Please Look at attached word docx Week 8 Responses for example.
Your responses to your classmates’ post need to be more than “I agree/disagree.” You need to elaborate and explain why you agree or disagree, and you may even want to ask additional questions, share opinions or add extra information.
There are total 6 posts, minimum 80 words for each post.
Please reply to the instructor’s comment thoroughly in order to get points.
Good discussion of this scenario 1. You are correct, in that the secretary is entitled to overtime pay, and giving her comp time would result in penalties.
However your Scenairo 2 graded 60%, rewrite or further explain to get a higher grade. Although this is in an employment-at-will state, the company can’t fire these employees for their unionization activities. The workers are protected by the National Labor Relations Act. This Federal law would pre-empt the state law.
Scenario 1: This scenarios poses the situation of a secretary who works their 40 hours a week, plus overtime on Friday. The employer then offers the secretary the opportunity to come in later on Saturday morning, in an effort to compensate for working overtime. The question here is whether the employer is in compliance with the law, and if not, then what are the possible consequences to the employer?
In this case, the employer is most definitely not in compliance with the law. This is because the Fair Labor Standards Act ensures that “non-exempt” employees must receive overtime pay when they work over 40 hours per week. (Hamilton & Nilson, Pg. 392) As much as an employer would want to offer different ways make the employee happy in an attempt to compensate for the worked overtime, these efforts are wasted since the employee is entitled to overtime due to the law. Therefore, time off cannot be used as a substitute for overtime pay. (Hamilton & Nilson, Pg. 392)
If the employer really did attempt to offer time off instead of overtime pay, the employer would be looking at potential penalties. More specifically, the employer may have to backpay the overtime, including interest and extra penalties. (Hamilton & Nilson, Pg. 394) This is why it is important for an employer to pay attention to the hours the employees are working. Regardless if the overtime was authorized or if the employer overlooked the amount of hour the employee worked that week, if an employee works, they get paid.
Scenario 2: This scenario takes place within South Carolina, an employment at will state. This means the employees within this state are able to quit as well and be fired anytime for any reason or no reason at all. The employees in this scenario are attempting to unionize, and the question is regarding the companies legal risks if it chooses to let go the employees without reason.
The company will endure some legal risks if they choose to let go the employees in this situation. Even in an employment at will state, the National Labor Relations Act guarantees employees the right to organize into unions of their own choosing and prohibits employers from interfering. (Hamilton and Nilson, Pg. 399) Therefore, in this case, letting go of these employees would be a wrongful discharge. It is important to note here that even though South Carolina is an employment at will state, there are limits. This is why companies in employment at will states should still require their employees to sign documents acknowledging they’re working in an employment at will state and clearly document every time an employee is disciplined or counseled. (Hamilton & Nilson, Pg. 398) If the employees are wrongfully discharge, they may be entitled to reinstatement of their job, back pay, money for their damaged personal reputation, and money for mental anguish endured because of the termination. (Hamilton and Nilson, Pg. 389)
Scenario 2: The National Labor Relations Law (NLRA), also known as the Wagner Act, prevents an employer from terminating an employee for pursuing union rights. Although South Carolina is an at-will state, the NLRA protects the employees from being terminated for unionizing the shop. Termination for this would not hold up in court and could cost the company a lot of money in damages.
Scenario 3: Under the Affordable Care Act, a large business must provide health insurance to full-time employees. A large company has 50 or more full-time employees, and a full-time employee is someone who works 30+ hours a week. The law does not explicitly say that your employer is required to inform you or provide advanced warning of termination of employment; however, some states do have laws requiring notification. (Sherman, 2018)
Great article. I agree with your moral reserve to autonomous drones. Really well thought out post this week! I especially liked how you broke down the relationship between natural law and utilitarianism.
Popular literature on drone pilots has moved toward a focus on the psychological damage done to some pilots, who feel they have been morally compromised or otherwise harmed by their role in killing (Jurecic, 2015). According to a GQ article on an Air Force MQ-1 Predator pilot Brandon Bryant, “…when flying missions, he sometimes felt himself merging with the technology, imagining himself as a robot, a zombie, a drone itself. Such abstractions don’t possess conscience or consciousness; drones don’t care what they mean, but Bryant most certainly does” (Power, 2013).
