Marketing is an activity of a company that is associated with the process of buying and selling of goods and services. The action of marketing involves advertising, delivering, and selling of products to people. The most important part of the marketing department is getting the attention of buyers through the use of slogans, design, packaging, media exposure, and celebrity endorsement. A lot of people believe that marketing comprises of only sales and advertising, which is a common misconception. Marketing, however, is all the processes that a company does in order to acquire clients and maintain a stable relationship with them. It is not only important for the company to acquire clients; it is equally significant for the company to maintain its already acquired customers (Murphy, 2005). Even the smallest tasks that the company is involved in to try and satisfy clients is also considered as marketing. For instance, the undertaking of writing thank-you letter to customers, engaging in sports activities with potential clients, or sharing a light moment coffee moments with the clients is considered an act of marketing. The definitive goals of marketing are matching a company’s products and services to the people who require it and thereby ensuring profitability of the company. Advertising is a type of marketing communication meant to promote or sell a product of service. Advertising also serves to reassure its employees and potential clients that the organization is still successful or viable. It falls under the marketing and public relation departments because not only does it promote a product, it is also meant to create a good impression for the company. Advertising is the main component of marketing which every company strives to strengthen (Murphy, 2005).
Intellectual property is the creation by a person for all the monopoly is dispensed to the selected owner by the law. Some of the creations include: inventions, symbols, names, artistic works, and imagery used in the field of business. Intellectual property is usually separated into two: copyright and industrial property. Industrial property comprise of patents for creations, trademarks geographic indications, and industrial designs. On the other hand, copyright covers literary works (for example plays, poems, and novels), music, movies, artistic works (e.g. paintings, drawings, photographs and sculptures), and architectural designs. Some of the rights associated with copyright are those of performing actors in presentation, broadcasters in radio and television, and producers of phonograms in recordings. Intellectual property rights operate just like all the others property rights. They pave way for the creators and owners of patent, copyrights, and trademarks to benefit from their own work. Intellectual property rights are outlined in the Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Hinduja, 2008). The article ensures that the right of benefiting from one’s creation. It is important that the intellectual property rights be protected because the progress and well-being of humanity depends on creations and inventions of new ideas in the field of science and technology. Further, the legal protection of inventions and creations heartens the commitment of scientists and the allocation of more resources for more advances. Finally, the protection and promotion of intellectual property stimulates the growth of the economy while creating employment opportunities and enhancing the quality of life. It is important that the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act regulates the safety of the product that is to be consumed by customers. More so, the health sector should be regulated and controlled so that companies do not manufacture killer drugs (Hinduja, 2008).
It has generally been established that ethics and social dependability are becoming important elements in the business contexts. This should put considered by company owners while marketing their products and services. The government should create strict prohibition on dangerous health products. Ethics are the ultimate values and principles that administer the actions and verdict of a unit or group. Ethical conflict in marketing arises in two different contexts: the disparity between the requirements of the corporation, society, and industry. The second conflict arises when the interests of an individual or organization vary. For instance, the instance where care manufacturing companies pose a threat to the environment but people still have to own cars. The companies impact the environment in a negative way but yet the manufacturing process cannot be stopped. Similarly, cigarette companies have adverse effect to the society as their products are lethal to the health of people (Akaah, 1989). They still produce the product and make people addicted to it although they put a warning on the packet. Every government does not have an answer to the questions. The government is silent on the issue because the sole responsibility lies with the society which pays heed to the social need like cars and cigarettes. People require cars and cannot survive without. Tobacco companies, on the other hand, complete their possibilities only by warning people that the products are harmful to their lives. They, however, do not take serious and practical steps to help people get rid of the dangerous product. The government should develop a keen interest on this matter. Equally, the media fraternity can forbid tobacco companies from advertising their products on national television (Murphy, 2005).
