it wants Schaefer to personally handle their account. George Sarbo, the account executive, insists that Marilyn must handle the account or never work for the firm again. George goes ahead and fires Marilyn as she sticks to her stand. This case has several stakeholders who have differing moral stands and assumptions. Marilyn Schaefer has admirable ethics and stands on her decision not to market a product that is detrimental to public safety. Marilyn believes that it is wrong to put the live of millions at risk by allowing drivers to escape detection when they are speeding. In contrast, George Sarno’s ethics are doubtful as she targets Marilyn for dismissal because she takes a moral stand by refusing to market the laser detector. George is uncaring about public safety and cares only for getting and retaining business for McKinstry (Baron 2003). The electronic company is also unethical as it seeks to provide a device that will endanger the lives of many. They assume that it’s right to do everything to get sales for their firm without caring who will be hurt the process. The government is also a major stakeholder in the scenario as they have an interest in protecting the public against road accidents. The government is under the ethical assumption that a product that results in harm to the public should be banned. To this end, the governments of some states have banned the use of radar detectors in passenger vehicles. Question 2 The program manager of Mckinstry agency is the main decision maker in the case. The program manager has to decide whether the agency should take the electronic firm’s account and thus start marketing the new type of radar. The manager has to accommodate the view of the company that the deal is lucrative and would bring a lot of revenue to the firm. However, the firm has to consider the negative public perception of the radar detection devices. The radar detection devices have been associated with speeding as they allow errant drivers to escape detection. The firm risks its reputation by dealing in gadgets that endanger the lives of road users. According to Shaw (2013), the reputation of a firm is affected significantly if the firm is perceived to be acting unethically by the public. Reputation can easily be lost in the information age where sharing of information is faster and easier (Carroll and Buchholtz 2014). Therefore, the program manager had to weigh the risk of undertaking a profitable venture which is viewed as unethical. The program manager made the decision to take the electronic firms marketing account. However, Marilyn Schaefer opposes the decision and refuses to work with the electronic firm terming marketing of the device as unethical. George Sarbo is another major decision maker in the scenario. George has to decide on the employee to be assigned the electronic firm’s advertising account. George has to weigh the ethical values of the employees that impact on their willingness to take the job. He also has to consider the possibility of losing a valuable client if they do not do the client’s bidding. When Marilyn Schaefer rejects the electronic company advertising account, George becomes infuriated. Later, he goes on to sack Marilyn due to her ethical stance. George is an unethical decision maker who puts financial considerations before ethics. Instead of commending Marilyn for acting ethically she fires her. Eventually, the dispute is brought to the President of Mckinstry who has the dilemma of determining who to retain and fire between George and Marilyn. Question 3 The ethical dilemma faced by the main decision maker is whether act as the marketing agency for the company that makes vehicle radar sensors. The ethical dilemma is difficult as the the devices contribute to road accidents by enabling drivers escape detection for speeding. However, Mckinstry stood to make a lot of revenue by taking the electronic company advertising account. According to Lo (2009), financial versus ethics dilemma are common in the corporate world. Executives regularly have to face situation where they are forced to act unethically to gain contracts or work for their companies. In the case, the executives of McKinstry advertising agency face the moral question of whether to market a product associated with harm to the public. The situation is made complicated by the fact that there are conflicting legal principles to guide the use of Radar sensors. In many states the installation of radar sensors is illegal but other states allow motorists to install radar sensors. However, the sale and trade of radar sensors is legal in all states. Mckinstry advertising Agency may argue it is not breaking any law by assisting the electronic firm market the sensors. Shapiro and Stefkovich (2010) argue that executives support their unethical decision by claiming they are not breaking the law. He notes that the action of a company may still cause harm to the society without being illegal. In this case, if Mckinstry takes the contract to market the radar sensors, the numbers of road accidents due to speeding are likely to increase. On the other hand, if they refuse to advertise for the electronic company they will lose a great opportunity to make revenue. Mckinstry advertising will also have to deal with the controversy over the contribution of speeding to accidents. According to the case study, the extent of speeding that causes accidents is unknown. Speeding is only a factor in accidents and combines with other factors to make accidents fatal and severe. Mckinstry may argue that speeding is not the only contributor to road accidents. Question 4 Utilitarianism is a theory that is based on the consideration of the consequences of our actions. According to Carroll and Buchholtz (2014), Act-utilitarianism asserts that the morally right action produces overall happiness for all people involved. In this case, it is hard to produce overall happiness