Do you feel that remote pilots are placed into an ethical dilemma similar to that of the trolley problem? Foot’s version of the Trolley Problem is said to present a conflict between two negative duties (MacKinnon & Fiala, 2017, p. 161-162). Do you feel remote pilots face two negative duties?
This area leaves a great amount of ethical dilemma possibility. For example, if a drone targets a civilian vehicle it perceived as militant, who is accountable? The programmer? The government of the drone? etc. As just war theology states, not to harm innocent or non-combatants, how do we control this from an autonomous perspective?
The Pros and Cons of Drone Warfare (2:54)
The speaker point of view on the topic of drone strikes is the pros and cons about the use of drone and drone strikes in warfare. The speaker is not bias because he just speaks with facts and historical instances. He does not insert his opinion on whether drone strikes are ethical or not.
The speakers talks about the possibility of drone operators getting a PlayStation mentality. It could lead to a disconnect of the operators from the warzone. Instead of realizing they are taking actual human lives, they might view it more as a video game.
I think the use of drone technology has moral and ethical implications. While it is safer to send drones into warzones then your traditional but it can cause operators to disconnect from the battlefield and possibly lead to operators not valuing the human lives they take.
I do agree with the speaker’s point of view. He stayed impartial during the entire video only giving the pros and con of the usage of drone. I agree with both pros and cons and can see validity in both arguments for usage and against usage.
Extreme Ownership (13:49) – Jocko Willink
We have a moral obligation to acknowledge, own, and act on things within our control. Ownership is key to solving ethical dilemmas. I believe the speaker is unbiased. He presents his rationale, but equates it to life and business as well.
Consequentialism and utilitarianism, which are very similar. He offers to us a way to increase our utilitarian position by using consequentialism to identify and rectify dilemmas. This can be applied to ethical questions.
I support the use of drone technology to limit the impact on societies. Aside from the many arguments of drone usage, I believe the impact is far less than occupation of a territory.
I completely agree with the speaker’s point of view. It can be applied to ethics in all walks of life. Identify the problem, take ownership of the problem, identify the solution, take ownership of the solution and implement it. This is a great moral ground to establish with everything we do; as consumers, as laborers, as educators, as parents, as children, as people.
Great analysis! I agree that the US, as well as all advanced nations, have an obligation to help impoverished societies. I like how you supported the idea that we are taking away the very individuals that should stay and contribute to their nations. I have never thought of that point of view before. Using this tactic, we are hindering the possible economic impact of having these individuals develop their communities and infrastructure. Would an educational exchange program benefit these communities more? Do we, as an advanced nation, have an obligation to share collegiate wealth and educate those in less developed societies? Would that provide the foundation for their economic growth?
Benjamin Conard, “Fair trade, a just world starts with you”
The speaker shares an important point that the reason why the world is suffering from high rate of poverty is because people do not embrace and make use of fair trade. For this reason, the people in the lowest levels of production for instance farmers and factory workers only receive the slightest portion of the massive profits made by companies and their shareholders. In the video, Benjamin claims that the members of the society have an individual responsibility of fighting world poverty. This is through buying products bearing fair trade marks as such organizations are against unfair labor practices like sweatshops and underpaying farmers and workers. the speaker also claims that just like the consumers demand supply, they should also demand adequate production process.
The ethical issue and reasoning being argued is having some individuals in the production of goods and services being oppressed and denied their proper pay and the benefits goes to the few rich people. The speaker argues that this is the reason why the world has a high number of poor people who are the main laborers while as those that labor less enjoys the revenues and profits.
I believe that world poverty issues have moral and ethical implication. World poverty issues are caused by a few individuals that are hard to handle. For world poverty to go down, some rich and wealthy people requires being ethical so that they stop suppressing their workers and those trying to climb the success ladder and instead try to offer them platforms through which they can succeed. In overall, I agree with the speakers’ point of view. I believe that the world has been shaped such that it economically suits a certain class of people at the expense of majority’s hard work and limited pay. Children are being involved in cheap labor causing them bad health while the bosses are reaping millions of dollars. It is only an ethical change that would require people to make the change from individual levels that can help eradicate world poverty.
