Internet Marketing and Morality

[ShadeDream]

I studied about optics and vision for two years under the guy who invented the latest (at the time) iteration of the method - it 's safe

To clarify, that doesn't mean it 's safe if a sloppy partitioner does it or if he uses really outdated equipment*. It means the method itself is safe. Lasik has a very low chance of things going wrong (naturally it can go wrong, since it 's still a surgical operation, not a band-aid). The reason Lasik got famous is exactly because of that - got the risk so low it became a cosmetic (think $$) operation.

*It 's like a car - modern cars are safer that older cars, you should pick a modern car

I see, but when it comes to an older car, I have more control over the car then I do over what happens to my eye over time even if the actual surgery is successful.

 

[azguru]

I think this argument should be more about how you promote, as opposed to what you promote. If you market ethically, you can't be blamed for negative long term repercussions because that removes all responsibility from consumers.

If you overhype a payday loan in a dishonest way, that is unethical.
If you present the facts, and the consumer is left to make an educated decision, that is ethical.

Payday loans, similar to anything you promote, are beneficial to certain people, so they have a purpose.

If you were to stop marketing certain products because people may misuse them, where would you draw the line?

People can misuse ANYTHING, even information.

In the end, it is up to the consumers to make the right choices for themselves. Of course, it is the marketers responsibility to hype the product, but present it accurately.

I think the moral here should be to market ethically: simple as that.

 

[IamNRE]

If it was about lasik, I 'd say you left money on that table - it 's very safe.

https://www.youtube.com/user/LASIKComplications/videos?view=0

 

[jazzc]

If you overhype a payday loan in a dishonest way, that is unethical.
If you present the facts, and the consumer is left to make an educated decision, that is ethical.

When you go buy a car, do you believe the seller or do you do your due diligence? The seller's only job is to exchange his merchandise for money and the buyers only job is to find the best merchandise for his money.

Yes, the seller can and probably lies. I don't suppose anyone is falling off the clouds hearing that. Does that mean that if I tell you I have the cure for stupidity (one bottle $1000, no wait for you $100, no wait, one-time special $19), you will buy from me? And if you do, congrats, you got your money 's worth

 

[jazzc]

https://www.youtube.com/user/LASIKComplications/videos?view=0

Thanks for the link, but I don't see how a youtube channel can counter my experience. (for me, I 'm not saying you should take my word, always question and investigate)

Search for Epi-Lasik (or lasek) to find out details about the success rates etc.

 

[carlikito]

Whatever happened to personal responsability?

 

[azguru]

When you go buy a car, do you believe the seller or do you do your due diligence? The seller's only job is to exchange his merchandise for money and the buyers only job is to find the best merchandise for his money.

Yes, the seller can and probably lies. I don't suppose anyone is falling off the clouds hearing that. Does that mean that if I tell you I have the cure for stupidity (one bottle $1000, no wait for you $100, no wait, one-time special $19), you will buy from me? And if you do, congrats, you got your money 's worth

I think we are saying the same thing here. I mentioned that consumers are responsible for their own actions, and marketers/salesmen should not be the scapegoat for negative repercussions.

My point was not to overhype a product in a misleading way. Building off of your car buying metaphor, if a salesman, who is responsible for accurately representing his/her product, were to tell you that the car will never break down, gets the best mileage in its class, and will get you laid in 24 hours or less, then all of these facts should hold true.

Because a car dealer is in a position where people trust his/her information regarding a car, it is the dealer's ethical responsibility to deliver accurate information.

Obviously, people should be smart enough to do their own research, but we live in a society of "followers."Not everyone is intelligent, and a lot of people buy into hype. It is a sad truth, but a truth nonetheless.

 

[zebrahat]

As a supporter of liberty, I say it's up to the consumer to sort out whether the choice to take a high risk loan, or drug, or whatever is to their own benefit or detriment. An analysis of pay day loans that focuses on the horror stories, without reviewing all the successful cases of people who have repaid the loans without problems, is an incomplete approach to understanding the morality of promoting them. Given we have the most financially and medically informed public of all time, is it our business to decide for others their choices, or let them make them and take responsibility for the outcomes?

