Answers to essay questions in a quiz in Introduction to Marketing class;
What I see here are four ethics questions. They seem easy to answer at first, until you start taking action to resolve the problems. What I see is not a question of right or wrong; it is a question of how to implement the necessary changes.
Question 1 states the problem as being one where the inner city grocery stores are making a profit by selling to its consumers food that is not necessarily healthy for them. First of all, is any packaged food which is sold over the counter really healthy for you? This is a question that has raged ever since I was a kid, and before that. Packaging involves the use of preservatives, which, at best water down the overall quality of the food, and at worst put toxins in our bodies that are harmful. Aside from that, the problem becomes educating the local consumers to the fact that the store now carries quality food. 7-Eleven, Inc. has faced that on a grand scale ever since the 1990s. For one thing, Alcoholic beverages, cigarettes, and candy are high profit items, and are, therefore, the company’s bread and butter. Secondly, 7-Eleven had a reputation for poor quality food, which was brought on by the fact that hot dogs were very often left on the grill rollers too long (among other things). Since 2001, 7-Eleven has been trying to change people’s opinion of the stores by bringing in fresh foods on a daily basis. They are depending heavily on word of mouth to promote this idea (but I judge that this is only moderately successful); yet they still rely on the old standbys of beer, cigarettes, and candy for high profits. Therefore, in answer to the question, the biggest problem is that profitability is the biggest driver for stores, such as those inner city ones, and until they are willing to take a little bit of a loss (and advertise heavily), in order to build a long range reputation for quality, that is the way things will stand.
Question 2 states the fact that food costs more than it does in the suburbs, and wants us to place the ball squarely in the backyards of either the marketers or government and the church. I see a problem here. Primarily the fact that food costs so much in the inner city is directly related to the facts stated in Question 1. If food, as a product, doesn’t move as fast as it ought to, it has to be thrown away. That is because food has a limited shelf life. Therefore the marketer has to swallow whole the cost of the food item, as well as missing out on whatever profit the item would have brought in. Does the marketer have any responsibility to sell quality, healthy food? Sure he does, but it is profit that puts bread on the table. And if we are talking about major retailers like Safeway, Kroger’s, or Albertson’s, then we have to understand that the design of the system means that each individual store supplies its shelves out of the daily profits that store brings in. The corporation gleans off the top, while the individual store does all of the work. Now, as in the case of 7-Eleven, it can become the company’s mission to change the image and supply quality foods to its franchises and outlets; but in order to keep the price low, the company would have to eat the cost of the wasted food product, and that would (and does) eat into their profits.
Well, if the corporation will not lower the price, then maybe we can pass some laws that put a ceiling on the price tags of the food items. The companies would naturally balk at this idea, unless they were reimbursed for this by the government, and that ain’t gonna happen, Charley, because that would mean a tax hike, which the voters won’t go for. In addition, demanding that nonprofit organizations such as churches contribute isn’t likely to happen either, because you can’t force people to give when they don’t want to. Now churches and nonprofits often do establish things like food banks and soup kitchens for the homeless on their own accord, but it shouldn’t be expected of them. Once again, the answer is for the markets to educate the people that they will be carrying quality food that they will want to purchase and eat. This also answers Question 3, which asks if these institutions (government, schools, churches, etc.) should take over the function of getting nutritional food to the poor. The answer, for all of the above reasons, is no, unless, of course, they offer (and are willing) to do it.
Question 4 asks what I would do in this case if I were a grocery store owner. There is one point I haven’t mentioned, and that is that the kind of store that deals in sales of beer, cigarettes, and candy, often attracts what might be called an undesirable element. This element tends to scare away people who might otherwise be interested in buying a better quality food item. Many storeowners are scared to lose this clientele because of the money they spend. In actuality, however, providing better quality food is more likely to attract a better kind of clientele that will spend more money. Once again, this means educating the local consumers as to the fact that you are carrying a better quality of food. Jack-in-the-box suffered greatly from bad press about the quality of their food. In the 1980s, they tried to change their image with the “Food is better at the box” ad campaign. It took time, but they have succeeded to a great degree in the end. Now, if they could only improve their service.
Therefore, the issue isn’t really what is ethically right; it is how to achieve those goals. It takes time, money, and effort; which, translated, means great cost to the company. The company, using Jack-in-the-box as a model, needs to realize that the investment is harsh, but worthwhile in the end.