Ethical Consumerism and The Power of Having a Choice/Voice (17:57) – Jason Garman
We use our voice and ethical means of purchasing power to drive companies to incorporate more ethical practices.
We have a moral obligation to protect the intrinsic value of those being effected by globalization. We can use ethical consumerism to empower companies to operate on a more ethical basis.
I believe advanced societies, such as the US, EU, and Britain, have a moral/ethical implications due to the nature of our purchasing habits. We are the primary consumers of goods provided by primarily underdeveloped societies. Therefore, it is our duty to provide ethical consumption of these goods and ensure we are contributing to the progress in these societies.
I do agree, especially from a standpoint of proportional compensation. As a main driver in globalization, the US and its corporations are ethically bound to provide minimum compensation to the nations and societies we purchase from. The exchange rate should be considered, as well as margin, when dealing with these societies. Otherwise, we are driving the expansion of poverty by continuing the practices that leave the workers wanting.
Ethics are fundamental in biotechnology that is meant to research all forms of diseases. Biotechnology research has increased the knowledge on conditions, improved treatment, and accelerated the pharmacotherapy for the most infectious diseases. It has also improved the genetic understanding of organ transplants and other delicate surgeries possible.
Paul Root shares his argument about bioengineering. He says that most animals are being undertaken through bioengineering practices to develop more quality species of the same animals. He says that human beings have historically evolved, and they are extending this evolution to the other animals. This spirit of development brought about the cloning of various animals such as sheep, mice, monkeys, and tigers. These biotechnology engineering practices improve the species of the existing ones. He adds that the techniques have been practiced on human bodies where the bioengineers can determine the kind of people the planet will have in the future. These practices should. However, not any biological harm to the lives of the people have (Harfouche et al., 2021)
Lee Dongs gives her argument about genetically modified organisms. She uses the example of watermelon and banana to show the example of genetically modified models. She says that fruit plants have been undergoing continuous genetic editing. She adds that GMO products have been stigmatized more than the use of pesticides to the fruits. She concludes that the pesticides might be more hazardous as they instill harmful chemicals into subsistence crops. When modifying the genetics of an organism, one should not create a threat to the intrinsic value of the organism and its integrity (Harfouche et al., 2021)
The integrity of the species to the ecosystem should not be altered during the modification of the organism. The amendment should result in the production of the more dependent organism in the ecosystem. The potential harm to the health of the consumers should also be considered during modification of the organism, damage to the environment, and also effect on the naturalness of the organism after conversion (Ong et al., 2020)
The use of cloning to resurrect life is discussed in one of the videos. The concept of cloning begins with a single cell passed through an electrical charge to break the membrane, then the cell to be cloned is added with some chemicals. The two are hen kept in a conditioned petri dish for development. Cloning can lead to the development of new species that are adapted to the changing climate. The idea of cloning should be accompanied by specific ethical practices that balance the ecosystem. Revival and restoration of organisms by cloning can be functional only if it is ethically practiced (Ong et al., 2020)
There is no doubt that biotechnology has numerous benefits. However, its ethics has been questions especially on the basis of safety, religious beliefs, environment, human nature, justice, and liberty. Safety is perhaps one of the biggest concerns of biotechnology. Many people caution that genetically engineered organisms would alter and endanger the environment and endanger the health of humans. According to critics, biotechnology-based medicine drastically changes the body and mind of humans and this could lead to harmful consequences. It is believed that these changes may be manifest in the unforeseeable future.
In the video The Ethical Dilemma of Designer Babies Paul Knoepfler’s view on modifying the way babies are being made is that people being able to design their own child would lead to numerous problems. It would open Pandoras box. The process would be nothing more than a profit instead of being used for the purpose of finding ways to cure things such as diseases. I think the speaker was unbiased because he is a stem cell and genetics researcher. He explains the good that can come out of using genetic modified embryos and the bad and how we could open up pandoras box.
There were a few issues mentioned on what could happen if people are able to profit from designing a child. The intention is to use it strictly as research, not for it to be abused and misused. Paul mentions a family that had a child naturally and another family that used genetic modified embryo. He explains how the children might feel different towards each other because the gm child is exceeding expectations while the other child is at a lower level. There is a ethical issue presented with society thinking that gm children are better than children who are not modified.