What if it's more immoral to steal people's liberty, and the demands of the market, by depriving consumers from having such loan options available for them? What about the propaganda factor---is a negative media story about the loans put out to please traditional banking interests, who want to run the pay day loan industry out of business so they have no competition? How moral is that? Promoting an available product choice in a marketing campaign is not necessarily the same thing as advocating a poor or immoral use of it, nor is a product automatically by its nature immoral.

Marketers have to judge this case by case, of course, based on their own principles. Those inclined towards traditional morality probably shouldn't promote porn or swinger personals type affiliate products, for example, as by their own beliefs, these products necessarily advocate non-marital sex, prostitution or public immodesty. But the same marketers might promote sexy lingerie or sex toys, since the products could be used by married couples, thus would not be necessarily pushing sexual immorality. Non-religious folk may have no problem with this, of course, but may make marketing or other decisions about 'morality' that are just as bound by the context of their worldview.

Payday loans do not bankrupt people, people bankrupt people who shouldn't have made that choice in their situation. Marketing alternative health modalities or forms of treatment is also not immoral by itself, though over-hyping a product as 'cure' or acting like a doctor to a consumer in a specific case may be. And all the factors that bear on a moral overview of an issue over what to market, should be considered before being swayed by an emotional news story or two, which may have been created precisely to color a neutral issue in an "immoral" light.

 

[jazzc]

Building off of your car buying metaphor, if a salesman, who is responsible for accurately representing his/her product, were to tell you that the car will never break down, gets the best mileage in its class, and will get you laid in 24 hours or less, then all of these facts should hold true.

My point is that the seller is not morally obliged to tell you anything true. Not at all. Maybe he 's economically obliged to tell the actual facts (e.g. in cases of a doctor, he will lose repeat customers etc), but that 's it. The seller 's job is to maximize the price he can get.

Obviously, people should be smart enough to do their own research, but we live in a society of "followers."Not everyone is intelligent, and a lot of people buy into hype. It is a sad truth, but a truth nonetheless.

You have 2 buyers, one who invests time to do his due diligence and one who does not. The first one invests time and effort to minimize his risk and the other one gambles. Since time and effort are not free, it 's no wonder why people chose to trust a random stranger that only has to gain from them

 

[azguru]

My point is that the seller is not morally obliged to tell you anything true. Not at all. Maybe he 's economically obliged to tell the actual facts (e.g. in cases of a doctor, he will lose repeat customers etc), but that 's it. The seller 's job is to maximize the price he can get.

You don't think there is a moral/ethical obligation to accurately represent a product? After all, there is only so much research one can do.

I think that comes down to the fine line between a seller and a marketer. The guy who works at my local gas station (the seller) is in no way morally obligated to give me any information on the products in the store. If I buy a Snickers bar at the gas station, it is my responsibility to do my research.

That being said, Snickers (the marketer), has an obligation to be truthful about their products. If Snickers told people that their candy bars cured illnesses, they would be: a) lying b) convincing a lot of people that their product is something that it is not. Naturally, a lot of people would buy this product on a false pretense. While it could be argued that this could be blamed on the stupidity of the buyers, the whole situation was triggered by unethical advertising by Snickers. People trust authority. I don't know why, but they do. Media and marketing are very powerful authorities in the world, and their authority should not be abused.

After all, that is why the FTC exists and why the U.S. passes laws like the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, Consumer Product Safety Act, Pure Food and Drug Act, and more.

You have 2 buyers, one who invests time to do his due diligence and one who does not. The first one invests time and effort to minimize his risk and the other one gambles. Since time and effort are not free, it 's no wonder why people chose to trust a random stranger that only has to gain from them

I couldn't agree more on this one

 

[antichrist]

People make their own decisions in life. I will market to anyone that will listen.

 

[ShadeDream]

As a supporter of liberty,

If there was true liberty, there would be no need for payday loans in the first place.

 

[mickyfu]

People who are looking for payday loans are going to find one whether they come across your site or not. Therefore, there is nothing immoral about sites promoting these filthy loans. I used to think the same when I seen people blow thousands in one night gambling, but whether my site was there to show people the way or not, the same people would have still blew thousands that night. So the way I see it, is I might as well take my cut.

 

[jazzc]

You don't think there is a moral/ethical obligation to accurately represent a product? After all, there is only so much research one can do.

No, there isn't. Where competition is allowed, sellers will be obliged to eventually accurately represent the product, or they 'll go out of business. That 's why you see reputation management services etc.