People sometimes false marketing of their products at the expense of truth and it is devastating. One of the ethical concerns in marketing is market research. The ethical issues associated with market research comprise the attack of confidentiality and stereotyping. The latter takes place because any psychiatry of real populations is required to make estimations and place people into groups. If it is conducted recklessly, the issue of stereotyping may result to a number of ethically undesired consequences. The second ethical issue in marketing is market audience. Selective marketing is used to daunt the claim from the un-desirable market divisions. Some of the unethical market exclusions include the past industry attitudes to the ethnic minority community, they gay people, and the plus-sized markets (Murphy, 2005). An insufficient skilled marketing ploy is another ethical issue that touches on the market audience. There is ethics in advertising and promotion as well. In 1940s, tobacco companies used to market their drug as that that promotes health among people. In the current era, a promoter who does not tell the whole reality of the product insults the principles in addition to the law. Nevertheless, the regulation authorizes puffery. Puffery is a legal word which means an exaggerated or false commendation or praise. Many advertisers do not give full information on a product. Some give false commendation on the product. The variation between puffery and deception is small. Sexual insinuation is the foundation of marketing contents. It is also considered a type of sexual annoyance. Some advertising can stoutly upset some individuals while it is of much concern to others. An example is the advertisement of feminine hygiene products together with the hemorrhoid and constipating medications (Murphy, 2005). The advertisement of condoms is also considered as a means of preventing AIDS while other perceives it as a means of promoting promiscuity.
Advertisers have also adopted negative advertising techniques. This is where the promoter addresses the weaknesses of the opponent product instead of the goodness of their product. The techniques are usually used in politics. The use of delivery channels is another type of ethical issue in marketing. The use of direct channels in marketing is a controversial advertising channel; especially when the approaches are uncalled-for. Examples are the TV adverts and direct emails. Telemarketing and electronic spam, on the other hand, drive the limits for the ethics and legality. Another ethical and legal issue in marketing is misleading advertising. This type of marketing and advertising is usually not precise to a particular goal; instead, the public may not notice it. There are various means in which misleading advertising can be offered to clients; one of the techniques is made possible by using humor. Normally, humor relieves some form of human constraint. The marketers take advantages of this to deceivingly advertise a produce which has the ability to ease the restraint through humor. Anti-competitive practice is another form of ethics in marketing. Bait and switch is the process where clients are ‘baited’ by advertisers advertising for a cheap product; then the clients discover that the product does not exists and they are recommended to ‘switch’ to the costlier product (Murphy, 2005). This is also planned obsolescence where a good with an incomplete useful existence is manufactured. So the product shall become out-of-date within a short duration of time which results to a lot of pressure on consumers to buy again. It is evident that PharmaCare violated a number of these ethical issues. First, the products it delivered were not up to standard. It was assumed that the drugs could reduce Alzheimer disease and they started selling the drugs to the patients. Secondly, they bribed doctors to give them a list of patients. This is extremely unethical and they can be charged for that.
Direct-to-consumer advertising by drug companies has been legal in the United States since 1985 but began operation in 1997 when the Food and Drug Administration eased up a rule requiring companies to present a list of side-effects of their drugs. Ever since, the industry has spent billions of dollars in promotion and advertising. The direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA), is misleading and costs American a lot of lives every year. The adverts are normally so convincing such that patients do not bother to research more on a particular type of medication. According to me, these adverts are not only persuasive, but also misleading. The pharmaceutical company is one of the biggest industries that make use of the DTCA. Today, big drug companies spend billions of dollars in advertisements to reach to clients and explain to them why they should keep using certain drugs. Also, the DTCA are deceptive in nature and drive up the cost of prescribing drugs (Hollon, 2004). The adverts evade the healthcare providers and sell their products directly to clients. This is risky because it is only doctors and medical care practitioners who have the mandate of prescribing drugs to patients. This trend will also affect the trouble U.S. healthcare system while producing a lot income for pharmaceutical and insurance corporations while costing health centers and patients a lot of funds The DTCA should be regulated in the United States because most pharmaceutical companies will manufacture substandard drugs just for profits. In addition, they should also list the side-effects of using the drugs. In the case of PharmaCare, it is through DTCA that it was able to reach many clients who were suffering from Alzheimer. Because they did not list the side-effects, many consumers of the drugs ended up dyeing of heart-attack (Hollon, 2004). The government should come and protect the health system and its citizens otherwise the profit-oriented drug stores will lead to the death of many people than terrorism. These companies should also be charged if found with such a case as PharmaCare.
