Ethics of marketing.

Ethics of marketing.

Hello again , this post was supposedly "supposed" to be finished about four weeks ago , but I've been so busy and unwilling to write anything with my "second language" lately , that this was undoubtebly published a bit too late. I apologize for any inconvenience.

Anyway , we spoke about the "ethics of marketing" in my English course 8 (which isn't mandatory , btw).There was this example of a woman suing a large Tobacco - company for "giving" her lung-cancer through their products.

It was a hilarious case , I tell you.

So anyway , this woman had been smoking cigarettes for around 20 years and all of a sudden (Oh , how's that possible ?!) received lung-cancer as a by-product. So , she decides to sue the company that made the cigarettes because , and I quote , "she was unaware of the health risks that tobacco produces". Yeah right , I say.

I mean , where had this woman been living in anyway ? In a fucking cave or something ?

Whatever the case , I'm sure she should've /could've obtained information about the dangers of smoking. I mean , it's not really that hard to be a target of anti-smoking campaigns , these days. And I'm sure things were pretty much the same 20 years ago (the 80's , ladies and gentlemen).

But then again , this woman could've been a very proper mixture of two things; naivé belief in commercials and stupidity. She was apparently one of those people that believe in seven-tailed monsters with purple umbrellas if they're shown on TV. I must admit that there must be people like this over here in this country as well , whereas this example came from the USA. But that just shows the stupidity of people , in my opinion. To think about it , do the big tobacco-companies really even have an obligation to warn about their products' healthrisks when the other medias constantly battle against smoking so aggressively ?

To me , the funniest way of showing this side of the deal was when the EU commission (or something closely related to it) passed a law that instructed the tobacco-companies to print a small sticker (that actually covers half of the packs logo) with these huge warning texts of "Don't smoke , it will kill you !" , "Smoking causes cancer !" etc.

It was just dumb. I'm sure it was publicly known even before this law was passed , that smoking does cause cancer along with other diseases. Why should the companies admit this ? Afterall , it's their product and openly admitting that "yeah , smokin OUR cigarettes is bliss , except that it causes cancer !!" would be the dumbest marketing-strategy ever. More so , in my opinion , something like this should be understood from the start by the consumer.

Yeah , the person who buys that stuff. It's not the position of the companies to bash their products in their marketing campaigns , and openly admit that they indeed do cause sicknesses when smoked for freakin' decades on end.

I'm sure it was scientifically proven even before these warning-stickers started appearing on the cigarette pack labels that smoking causes cancer. What ? Did it just accidentally became "official" when the EU demanded it ? I think not.

All of this comes down to you. You have been well briefed about the negative sides of smoking , now that you can't say. Still however , you continue to smoke like a chimney. It's you who makes the accounted risk. Yes, "you might get cancer or you might not" is the classical argument.

Still however , it's a big risk to take and moreover , it certainly isn't something to blame on the companies since it's still you who continues to smoke. Finally , of course , there's the part of "educating the uneducated"where in this case , it would be the children.

I know that alot of underaged kids/young people smoke. So what ? I disagree with it , but it's their choice. Yet again , they can't say they wouldn't have been warned about what happens if you smoke , and when they get cancer in their 40's or so.

If you can't take the advice , there's really no need for you bitch and complain afterwards either.The same thing is with this "obese" woman that I heard of in the US. She had also (why is it always the women , huh ?) sued her "grand supplier of junkfood" , which in this case was the McDonald's - company.


Where's the fucking logic in that , huh ?

You tell me , that a whole goddamn restaurant should be fined with million dollars on end because one of their customers chose to eat that shit and end up too fat ? You do not , my dear fucking lady , sue the company for that , since it's still you who shoves that shit down your throat. It's naivé to think that the restaurant was responsible for the womans poor health. No they fucking weren't. It was the woman herself who knew , or at least should've had the idea that eating that stuff will get you into such a condition. Fuck you for ever being so fucking stupid and ignorant to try something like that, ma'am.

By the way , I believe she lost the case.

Serves her right.