for all stakeholders. However, the society will be happier if the police can easily catch speeding drivers. If McKinstry rejects the marketing opportunity for radar devices then they will not be distributed to motorists. Thus, accidents due to speeding will be reduced resulting in the most good for society. However, Rule –Utilitarianism is weak as the law does not ban the sale and distribution of radar sensors. Rule-Utilitarianism argues that the most good and happiness can be achieved by following rules or legal principles (Hoffman, Frederick and Schwartz 2014). In the case, McKinstry can claim that their action is ethical as it does not break any laws. Emmanuel Kant argued that individuals have the thinking capacity to decide what is wrong and right in given situations (Bowie 1999). Kantanian ethics argue that if humans follow universal rules of what is acceptable, choosing what is right in the situation would be easy. This theory further argues that ethical action should be voluntary and based on reasoning out what is wrong or right. According to Shaw (2013), people should internalize the duty to do what is right. In the case, McKinstry had the duty to do what is right as regard the Electronic company advertising account. Simple logic shows that it is wrong for a company to promote devices that endanger human life (Bowie 1999). All humans have a duty to protect human life and McKinstry should have considered this in making the decision on whether to act as the advertising agency for the Electronic Company. Marlyin Schaefer’s Ethical values show that she feels the duty to protect human Life. The associate refuses to involve herself in an undertaking to promotes devices that endanger human lives on the roads. The rights ethical theory gives the highest priority to the rights of members granted by that society (Crane and Matten 2010). Rights are validated by the fact that most people in the society have endorsed them. Kant’s theory also argues that people with the resources and ability to grant rights can do so. It follows that the most basic rights in society like right to life, right to freedom of expression and right to association are given high priority by this theory. In the case study, McKinstry will violate the right to life of the citizens by running an advertising campaign for gadgets that facilitate speeding on roads. The right to life is one of the basic rights and is upheld in every society in the world. McKinstry should put into consideration the rights of life of the road users it puts into risk by marketing radar sensors. Distributive justice is a theory that seeks to have all individuals involved in a decision making scenario treated fairly (Allingham 2014). Actions can only be inconsistent with ethical guidelines only in extenuating circumstances. Ethical decisions must always be supported by logic for them to be just. In this case, McKinstry’s action is not just to the society as lives will be endangered once the Drivers install the new radars sensor on their vehicles. Although the action may seem just to the manufacturers of the new radar devices many people will be harmed by the use of the radar sensors. Therefore, the decision to act as the advertising agency for the electronic is unethical under the distributive justice view of ethics. Question 5 In this case, the right action would be to reject the offer to market the new radar sensors for the electronic decision. First, McKinstry Advertising agency must realize that human lives are more important than the financial revenue they would get from the advertising company. McKinstry must also realize that promoting the firm’s products is unethical although there is no rule banning the sale of radar sensors. Already radar sensors have been linked with increase in speeding cases and an increase in accidents and severity of accidents. Under, the Kant’s ethical theory, McKinstry has a moral duty to protect lives that may be lost in speeding accidents. In addition, McKinstry must respect the right of life of the citizens of the states they operate in as prescribed by the rights ethical theory. Under, the constitution all citizens enjoy an unalienable right to life which should be respected as the most basic of human rights. However, McKinstry violates this right to life when it agrees to become the advertising agency for a firm that manufacturers and distributes radar sensors whose use endangers motorists. Its also unjust for road users to benefit from the revenue earned from selling devices that are clearly a safety hazard. Marilyn Schaefer’s moral stance that she cannot be involved in selling devices that endanger the lives of road users is right. McKinstry should make an ethical decision and therefore should not act as the electronics company advertising agency. References Allingham, M 2014, Distributive Justice, London, Routledge. Baron, DP 2003, Business and its Environment, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bowie, NE 1999, Business ethics: A Kantian perspective.Philpapers Carroll, A., & Buchholtz, A 2014, Business and society: Ethics, sustainability, and stakeholder management. Cengage Learning. Crane, A., & Matten, D 2010, Business ethics: Managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization. Oxford University Press. Hoffman, W. M., Frederick, R. E., & Schwartz, MS 2014, Business ethics: Readings and cases in corporate morality. John Wiley & Sons. Lo, B. (2009). Resolving ethical dilemmas: a guide for clinicians. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Shapiro, JP , & Stefkovich, JA 2010, Ethical leadership and decision making in education: Applying theoretical perspectives to complex dilemmas. Routledge. Shaw, W 2013, Business ethics: A textbook with cases. Cengage Learning. Velasquez, M. G., & Velazquez, M 2002, Business ethics: Concepts and cases (Vol. 111). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Read More