The main regulator of pharmaceutical companies in the United States is the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This is a federal agency under the United States Department of Health and Human Services. The FDA has the role of protecting and promoting the health of the public through regulating and supervising food safety, dietary supplements, tobacco products, vaccines, and prescription and over-the counter pharmaceutical drugs, among other roles. The FDA was authorized by the American Congress to implement the Drug, Federal Food, and Cosmetic Act. These are the main focuses of the agency which also enforces laws. In the case of PharmaCare, it is the role of FDA to ensure that DTCA is minimized and that the products that reach to patients are effective and had no side-effects. FDA should also have ensured that the drugs from PharmaCare have a list of the side-effects involved when using the product. Another body that would have regulated the sale of drugs to the market is The Intellectual Property Regulation Board. The body registers copyrights and inventions by scientist, artists, among others (Kirsch et al., 2008). The body should have identified the inventor of the drug that was sold by CompCare and determine whether they are the main inventors. If they were not the main creators of the formula, the board had the mandate of suing the company. Due to the number of violations that PharmaCare and CompCare had committed, the FDA had the role of suing the company before the court of law for misleading the public and causing deaths. It will also be sued for negligence even after cases of heart attack cropped up. Also, the Intellectual Property Regulation Board should have sued the company for manufacturing a product for which they do not have intellectual property rights. The rights belong to John.
PharmaCare used the U.S. law to defend its intellectual property because it was the inventor of the AD23 drug. Although John may claim that he is the inventor, the law also accords the institution the mandate the own the product. The AD23 drug was invented by John when he was a researcher in the PharmaCare pharmaceutical. After he left the company, the company continued to manufacture the product without his consent and permission. The fact that John was the inventor; he has the intellectual rights on the manufacturing formula of producing the drug. Therefore, the company should compensate John for continuing to produce the drug without his consent. There are several ways in which the company can compensate John for producing the product. First, it should compensate him a certain percentage of all the sales made on the product since he left the company. Secondly, the company should give a public notice, through the media, that it ceases to manufacture the product and that the intellectual property right owner of the product shall be John. Finally, the company should pay all the taxes accrued to the sale of the product on behalf of John.
An example of a recent intellectual theft case is the stealing of more than $100 million of intellectual possessions and proprietary information from a number of corporations comprising of Microsoft. It was announced by the FBI that the hackers pleaded culpable to the offenses and are to be charged. The group had a scheme to perform a computer intrusion and criminal copyright violation which involved stealing of information concerning Xbox One gaming console and Xbox Live games. The FBI estimates that the cost of the stolen intellectual property together with other data to be between $100 million and $200 million. The hackers are expected to be sentenced in a United States District Court in Delaware (Warburton, 2014). The death of John’s wife and other litigants is a strong court case against PharmaCare. This is because the company caused the death of innocent citizens because of negligence and lack of proper prescription. John is the whistleblower in this case because he is the one who notified the public on the killer drug dispensed by PharmaCare to the public. He is the one who comes out to state that the drug was meant to be treat diabetes but it was diverted to be a medication for Alzheimer. John should be protected by the Whistleblower Protection ACT OF 1989 which is a United States federal law that has the mandate of protecting whistleblowers (Hinduja, 2008).
References
Murphy, P. E., Laczniak, G. R., Bowie, N. E., & Klein, T. A. (2005). Ethical marketing.
Akaah, I. P., & Riordan, E. A. (1989). Judgments of marketing professionals about ethical issues in marketing research: A replication and extension. Journal of Marketing Research, 112-120.
Hollon, M. F. (2004). Direct-to-consumer marketing of prescription drugs. CNS Drugs, 18(2), 69-77.
Kirsch, I., Deacon, B. J., Huedo-Medina, T. B., Scoboria, A., Moore, T. J., & Johnson, B. T. (2008). Initial severity and antidepressant benefits: a meta-analysis of data submitted to the Food and Drug Administration. PLoS Med, 5(2), e45.
Warburton, C. E. (2014). Intellectual Property Theft. The Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice.
Hinduja, S., & Ingram, J. R. (2008). Self-control and ethical beliefs on the social learning of intellectual property theft. W. Criminology Rev., 9, 52.
