Not All Companies are Equal

Not All Companies are Equal

Companies cannot be equal since some can meet customer needs while others have no alternative but continue being harmful to their customers. Any company wishing to meets its main objective that is maximizing profits needs to address the needs of the consumers. If the company fails to meets the needs of the consumer, it will have no alternative but shift elsewhere. In support of the consumer, the paper will analyze why all companies are not equal.

All the companies are not equal, as some fail to balance their best interests with consumer needs. It is not possible for a company dealing with tobacco products to put the attention of the consumer first compared to their interests. Even though they got awareness of the danger of their product, tobacco industries were the first to use extensive and aggressive advertisements. The company applies a variety of marketing techniques in efforts to boosts their sales level, influence the broad market, Enticing new users, and also retention of the old ones. These companies apply various methods such as design, pricing, packaging, advertisement, and other promotional activities. Tobacco products are considered among the most marketed consumer goods thanks to integrated market strategies employed by the producers. It implies that it would be hard for the companies to put the interest of their consumer first in the sacrifice of their own. Tobacco products are known to be a threat to life and directly linked to causing lung cancer. However, tobacco products are known to be legal; hence they can go the process of other goods. It is due to the public opinion that the product should reduce its advertisement and its effect written in their packages. However, the industries are very cunning and aggressive to use other methods such as advertisement and the taste of the product to influence more people into smoking.

Tobacco companies appear to be different from other industries since their products are legal but toxic. It is considered as the only product that results in the death of half of its users hence attracting the social responsibility question. The question is how tobacco industries can reconcile their primary target that is achieving maximum profits as a result of offering a deadly product. The company goes against the terms of corporate social responsibility that requires the company to act in ethical values that respect the employee, consumer, society, and the environment. It is not logical for the companies to insist on working on transparency by just calling stakeholders in the dialogue table while everyone is agitating for methods of curtailing the deadly product.

The industries are to blame instead of the users due to their ways of enticing people to consume their products. The companies are known to apply explicit personal responsibility rhetoric as a way of justifying the use of their products. For instance, in the early 1980s, a wave against tobacco smoking, the defendants of the industry argued that it was the responsibility of the consumer that decided to start smoking. The companies were under intense pressure to compensate victims that suffered do to their products offered by the industries. Some of the cases were reported by the whistleblowers claiming a particular addictive product with little regard to the health hazards to the user. The companies are well aware of the deadly nature of their products but want to make it more addictive as a way of maintaining and attracting a new customer base. The industries lack accountability on their products meaning that they cause overall problems to the smokers. Also, until the demand by the public to come clear of the health effects of their products, they were not ready to disclose the side effects of the products (Brownell & Warner, 2009). Coming clear on the repercussions of the products is highly likely to make people change or avoid engaging in the behavior. However, since they want to influence the market share, they have concealed some information about their products.

Tobacco industries are to blame evidence from their marketing techniques and efforts. The companies have been for the argument that their marketing efforts do not boost the level of demand for their tobacco products neither do they cause imitation of the tobacco products among teenagers. The company’s primary justification for its integrative advertisement for their products is that they aim to influence the market share instead of attracting new users (Risi & Proctor, 2019). However, evidence shows that the activities by these industries have resulted in increased use of the products, especially among the young population. It does not only attract new users but also prevents individuals from quitting and accelerating their use. It is with these effects that have compelled policy interventions to minimize the influence of the existing marketing strategies. The industries have to be limited in the way they conduct their advertisements, such as broadcast and other appealing promotion activities.

The industries care about their profits instead of the effects of the impact of their products on human health. The existing literature demonstrates that scientists and executives working in the tobacco industry were well aware of the effects of smoking, such as causing cancer as early as the 1940s. During the 1950s, they were aware of its high potential to cause lung cancer. The industries had a lot of scientific knowledge under their disposal, demonstrating the critical effects of cigarettes with chemical agents identifying carcinogenic substances in the products. Despite having possession of the experience on the health hazards associated with their products, the company ignorantly continued to assure that their products are safe. The industry’s event went ahead to refute claims of health repercussions of using the products. For instance, it is the famous frank statement to all the smokers warning them of the danger they posed to themselves. However, these industries came out to oppose the claim citing their products were safe with a promise to aid impartial research to determine whether allegations on harmful effects of smoking are true (Friedman, Cheyne, Givelber, Gottlieb & Daynard, 2015). The industries are to blame since they conceal crucial information to their consumers on their products due to fear of losing some of the market gaps. Some of the smokers lack awareness of the dangers they expose themselves when smoking hence make little or no effort to quit the behavior. Also, young people are lured into the habit easily since they are not given the right information on potential health hazards. In this case, the industries are the ones to blame.

Tobacco industries, in other cases, have applied pricing as a way of enticing more people into the habit. The companies offer pricing promotional approaches in the form of discounts as a way of encouraging people to purchase the products. It implies that they will first engage in aggressive advertisement and rigorous marketing approaches. The next step will be providing false assurance and the impression that the products are safe. Finally, it will be setting a price that is affordable to many people as a way of ensuring they are recruited in the behavior quickly. The industries engage in a conspiracy to include addictive substances without regard to health hazards posed to the customers. It is only later when tobacco processing industries agreed on the research that their products cause cancer. Failure to be sincere to the customers on the danger of the product shows that it is one of the methods to attract more to the behavior hence expanding their customer base.

Conclusion

Not all companies are equal since, in some, it’s hard to balance the company’s best interests and that of the consumers. For instance, the tobacco industry is different from the rest since it interferes with the safety of their consumer to protect their industries. The trades are to blame based on the nature of the advertisement they use to market their products. They strive to sell their products without regard to customer safety. Also, the industries had enough scientific information to link their products with cancer but continued their assurance that their products were safe. It is ways of letting more people engage in risky behavior to protect the interest of the customers. These industries have also participated in refuting existing research on the consequences of smoking. The problem is the industries, not the smoker, given the latter is not aware of the dangers in the habit.

References

Brownell, K. D., & Warner, K. E. (2009). The perils of ignoring history: Big Tobacco played

dirty, and millions died. How similar is Big Food?. The Milbank Quarterly, 87(1), 259-

294.

Friedman, L. C., Cheyne, A., Givelber, D., Gottlieb, M. A., & Daynard, R. A. (2015). Tobacco

industry use of personal responsibility rhetoric in public relations and litigation:

disguising freedom to blame as freedom of choice. American Journal of Public Health,

105(2), 250-260.

Risi, S., & Proctor, R. N. (2019). Big tobacco focuses on the facts to hide the truth: an

algorithmic exploration of courtroom tropes and taboos. Tobacco control,

tobaccocontrol-2019.