I think that comes down to the fine line between a seller and a marketer. The guy who works at my local gas station (the seller) is in no way morally obligated to give me any information on the products in the store. If I buy a Snickers bar at the gas station, it is my responsibility to do my research.

That 's not consistent with your line of argument though. If a local gas station carries a brand and does not do his due diligence and does not inform you, he exploits your trust of him and is immoral (I 'm not actually saying that, I 'm just saying that based on what you said before, this is the natural conclusion).

People trust authority. I don't know why, but they do.

It 's easier to do so.

After all, that is why the FTC exists and why the U.S. passes laws like the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, Consumer Product Safety Act, Pure Food and Drug Act, and more.

It 's like child labor. First the economic circumstances made it obsolete, then the law followed

 

[jazzc]

If there was true liberty, there would be no need for payday loans in the first place.

How come?

 

[azguru]

No, there isn't. Where competition is allowed, sellers will be obliged to eventually accurately represent the product, or they 'll go out of business. That 's why you see reputation management services etc.

It's immoral to lie to people about what you are selling. While it may not be illegal in certain circumstances, it is certainly unethical.
Sure, society has its way of adapting to unethical marketing, and that is why companies go out of business, however, the argument is still the same. Lying about a product is unethical: that is basic morality. So, if you are an ethical marketer you are obligated by your own morals to portray a product accurately.

Of course, no one is forcing anyone to be an ethical marketer.

That 's not consistent with your line of argument though. If a local gas station carries a brand and does not do his due diligence and does not inform you, he exploits your trust of him and is immoral (I 'm not actually saying that, I 'm just saying that based on what you said before, this is the natural conclusion).

I wasn't referring to the gas station itself. I was referring to the guy working there. I don't think people see gas station workers as authoritative figures, nor do they really "sell" you on any particular product in the store.

It 's like child labor. First the economic circumstances made it obsolete, then the law followed

Nonetheless, the government has recognized marketing ethics as mandatory.

 

[ShadeDream]

How come?

The world would be a different place. No wars over oil, and bullshit like that.

 

[jazzc]

It's immoral to lie to people about what you are selling. While it may not be illegal in certain circumstances, it is certainly unethical.
[snip]
Lying about a product is unethical: that is basic morality. So, if you are an ethical marketer you are obligated by your own morals to portray a product accurately.

I know I 'm sounding extreme, but I do not agree. I measure morality based on personal freedom and property rights. With those as a scale, no it 's not immoral.

Sure, society has its way of adapting to unethical marketing, and that is why companies go out of business, however, the argument is still the same.

Semantics but it 's important: It 's not society, it 's the individuals who are acting. They are not adapting to unethical marketing, they are maximizing their profits.

I wasn't referring to the gas station itself. I was referring to the guy working there. I don't think people see gas station workers as authoritative figures, nor do they really "sell" you on any particular product in the store.

Sorry, I misunderstood. The argument extends to that guy though. If he knows the products are shit and tells you otherwise, he is immoral. (again, based on your line of thought)

Nonetheless, the government has recognized marketing ethics as mandatory.

I 'll generalize and point that that 's the job of the government, to impose its will to others - how moral is that?

 

[jazzc]

The world would be a different place. No wars over oil, and bullshit like that.

Yes it would be a different world indeed.

You 'd still have scarcity. And people who want money urgently. And for every demand, supply quickly comes to rescue

 

[azguru]

I know I 'm sounding extreme, but I do not agree. I measure morality based on personal freedom and property rights. With those as a scale, no it 's not immoral.

Webster defines morality as "of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior"
Ask a bunch of people if they think lying about a product is "wrong in behavior" and I think most of them would say yes.

Sorry, I misunderstood. The argument extends to that guy though. If he knows the products are shit and tells you otherwise, he is immoral. (again, based on your line of thought)

The gas station clerk does not actively sell you on any product - as in he is not trying to convince you to buy anything in particular. He is just ringing up your products and facilitating an exchange. In essence, he is the middle man. I don't think anyone would classify a gas station clerk as a marketer.

I 'll generalize and point that that 's the job of the government, to impose its will to others - how moral is that?

Well, now you are just starting a completely new debate lol


I don't foresee this debate reaching a conclusion, but you have some great ideas. I think we are on the same page to some degree, with slightly differing opinions. Personally, I just like debating, and it appears that you do too