natstar said:
Yes I do marketing, and today companies who want to be profitable have to meet the needs of the consumers. It all comes down to the consumer. They introduced the healthier menu becasue reseach showed that this is what consumers now wanted. if profits were low, then its obvious that consumer wouldent have wanted it, but if they didnt research their consumer market, then they would have never discovered this healthy eating trend...so hence they looked to their consumers.
No the company has to provide perceived value to the market, whether it is actually as useful product or service or not is irrelevant. Their new menus are actually not that healthy, if you go to
www.mcdonalds.com.au their own literature and numbers give away how their vege burger is actually worse nutritionally than a cheeseburger or junior burger. They have hoodwinked the customer into *believing* that the new menu is better for them, the truth is something quite different. Which again just goes to show they don't CARE for the customer, they just want to exploit them in the most efficient manner possible.
natstar said:
Maybe so, but it comes down to whether they want to be seen as ethical or not. Legal compliance doesent always mean ethical. If people are aware of this, then the company is not going to be very highly reputed.
You will learn in marketing that perception management is an art form and the reality and motivation behind it all can often be very sinister indeed. Ethical actions are often not really ethical, they just spin the story in such a way as to make it look like that. I think I have 2 years of marketing on you so trust me on that ok
natstar said:
I havent heard of that. But in every text book related to this sorta subject, the Body Shop has been used as an example of a business who regards social responsiblity.
Textbooks are fun, i've seen all sorts of case studies in text books that say one thing but if you look at it outside of the text the outcome was actually different. A favourite type of case study usually involves the implementation of a new distribution system in a supply chain. If you ever get one of these make sure to read up on how the company does things now since the book was published
Of course you don't go putting these things into your essay because it would probably not answer what benefits there are in a system if it all fails.
natstar said:
I do realise this. I also realise that many companies are soley profit driven. But in th elight of the topic of this thread, In order to be reputed and successful in the eyes of consumers, companies have other responsibilities than just to return profits to their shareholders. Ive mentioned that consumers are the ones who give the business their money. If consumers see a comapny ripping them off, are they going to continue doing business with them.
Explain Telstra and microsoft then? How about mining companies that destroy the environment? What good do you think consumer choice has there if all they do is sell to other companies who do not have these moral problems who then sell to end users who think they are purchasing from an upstanding company?
natstar said:
I dont wana argue with you, this is just my opinion. As a marketing student, ive learnt that today, business have to act towards their consumers in order to make profits.
Or make the consumer feel like they have to act towards them. You will hopefully learn the more fun aspects of marketing later on in your degree. Things like supply chain management and consumer behaviour are only there for the benefit of the company implementing the strategies not for anyone else.