I think that bio-engineering have moral and ethical issues. It is allowing people to alter what is natural. It is creating something different. We should be cautious to what we are altering and how it affects the future of humans.
I do agree with the speaker he mentions that there should be laws that draw the line and restricts people from taking advantage of the process. I think it is very useful when using it to change genetic disorders that are passed down between generations. It could help a lot of people but there must be a line drawn somewhere.
The technology of designer babies is vital because it helps in selecting and altering the genetic makeup of babies by adding or removing genes that are likely to be associated with a disease. This leads to an improved person who is resistant to diseases and carries many desirable gene characteristics. One ethical issue related to this process is the question of man playing God. Many of those criticizing the process leading to designer babies argue that man does not have the moral authority of deciding important creation issues such as the composition and structure of a human gene.
In 1967, the U.S., Russian Federation, and the UK signed the Outer Space Treaty which became the basis for international space law. The countries agree that exploration and use of outer space should be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and should be the province of all mankind; outer space should be free for exploration and use by all States; and outer space should not be subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, through use or occupation, or by any other means (Hamilton and Nilsson, 2020). Nations agreed that nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction should not be placed in orbit or celestial bodies or station them in outer space. The moon and other celestial bodies should be for peaceful purposes and astronauts should be regarded as envoys of mankind. Signed states should also be responsible for national space activities whether carried out by the government or non-governmental entities; States should be liable for damage caused by space objects; and states should avoid the harmful contamination of space and celestial bodies (Hamilton and Nilsson, 2020).
In 2019, the U.S. Space Force was created to project “military power in, from, and to space…”. Since weapons and other weapons of mass destruction are not allowed in space, would Space Force be illegal? Because the use of military personnel for peaceful purposes is allowed under the Outer Space Treaty (OST), and the United States’ interpretation of peaceful purposes does not exclude military activity, the Space Force is arguably legal under international law (Fukazawa, 2020).
The United States and Russia disagree with the meaning of “peaceful purpose” upon which the OST is premised, the U.S. interprets peaceful purpose as broadly as “non-aggressive” and Russia interprets it narrowly as “non-military” which may create conflict in the future of space activities.
The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 was a game changer in terms of regulating how nations should use the outer space. This treaty rubbed some nations the wrong way and they came out protesting some clauses within it. For example, a number of countries affected by the treaty met in Bogota, Colombia, in 1976 to complain that their resources had been unfairly curtailed by the treaty’s article that declares that outer space is not subject to national appropriation. This meeting led to Bogota Declaration which sought to affirm sovereignty of 8 equatorial countries over those parts of the GEO (geostationary orbit) that lie continuously over the territory of these countries.
This scenario involves identifying and describing the current FAA pilot and medical certification requirements for civil spacecraft flight crew members. The FAA was required to establish pilot requirements for commercial spaceflight operations by the Commercial Space Launch Amendment Act of 2004. (Hamilton & Nilson, Pg. 21) This includes rules on certifications, training, and medical requirements to act as pilots and crewmembers of commercial spacecraft.
Under current regulation, pilots of commercial spaceflight operations are required to have a private pilot license, hold an instrument rating, and harbor the aeronautical skills and experience necessary to pilot and control the vehicle. (DOT, 2006) In addition, the pilot or remote operator must receive training for each mission specific phase of flight and mode of propulsion by use of a training device that simulates flight, or actual aircraft flight test; and train in procedures that direct the vehicle away from public in the event the vehicle must be abandoned during flight. (Cornell Law, 2021)
Each crew member, including the pilot, must hold an FAA 2nd Class Medical given by an approved Aviation Medical Examiner within twelve months of the occurring launch date. Additional requirements of all crewmembers also consists of training for each critical role that would assist in safeguarding the vehicle from the public in the event of a malfunctions, vehicle abort procedures, and all emergency situations. (Cornell Law, 2021)
Personally, I must say I am quite amazed on how lenient the regulations are for pilots of spaceflight operations. After reading this material, it seems that airline pilots have way more requirements than astronauts being they have to hold a first class medical, have 1,500 hours of flight time, and many more requirements. Although the regulations do include language like “pilots must harbor the aeronautical skills and experience necessary to pilot and control the vehicle,” this information is quite vague and could consist of years of experience or minimal experience if the space vehicle is automated and requires little input by the pilot.
In my opinion, this goes to show the infancy of commercial space operations in America. I absolutely believe the regulations are too lenient and would not assure adequate safety to the crew and public, but I also believe the regulations will be updated as more commercial flights of manned spacecraft begin. For now, I suppose it is up to the specific company the pilots fly for to create their own requirements that at minimum meet the legal requirements and are more intense than the one’s provided by the FAA.
In my research, I also found that NASA, which is responsible for space and aeronautical research program, requires pilots and flight engineers to fulfill medical certification requirements corresponding to FAA class I medical certificate examination which should be renewed once a year. For other key crew members, the medical certification requirements correspond to those of the FAA Class III medical certificate examination renewed on an annual basis. Some of the medical standards for these certifications distant and near vision, intermediate vision, color vision, hearing, and audiology, all of which are vital for proper flight management.
Aviation parts on certified aircraft have to be held to a higher standard than automotive or marine parts. If the mechanic placed an automotive alternator from a junkyard into an aircraft, he absolutely has committed a few crimes.
The crimes committed fall within 18 U.S.C 38. Specifically, 18 U.S.C 38.A.1 paragraphs A,B, and C states “Offenses – whoever in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly and with the intent to defraud – falsifies or conceals a material fact concerning any aerial or space vehicle part, makes any materially fraudulent representation concerning any aircraft or space vehicle part, and makes or uses any materially false writing, entry, document, record, data plate, label or electronic communication concerning any aircraft or space vehicle part.” Section 2 of this statue also forgoes the sales, trade, transactions, and install of these products.
Therefore, the first crime was committed when he chose to conceal the alternator by cleaning it up and painting it to look like a nice aircraft part. Second, he forged a data plate which aided in further fraudulently representing it as an aircraft part. Third, he would also have to write a logbook entry which likely included the fraudulent part number and/or serial number of the automotive alternator. The final crime was committed when he charged the customer for the same price of a new aircraft alternator.
There are penalties for these crimes regardless if death resulted. However, if the pilot-owner did get killed in an accident resulting from the fraudulent alternator, the mechanic is looking at some pretty heavy penalties. 18 U.S.C 38.B.1 though 18.U.S.C.B.5 state the penalties associated with these crimes. If death resulted because of his crimes, he could be facing a fine of not more than $1,000,000 and/or imprisonment for any number of years or life. (Hamilton & Nilson, Pg. 369) In addition, there are civil remedies, falling under Part C of this same statue, that would affect the mechanic and those he was involved with. This may include the courts ordering a person to destroy or dispose of any parts used or associated with creating the alternator, impose restrictions on his future repair work (if he’s granted a future), impose restraining orders, and the forfeiture of any property constituting as a direct result of the offense. (Hamilton & Nilson, Pg. 371)
The mechanic has clearly violated all the three sub-sections (A, B, and C) of Title 18 of U.S. Code, Section 38. His was a deliberate action that was inspired by greed and desire to make money. He intentionally presented a fake alternator, used it to repair an aircraft, and falsely certified the repair. In addition to being fined a hefty fine not exceeding $1 million or an imprisonment of a period not exceeding 10 years, or both, the mechanic should also be permanently barred from the industry as he has violated 49 U.S.C 44726 (denial of certificate).
The airplane has two seats, and although the owner-pilot isn’t FAA-certified as a mechanic he does have some mechanical aptitude. He fabricates a fuel tank that fits into the other seat where he can secure it with the restraint harness and has a quick-disconnect fuel line, so he can pull the tank out when he arrives at the airshow site, fly his routine without it, then quickly re-install it for the flight home. He takes it up for a local flight test and it works fine.
Has he committed any crimes?
As part of 49 U.S. Code § 46306 – Registration violations involving aircraft not providing air transportation (n.d.), an aircraft may not be operated “…with a fuel tank or fuel system that has been installed or modified knowing that the tank, system, installation, or modification does not comply with regulations and requirements of the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration.” By placing a modified fuel tank on the interior of the aircraft’s cabin for temporary use, which is not an approved application for the aircraft, he violates 49 U.S. Code § 46306 and can receive a fine or prison time under U.S. Code Title 18.
If so, what are the possible penalties he may face?
If the pilot utilizes a modified fuel system that is not an approved application for the aircraft type and model, the pilot could be fined under U.S. Code Title 18 of not more than $15,000 and/or imprisoned for up to 3 years (Hamilton & Nilsson, 2020). Not sure the possible fine and prison time is worth the inconvenience of a few fuel stops along the way to the airshow.
The U.S aircraft owner-pilot has some mechanical aptitude, but is not certified to do any aircraft repair, leave alone fabricating his aircraft’s fuel tank. His actions constitute a violation of federal aviation regulations prohibiting him from doing such a repair without a mechanic’s certificate with an appropriate FAA rating. Further, he violates section (c) of 14 CFR § 91.203 which prohibit any individual from operating an aircraft with a fuel tank installed in the passenger or baggage area.
Yes, pilots should be required to go through the same pre-boarding screening as passengers. No person is above the influence of outside factors. As a person in the military, I understand that outside entities would love to have access to the information and the facilities entitled to my job. They can achieve this by leveraging any number of things. A good example of this is debt, debt can be used to persuade someone to do something they otherwise wouldn’t. Say an outside organization found out about debt (that a pilot had) and offered money to the pilot to take items from location to location. Depending upon the circumstances that pilot may be inclined to take the offer. Pre-boarding screenings would prevent any illegal substance from entering that aircraft.
Another concern would be firearms, explosive materials, or any other items which could disrupt the integrity of the pressurized cabin. Pilots are not required to go through any pre-screening procedure (besides those required to fly) and I see this as a potential issue.
Screening a pilot before he/she embarks flight is definitely good practice. It helps detect any illegal drugs or weapons that the pilot may carry into the flight. However, I am of the opinion that this kind of screening does not eliminate the danger to the flight that may be posed by the pilot. For example, if the pilot has some mental issues and decides that he/she will crash the aircraft, screening will not prevent this. Pilots have a huge responsibility in a flight and their intentions cannot be detected by a mere pre-boarding screening.
I find it reasonable to require all airline passengers to submit to full-body imaging and pat-down pre-boarding searches because the greatest weapon is the mind. If someone wants to cause harm, they will do whatever it takes, regardless of age or disorder, to accomplish their goal. To a terrorist, these are prime suspects of opportunity because our society has a soft spot for innocence. A small child that is permitted to pass thru a security check may very well have had a weapon placed on his person. All it takes is one mistake of letting this child thru and a terrorist has accomplished his/her goal.
I agree that every airline passenger should be subjected to a full-body imaging and pat-down pre-boarding searches. With the advancement in technology, terrorists are capable of using every opportunity to execute their terrorist plans. Children and people with disabilities should be searched just like everybody else, provided that proper safety procedures and all other precautions are put into consideration. The daring nature of terrorists and other criminals can make them do anything to achieve their goal, including using children and people with disabilities to execute their plans.
Response: Hindsight is 20-20. Was the crisis response and communication effective? Compare and contrast alternative digital communication efforts and provide alternative recommendations.
Ever since its inception on 28h August 1937, Toyota Motor Corporation has been well-revered due to its automobiles, luxury vehicles, engines as well as commercial vehicles. The firm is currently among the topmost automotive entities in the international market, with over 300,000 employees working towards the attainment of global dominance. Ted Talk (2010) highlights that the firm’s fame and popularity come down to its marketing techniques which combine both direct and digital methods to address the needs of its defined segments. The subsequent essay presents an expository analysis of the marketing tactics under the auspice of the thesis that they helped the firm retain its global position after the recall incident.
Toyota is well known for its direct marketing techniques, which target defined segments of people between the ages of 45 and 64 years. The main reason why the firm identifies this segment as vital is that the people are accustomed to replacing their car every 3 to 4 years while planning for the purchase (Marketing Week, 2009). The firm uses its representatives to establish a direct link with information being doled out on the wide choice of cars that suit their needs. Most of the information focuses on lower emissions and better fuel economy without compromising on performance.
The digital marketing strategy, on the other hand, involves the use of social media to engage the audience. The firm has used social media channels to increase trust through the development of emotional appeals for its vehicles. Furthermore, the channels allow customers to ask open-ended questions and communicate their experiences with the products (Wasserman, 2011). With increased customer interactions comes an influx in the feedback rates, which helps Toyota to boost its performance, product quality, and consumer retention rates.
The firm was faced with quality issues between 2009 and 2011 that saw them recalling at least 2.3 million vehicles. Research shows that the quality issues stemmed from the fact that some of its cars experienced unintended acceleration, which posed a threat to the lives of the drivers and passengers (Wasserman, 2011). Furthermore, the firm noted that the accelerator pedal had a mechanical sticking which caused increased acceleration.
In order to protect its brand, Toyota used a social media platform called Digg to communicate with its customers. The president recorded a video answering questions on the crisis, which was then posted on the social media platform (Wasserman, 2011). The interview, which ran for 28 minutes, helped the firm show its customers that it cares about their well-being. In due summation, the combination of direct marketing and digital methods of marketing has helped Toyota expand its dominance in marketing. Online marketing also allowed the firm to reach out to its customers during the recall period with any questions and issues being addressed. The end outcome was an influx in trust in the firm due to its transparency rates.
The decision by Toyota to use the Digg platform to recall its faulty vehicles was a wise one. At the time, the platform was quite popular and had significant social influence. Thus, Toyota was sure to reach a wide audience by using the platform. In 2009, Digg had between 37 million and 44 million unique visitors on average per month. In addition, the site had immense influence regarding news searches on Google. Thus, it was the best site for Toyota to send a message to its customers at the time.
This week discussion is on Nestle Company and the Greenpeace and environmental protection group protested back in 2010. The protest was about Nestle’s use of palm oil that’s endangering Orangutans in Indonesia. A YouTube video mimicking Nestle’s Kit Kat advertisement had gone viral highlighting the Orangutan finger being eaten as a chocolate bar with blood dripping out. The video was a protest to highlight how Nestle Company’s harvesting of palm oil in Indonesia is destroying the habitats of Orangutans. Video link provided: greenpeace – kitkat – Ask Nestlé CEO to stop buying palm oil from destroyed rainforest. The company’s reaction was to contact YouTube and have the video removed because of copyright infringement. The video was removed, but only fueled the cause to have the video posted to other forums like video-sharing Web site, Vimeo.com, and Twitter (Paul Armstrong, CNN March 20, 2010). Instead of addressing the situation head-on, Nestle’s response caused public outrage and only added more ammunition to the protestors caused. Which led to the viral outbreak of criticism on Nestle, as well as bad publicity damaging the company’s image and reputation. The careless actions that Nestle took to quell a negative opinion of their brand on YouTube was to delete it and ignore it. Which only made matters worse because it sent a message to their consumers that they didn’t care who they hurt to make their products to make money. Nestle could have avoided all the bad publicity on social media if they had faced their protestors head on instead of trying to hide it by the actions they have taken.
The ad by Greenpeace was great, but unfortunately it did not stop Nestle CEO from using palm oil in manufacturing chocolates. Shortly after this ad went viral in 2010, Nestle was suspended from using palm oil in its products. The suspension was executed by Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) but did not last long. It was discovered that Nestle and other similar companies deceived their customers that they were using segregated, certified-sustainable palm oil in its Australian chocolate factory, but were in real sense using palm oil.
MGMT TED Talk Video Reflection
TED Talk Video Reflection: https://youtu.be/iIQfkEzher8
Indeed, marketing is all around us. With the proliferation of digital gadgets all around us, marketers are ever looking for ways to lure us into purchasing their products. Nowadays, you don’t need to go to a physical store like Walmart to get information about goods and services. Whenever we are browsing the internet, ads keep on appearing irrespective of the site. They appear on our social media accounts even when we have nothing to do with the product being advertised.
TED Talk Video Reflection: please see attached in post.
I can’t agree any more that globalization is a game changer in the world of marketing. Globalization makes businesses stateless, without barriers, using the internet as the cultural and marketing tool. Business organizations which have been operating ethnocentrically are able to easily build a global marketing mix by understanding what consumers need in the target global markets. The global marketing mix comprises of a well-thought product, a reasonable price, an excellently identified place, and a promotion method that are geared towards meeting a specific need within the global market.