PLC e-Portfolio Part 2: Decision Making
Name: MKTG-28
Topic:
Advertising (Unethical
Tactics)
Title: Washing Dirty Laundry
Synopsis:
A project manager at a consumer products company is searching for approaches to
market a laundry product. The current campaign for the product is offensive to
some women who have expressed their objections to the company. The product is
doing well on the market.
1.
Introduction
& Problem Identification:
"Washing Dirty
Laundry” is the name of this case, and is based on an advertising campaign for a
laundry product. The problem was that the campaign was offensive to some women,
and they started complaining to the company.
2.
Decision
Criteria: To make the decision, the following criteria must be evaluated:
|
Criteria |
Concerned parties |
Weighting |
|
Legality and
regulations: |
Shareholders / Government |
40% |
|
Values and reputation
of the brand: |
Owners / Shareholders |
35% |
|
Content and message: |
Clients / Company |
25 |
3. Generate Alternatives: The following alternative solutions to the problem are proposed:
·
Acknowledge and apologize: Given the
number of women who have complained, the company should issue a public apology
and acknowledge that the ad campaign was offensive to some women. It is
essential to show empathy and understanding towards the people affected and
assure them that actions will be taken to remedy the situation.
·
Withdraw the campaign: The company
should consider withdrawing the ad campaign in question immediately to avoid
causing further damage and offence. This demonstrates a serious commitment to
customers.
·
Commit to more inclusive advertising: The brand can
use this experience as an opportunity to promote diversity and inclusion in its
future advertising campaigns. By displaying a more equal representation of
women and promoting positive messaging, the brand can rebuild trust and win
back the support of those affected.
4.
Evaluate
Alternatives:
Acknowledge and apologize:
Pros: By acknowledging and apologizing for the
offensive campaign, the brand shows empathy and responsibility towards the
women affected. This can help rebuild trust and demonstrate a genuine
commitment to righting the wrong.
Disadvantages: An apology may not be enough for
everyone affected, especially if it is not accompanied by concrete actions.
Also, if the apology isn't genuine or isn't communicated properly, it could
lead to more distrust of the brand.
Withdraw the campaign:
Pros: Removing the campaign immediately shows a
quick response to concerns and avoids causing further harm or upset. It is a
way of showing that you are serious about the negative impact the campaign has
had.
Cons: Removing the campaign can lead to
controversy and criticism from those who don't find it offensive. Furthermore,
if not complemented by other steps to resolve the problem, it could appear to
be superficial and without a real commitment to inclusion.
Commit to more inclusive advertising:
Pros: Committing to developing more inclusive
advertising is a proactive response to the problem. By taking steps to avoid
gender stereotypes and promote positive messages, the brand can rebuild its
image and win the support of affected women. This can also be a step towards
creating a more responsible advertising culture in the industry.
Cons: Commitment to more inclusive advertising
requires internal change and a long-term approach. These enhancements may take
time to implement and may require the help of diversity and gender experts to ensure
the appropriate changes are made.
In general, and evaluating the weighting of each
of the alternatives, I believe that an effective strategy could combine all
these alternatives. The company should acknowledge and apologize for the
error, withdraw the offending campaign, and commit to more
inclusive advertising in the future. In addition, it would be valuable to
establish a dialogue with the affected women to listen to their concerns and
learn from the experience. This would allow the brand to more fully address the
issue and work to avoid similar situations in the future.
References:
Why It Matters: Decision Making. Authored by: Aaron Spencer, David Thompson, PhD, and Lumen
Learning. License: CC BY: Attribution
Feedback MKTG-28
ReplyDeleteImplementation of the rational decision-making process
To solve this problem, the implementation of the rational decision – making process was successfully applied, since the problem was perfectly identified and it was the starting point to be able to establish the decision and weight criteria and then the generation of the alternatives, evaluation and selection of the best one.
From my point of view, I had given the same weight to all the criteria since the three are specifically directed to the specific case and have the same relevance, however I believe that the choice of alternatives and their evaluation are correct. The justification of the alternatives are in accordance with the criteria and are aimed at repairing the offense that the advertising campaign may have triggered.
Finally, I think the alternative chosen to solution this issue is fair enough because the alternatives joint an unique solution aimed to repair the relationship with the audience who felt offended and this It guarantees to maintain a good relationship with customers or the audience.