What I see here are four ethics questions. They seem easy to answer at first, until you start taking action to resolve the problems. What I see is not a question of right or wrong; it is a question of how to implement the necessary changes.
Question 1 states the problem as being one where the inner city grocery stores are making a profit by selling to its consumers food that is not necessarily healthy for them. First of all, is any packaged food which is sold over the counter really healthy for you? This is a question that has raged ever since I was a kid, and before that. Packaging involves the use of preservatives, which, at best water down the overall quality of the food, and at worst put toxins in our bodies that are harmful. Aside from that, the problem becomes educating the local consumers to the fact that the store now carries quality food. 7-Eleven, Inc. has faced that on a grand scale ever since the 1990s. For one thing, Alcoholic beverages, cigarettes, and candy are high profit items, and are, therefore, the company’s bread and butter. Secondly, 7-Eleven had a reputation for poor quality food, which was brought on by the fact that hot dogs were very often left on the grill rollers too long (among other things). Since 2001, 7-Eleven has been trying to change people’s opinion of the stores by bringing in fresh foods on a daily basis. They are depending heavily on word of mouth to promote this idea (but I judge that this is only moderately successful); yet they still rely on the old standbys of beer, cigarettes, and candy for high profits. Therefore, in answer to the question, the biggest problem is that profitability is the biggest driver for stores, such as those inner city ones, and until they are willing to take a little bit of a loss (and advertise heavily), in order to build a long range reputation for quality, that is the way things will stand.
Question 2 states the fact that food costs more than it does in the suburbs, and wants us to place the ball squarely in the backyards of either the marketers or government and the church. I see a problem here. Primarily the fact that food costs so much in the inner city is directly related to the facts stated in Question 1. If food, as a product, doesn’t move as fast as it ought to, it has to be thrown away. That is because food has a limited shelf life. Therefore the marketer has to swallow whole the cost of the food item, as well as missing out on whatever profit the item would have brought in. Does the marketer have any responsibility to sell quality, healthy food? Sure he does, but it is profit that puts bread on the table. And if we are talking about major retailers like Safeway, Kroger’s, or Albertson’s, then we have to understand that the design of the system means that each individual store supplies its shelves out of the daily profits that store brings in. The corporation gleans off the top, while the individual store does all of the work. Now, as in the case of 7-Eleven, it can become the company’s mission to change the image and supply quality foods to its franchises and outlets; but in order to keep the price low, the company would have to eat the cost of the wasted food product, and that would (and does) eat into their profits.
Well, if the corporation will not lower the price, then maybe we can pass some laws that put a ceiling on the price tags of the food items. The companies would naturally balk at this idea, unless they were reimbursed for this by the government, and that ain’t gonna happen, Charley, because that would mean a tax hike, which the voters won’t go for. In addition, demanding that nonprofit organizations such as churches contribute isn’t likely to happen either, because you can’t force people to give when they don’t want to. Now churches and nonprofits often do establish things like food banks and soup kitchens for the homeless on their own accord, but it shouldn’t be expected of them. Once again, the answer is for the markets to educate the people that they will be carrying quality food that they will want to purchase and eat. This also answers Question 3, which asks if these institutions (government, schools, churches, etc.) should take over the function of getting nutritional food to the poor. The answer, for all of the above reasons, is no, unless, of course, they offer (and are willing) to do it.
Question 4 asks what I would do in this case if I were a grocery store owner. There is one point I haven’t mentioned, and that is that the kind of store that deals in sales of beer, cigarettes, and candy, often attracts what might be called an undesirable element. This element tends to scare away people who might otherwise be interested in buying a better quality food item. Many storeowners are scared to lose this clientele because of the money they spend. In actuality, however, providing better quality food is more likely to attract a better kind of clientele that will spend more money. Once again, this means educating the local consumers as to the fact that you are carrying a better quality of food. Jack-in-the-box suffered greatly from bad press about the quality of their food. In the 1980s, they tried to change their image with the “Food is better at the box” ad campaign. It took time, but they have succeeded to a great degree in the end. Now, if they could only improve their service.
Therefore, the issue isn’t really what is ethically right; it is how to achieve those goals. It takes time, money, and effort; which, translated, means great cost to the company. The company, using Jack-in-the-box as a model, needs to realize that the investment is harsh, but worthwhile in the end.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment