0

A Critical Analysis of an

Unethical Advertising

Practice performed by 3

smartphone giants.

4 Case

1

INTRODUCTION

Companies use advertising to make current and potential customers aware of the features and benefits of their products. Most companies try their best to release advertisements that reflect the information that customers feel important while choosing a product in an ethical manner. However, when companies are

not cautious about the advertisements that they release, they may create an advertisement that is not well perceived by their audience and is detrimental to their reputation. While keeping in mind how unethical advertisements affect consumers view, it is vital to understand how consumers

judge advertisements. It is based on the principles of idealism and relativism. With the help of the three cases of unethical advertising practices in consumer durable (electronics), it would be easier for us to know the importance of ethics in advertising and also about the unethical practices in the advertising field.

YAAAAS’ TEAM MEMBERS:

SHAFAT

ABDULLAH

ARSHAD

YASH

ALTAF

ANDREA

2

1 To understand ethics in a clearer way.

2 To analyze unethical means of advertising.

3 To find the effects of an unethical advertisement on a company.

4 To disclose the reasons for the purpose of an unethical advertisement.

5 To enclave customer opinions or views regarding unethical advertisements through various website|blogs|forums.

6 To conclude whether the act is right or wrong to what extent.

No. Title Page

1 Objectives 2

2 Microsoft creates an Apple vs. Samsung wedding fight for its new Windows Phone Ad.

3

3 An Ad by Samsung to punch back Nokia (Now Microsoft) and IPhone.

8

4 Nokia Lumia 925 ad makes fun of apple iPhone 5. 10

5 Lumia 1020 Ad mocks Apple-Samsung rivalry, highlights 41- mega pixel camera.

12

6 Body of thought 14

7 Our insights 14

8 Conclusion & future of work 15

9 Links & References 15

3

BACKGROUND

CASE 1 Microsoft creates an Apple vs. Samsung wedding fight for its new

Windows Phone Ad. Advertisement released on 29th April 2013, 11am, by Tom warren throughout the United States.

Microsoft has tried a number of ways to advertise Windows Phone handsets, but the latest pits two rivals against each other. In a new minute-long spot that's due to air on US national TV, a wedding reception is interrupted by Apple and Samsung fans. "Would you mind moving your enormous phone," asks one iPhone 5 user, before the guests—a clear 50 / 50 split of iPhone 5 and Samsung Galaxy users—begin to trade insults. One member searches for "one-trick pony" using Siri, while another fires back, "Aren't you a little young to have an iPhone?"

Insanity ensues and a massive brawl breaks out where each side can be heard trading insults like "iSheep" or "copybox." You thought Samsung’s anti-iPhone ads were great—and they were—wait until you get a load of this one: In Nokia’s new ad, Samsung

4

and iPhone users are both lampooned to great effect. It’s yet another hilarious because it’s true moment in tech product advertising. The message of Nokia’s new ad is simple enough: Don’t fight … Switch.

As the Apple-toting simpletons face off against their more technologically savvy Samsung wielding opponents, two Lumia users stand in the middle of the mayhem, calm. “Do you think they’ll ever stop fighting all the time,” one asks. “I don’t know,” the other answers. “I think they kind of like fighting.” The ad finishes up with two servers standing alone discussing the alternative: Windows Phone. The ad is clearly positioned in a way to show off the third-place position of Windows Phone, and offer it as an alternative. It's a lighthearted approach that avoids comparing two phones directly, or inspiring backlash similar to that from the company's notorious "Scroogled" campaign. It's also very similar to some of Samsung's own commercials that are aimed at BlackBerry and Apple's iPhone.

Nokia's Lumia Windows Phone sales hit a record high in the recent quarter, but Nokia is still struggling to convince US smartphone buyers to go with Lumia. A 33 percent decline year-on-year of US Lumia sales shows the Finnish company and other Windows Phone manufacturers have their work cut out for

them. Microsoft is hoping its latest campaign will help boost those lagging US sales for the all-important smartphone market. It seems the new “Don’t fight – Switch” ad, which parodies the rivalry between Apple and Samsung and their fans, and suggests Windows Phone as a more peaceful alternative, has not just entertained, but has also been successful in arousing the interest of viewers in the Nokia Lumia 920 shown in the ad.

According to Google’s Trends service, before the ad search interest was stable at around 55-60% of the peak value, which was reached on April 30th, a day after the ad was released. According to Brand Republic the ad has jumped into their top 10 list of most shared videos at number 4, with more than 187,000 shares and more than 3.7 million views in 5 days. The ad is currently showing on TV in USA, and may play well in some other markets like UK and Australia where things are still somewhat balanced between iOS and Android Microsoft abuses “guerilla” or “viral” advertising more than other companies, disguising recommendations as “impartial” when in reality they are anything but that. An unfortunate choice for a company that really should not need to resort to these tactics. Microsoft combines products into “bundles” solely to squeeze out competing products.

5

Examples abound: these advertisements (don’t fight campaign) With the further recent action taken against Microsoft by the EU antitrust investigators – who Microsoft “supporters” denounce as “scum”, for having the audacity to enforce the law against these gangsters, it seems the nature of Microsoft’s unethical business practices needs to be spelled out in the simplest terms, so that these “supporters” might finally understand the “problem”. I’ll omit any arguments relating to proprietary licensing, since I think I’ve already covered that quite adequately elsewhere, so instead I’ll just concentrate on how Microsoft runs its business in general, regardless of the nature of the “product”. So here’s a simple breakdown: Microsoft is a business, and the purpose of any business is to make money. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that, indeed it is absolutely necessary in a developed society. Microsoft competes with other companies for business, in order to ensure their continued operations. Again, this is perfectly reasonable and expected. Competition is good and necessary, as it drives innovation, stems inflation, and facilitates choice. Microsoft advertises its products, so that potential customers will be aware of them, and subsequently buy them. This is also perfectly reasonable, ostensibly. However, advertising is open to abusive practices, such as false or misleading claims, or a more recent development variously called “guerilla” or “viral” advertising, where supposedly impartial recommendations aren’t impartial at all, but are in fact paid sponsorship. This isn’t ethical business, but it is a sadly common practice. Microsoft are guiltier of this

behavior than most, in fact they have refined it into an art form. As part of its business strategy, Microsoft combines different products into “bundles”, so that (for example) customers don’t need to obtain a Web browser or a media player before they can start using their new systems. On the face of it, this seems a perfectly reasonable thing to do, if the motive were purely an honorable one. But the fact is that Microsoft do not sell any of these “bundled” products separately, so this isn’t design to promote any of those products. But even more substantively, exactly those same features are available (also for free) from other places (e.g. Firefox), so the assertion that the whole purpose of the “bundles” has anything at all to do with either providing missing functionality or “helping” customers is an obvious lie. In fact the only reason Microsoft bundles these products is to exclude others. They make no profit from it at all, and they need not provide something for free if it can be obtained elsewhere. Bear in mind, that it costs Microsoft a huge amount of money to develop these bundled products, which they then give away for free, even though this is completely unnecessary. So the question is, why? In addition to unnecessarily providing free bundles, Microsoft also unnecessarily develops its own competing standards, for such things as networking and documents, even when those other standards are Free, work perfectly well, have been established for years, and precede Microsoft’s questionable reinvention of those standards. Since Microsoft cannot immediately capitalize on something as intangible as a “standard”, again one must ask the question, why? Microsoft maintains a network of so-called “partners”. This is not a typical business to business relationship where one firm simply touts another for business, but instead it’s a

6

means of guaranteeing loyalty from those firms by means of contracts, and coercing continued loyalty with the threat that firms will lose competitiveness with other “partners” if they back out of this “arrangement”. This is a common but nonetheless unethical business practice, made all the more unacceptable by the sheer size of Microsoft’s “network” that essentially forms a global monopoly. Western laws dictate that the mere existence of such monopolies is not a crime, but there must be some demonstrable abuse of that monopoly to warrant any remedial action. It is my contention that the means by which Microsoft maintains this monopoly is inherently unethical, since it has no basis on the quality of their products, but is instead enforced by this threat of failure, a threat that only exists because Microsoft created it in the first place. The result is a business that’s operated like a global racketeering operation, with “partners” too scared to back out, and customers who are left with little or no real choices, as no real competition has any chance of even being established, much less thriving. The foundation of Microsoft’s monopoly is its operating system called “Windows” and office productivity suit called “Office”. If it were simply the case that these two products were always the best examples of their kind, and that customers chose this software in preference to competing products, for that reason, then I would see nothing especially unethical about the way in which Microsoft operates its business, although it would still be true that they have a monopoly, because this monopoly would exist for a legitimate reason. But that simply isn’t the case. And this is where we come back to the issues of “bundling” and “standards”. The reason that Microsoft spends a vast amount of resources unnecessarily creating competing (and even inferior) standards, is to establish dependence on those standards. This

dependence is then propagated by the distribution of equally unnecessary bundles of free software, which is not designed to benefit the customer, but is just a delivery vehicle for these standards, which Microsoft can ensure exclusive rights to with the use of patents and copyrights. On the other side, there is Microsoft’s network of partners (nearly the whole distribution channel), ensuring that Windows is bundled with nearly every computer ever built, and suddenly the big picture becomes very clear: Microsoft are in fact engaged in racketeering, with all the angles sewn up so tightly that no competition can possibly be established against them. This, of course, is no accident. But as if Microsoft’s despicable behavior were not bad enough to warrant action against them, there’s also their enforcement of this monopoly (against those few brave souls who attempt to breach it) by using more palpably criminal tactics, like smear campaigns and bribery. In fact they would even go so far as to sabotage charities, just to inhibit the spread of alternatives to Windows and Office, lest those who gain experience of these alternatives should learn the truth … that such alternatives are viable, and therefore Microsoft’s software is completely unnecessary. It is essential to Microsoft’s strategy that most people remain ignorant of the viability of alternatives, which is why they also spend vast resources on propaganda – and yes, it certainly is propaganda. Legitimate advertising usually does not employ such devices as shills, corrupt analysts, fake “recommendations”, and sabotage. As I wrote earlier, Microsoft has refined this into an art form, even to the extent of using political and pseudo-scientific methodologies, to secure their vile agenda of domination. They spread lies that Free Software alternatives to their software is “un-American” and “communist” in nature, they abuse their power to influence government with so-called lobbying (legalized bribery), they plant supporters, whom they

7

euphemistically refer to as “Technology Evangelists” into every walk of society, to infiltrate and uppress any and all dissent against Microsoft, whilst teams of researchers, in a dark basement, study “Perception Management”, to improve the manipulative effectiveness of the “evangelists” agents working in the field. No, this is not a plot from a John le Carré Cold War story – this is the reality of the Microsoft War Machine – their war on our Freedom, their quest for domination, and this sick right-wing extremist agenda of Corporatism – the

doctrine of greedy, selfish, cold-hearted megalomaniacs. It may well be that Microsoft are merely a small part of a greater whole, and that the source of this sickness is actually the fundamentally flawed tenets of American society in general. If so, then that is a rather damning indictment of American society, and it may explain its institutionalized narcissism that causes such fear and loathing of anything perceived to be “un-American”, such as the hysterically McCarthyistic backlash against the “EU scum”, for their “diabolical deeds” of enforcing law and morality.

8

CASE 2 An Ad by Samsung to punch back Nokia (Now Microsoft) and IPhone.

The above Ad was broadcasted on TV and YouTube on 4th May 2013. Plot: A graduation party where friends were invited. Scene1: The Ad started with a boy who comes towards her mother who is busy cooking on barbeque with his dad. He was capturing that cooking moment with his new Samsung Galaxy S4. Next he tells his dad to smell the Ribs in the captured photo. Dad looking skeptical concludes: “I can smell the Ribs.” Comment: Samsung started to make a joke out of an unrealistic feature, which even a child knows that it doesn’t exist. While having lunch, the boy receives a call and his hand were oily. So he swipes his hand in air over his S4 and answers it. Watching this his dad startles and comments “You got to be kidding me.” Feature 1: Air call – Accept free. Scene2:

A girl is taking picture of his friend’s family from S4. The girl shares photo to another s4 through super beam. The old lady tries to use the same function in her iPhone but she wasn’t able to share. Then the girl replied with a smacking line that it’s only for smartphone then the man replies “you mean some smartphones are better than other smartphones “she replies exactly”.

Scene 3

“Gesture mode and control mode “ This part is where the girls receives a message from her friend (tiffany) and her hands are wet with lotion so she uses the gesture mode without touching and reads the whole message just by keeping a finger in air above the screen and it makes the another girl blank she says (oh my god that’s awesome). After that the boy again wants to influence his dad towards his phone so the comes towards his dad while his dad trying to use the gesture call but can’t so the boy again uses the control mode to control the TV with his phone and also changes/recommends the channel and then he puts his phone in his dad’s pocket, then the ad closes with the line

“The next big thing is here”

Unethical view: This ad is unethical and a slapping ad, to the competitor. This unethical ad was created just before 4 months the competitor Nokia created the funniest ad of a wedding ceremony comparing the galaxy and IPhone with Nokia and the main reason was to target the youth and mature man to change the mind. The main reason here was brand comparison and fight where they downturned down IPhone and their status and it also took the mature people because they are mostly the target of Apple and Nokia so they wanted

9

to attract them towards Samsung. This ad also created the unethical part of amoral view and an egoism of smartness.

Impact: The impact of this ad was creating a quake or blast in the market as said by the editors and agencies .but it created a lot of viewing of this ad and people started to compare the phone with other phones and also people know how Samsung advertises its product. but people took a lot of interest in this phone because today most of us act lazy and also want the things fast so by this it influenced of fast sharing , gesturing etc. The target audience liked and preferred this ad and the sale of the phone was increased but the competitors

didn’t gave back a respond because Nokia had already kicked an unethical ad in market but the main rival Apple charged a case against Samsung and as we know this battle continues till now it’s like war of ancient times continuing till now.

This ad reference through 72& agency was to market the product some unethical reason can be used to satisfy the target audience and customers and they also said that to use some unethical reason to promote your and its ok, but the name or the brand should not be shown. But this line “the next big thing” didn’t worked for Samsung much because Apple had already used it.

10

CASE 3 NOKIA LUMIA 925 AD MAKES FUN OF APPLE IPHONE 5.

Nokia came up with an ad in which it made comparison between its phone Nokia Lumia 925 and IPhone 5. The ad starts with a line

that “Everyday more photos are taken on the IPhone than any other phone but with Nokia we preferred quality not just quantity”

Then there is a comparison made in a picture which was shot one on Nokia Lumia 925 and the other on IPhone 5. It’s the same picture which is captured by both the phones but the comparison is showed by the features that these two phones offer. On the left hand side picture which is captured by Nokia Lumia 925 is shown and on the right hand side picture which is captured by IPhone 5 is shown. The picture which is captured by Nokia Lumia 925 has an additional feature of Action shot which IPhone 5 does not have. It is shown in the picture which is captured by Nokia Lumia is much more clear and captures a moving picture in action shot rather than making it blur, and on the other side the picture which is captured by IPhone 5 is dull and has a single

image and not a moving picture or an action shot like that is shown in the picture captured by Nokia Lumia 925. Than using the same picture of the boy with a skate board a different feature is shown. In this the feature of motion blur is shown and the comparison is made between the photos captured by Nokia Lumia 925 and IPhone 5. Then again the same pictured is displayed and on the one which is captured by Nokia Lumia 925 its written best picture and the picture is far better and clear than the one which was captured on IPhone 5. Next part of the ad shows a different picture and in this picture there is a young girl and a young boy standing on the road and they are shown taking a selfy at the time of night, the feature of flash light is highlighted over here,

11

comparison is made between both the pictures one which was shot on Nokia Lumia 925 and the one which was shot on IPhone 5. The picture which was captured on Nokia Lumia 925 was much brighter and clear as compared to the one which was captured on IPhone 5. In the next picture two teddy bears a kept and there pictured is been taken without flashlight but again the one which is captured by Nokia Lumia 925 is much clear than the one taken on IPhone 5. In the next picture a plate of fruits is kept and picture is taken but the picture which is taken by Nokia Lumia 925 is without flash and the one by IPhone 5 is with the use of flash but still the one taken by Nokia Lumia 925 is better in terms of clarity. The ad ends up with a line “Everyday better photos are taken by Nokia Lumia’s than any other phones”

Unethical view: In this ad Nokia has compared its phone Lumia 925 with IPhone 5 and it has made direct comparison between both the phones highlighting the feature of its camera. The ad shows that how the camera quality of Nokia Lumia 925 is much better than the camera quality of IPhone 5. I believe it is unethical to come up with such an ad in which we are directly comparing our product with the product of another company, and placing our product as more superior and the other companies’ product inferior. Such a well-known and well established company like Nokia should not come up with such a campaign because it may create a negative image of the company in the minds of the customers.

12

CASE 4 Lumia 1020 Ad mocks Apple-Samsung rivalry, highlights 41-megapixel camera.

Advertiser

Microsoft Windows Phone

Agency

T3- The Think Tank

Mood

Funny

Tagline

“Don't Fight. Switch.”

This ad showcases children’s school performance with anxious parents determined to capture their children's

talents with their Apple iPhones and Samsung Galaxy smartphones.

It all starts with a wife chiding her husband to take a

close shot of her kid with his iPhone after finding out

that it's not able to zoom in to capture the

performance. As he walks towards the front, we

witness the other parents, keen to capture the

moment, fighting with each other to grab the best

position. The parents get into tiffs, mocking each

other's iPhones and Galaxy phones.

A parent who is using a Samsung Galaxy phone

mocks the other iPhone using one saying, "2007

called, they want its camera phone back." In

response to it, the other parent gives him a head-

butt saying, "How's this for a drama shot."

Chaos ensues as all the parents move forward and

disrupt the performance with their antics. A single

couple sitting right at the back, is however, calm and

composed. The wife asks her husband why they

weren't getting closer to which he responds," With

the Nokia Lumia 1020, we get the best seats in the

house," zooming in on a previously shot picture

showing the level of detail that the phone's camera

captures.

The ad ends with the usual 'Don't Fight. Switch'

message.

Just like its last ad, Microsoft takes potshots at

Android or rather Samsung and Apple fan boys, who

get into platform wars at the slightest provocation

to give a message that it has what the others don't.

The ad prominently features the iPhone and

Samsung Galaxy phones, while the Nokia Lumia is

only seen towards the end. While it makes for a fun

watch, it's difficult to say if the ad would be able to

convince people enough to switch from their

current mobile platform to Windows Phone.

It's noteworthy that this is not the first time that

Microsoft has targeted someone through an

advertising campaign.

Microsoft has also been running parody ads taking

pot shots at Apple’s iPad. Recently, even Nokia

released an ad for its Lumia 925 smartphone that

parodies Apple's "Photos Every Day" commercial for

the iPhone and compares the Lumia 925's camera

13

with that of the iPhone by placing photos side by

side in the same frame.

Unethical view: In this ad Nokia has compared its phone Lumia 1020 with IPhone and Samsung galaxy and it has made direct comparison between both the phones highlighting the feature of its camera. The ad shows that how the camera quality of Nokia Lumia 1020 is much better than the camera quality of IPhone and

Samsung galaxy, I believe it is unethical to come up with such an ad in which we are directly comparing our product with the product of another company, And placing our product as more superior and the other companies product inferior. Such a well-known and well established company like Nokia should not come up with such a campaign because it may create a negative image of the company in the minds of the customers.

14

BODY OF THOUGHT

After analyzing the various advertisements and determining that they are unethical, it is easier to understand the importance of releasing ethical advertisements, as unethical advertisements take a lot of time to recover from the mess they created for themselves. Instead of putting out unethical advertisement, companies should familiarize themselves with ethical frameworks. Avoiding unethical advertisements will foster a good reputation and enhance a company’s culture and morale. Also after an unethical advertisement has been released, a company must work overtime in an attempt to fix their brand image. As the negative publicity attained due to their unethical way of advertising affects the company, its reputation and ultimately bringing down its sales.

OUR INSIGHTS

As per my insight the unethical advertisement should not be held because it creates a negative impact in every one’s mind and even the competitors and people think everything can be done without any ethics required.

-ARSHAD

Nokia has launched an aggressive viral campaign, comparing Nokia Lumia with other mobile phones such as Samsung galaxy and iPhone which is wrong and they shouldn't do it in such a way to promote their phone and degrade some other

brand's phone. -ABDULLAH

As a student of business ethic's I believe that companies should not do unethical practices like making direct comparison of our product with the product of some other brand, in such advertisements companies try to show their produce more

superior and the product of other brands inferior which is unethical and should be avoided. -SHAFAT

Advertising is a poisonous gas. It should bring tears to your eyes, unhinge your nervous system, and knock you out. The above ads had the power to do that. But what set these ads apart is their unethical idea of degrading competitor’s value.

-ALTAF

As per my view, I don’t believe in the unethical way of advertising as it hampers the competitor’s product and it is not a healthy competition. Also it creates a bad impression in the mind of customers. Resulting in brand failure.

-ANDREA

This project helped me understand the various aspects of competitive behavior towards business marketing, it showed us how a company advertised their product by comparing it with the others trends in the market. It is unethical but beneficial.

-YASH

15

CONCLUSION & FUTURE OF WORK Through the secondary research, we were able to learn more about ethical business practices and their importance for a long-lasting positive corporate image. We also determined why it is important to follow ethics and consider its effects on customers. While completing our research work we grew up more confidence that many of us would enter into the business world to make decisions that will have a positive impact.

LINKS FOR REFERENCE

NDTV: gadgets.ndtv.com/mobiles/news/lumia-1020-ad-mocks-apple-samsung-rivalry-highlights-41-megapixel-

camera-409170

NDTV: http://m.gadgets.ndtv.com/mobiles/news/microsoft-mocks-apple-samsung-rivalry-in-latest-lumia-ad-

360773

WINSUPERSITE: http://m.winsupersite.com/windows-phone/dont-fight-nokia-s-great-new-ad-windows-phone

TECH FOR HUNT: http://techforhunt.com/nokia-lumia-920-ad-targeting-apple-samsung-war-windows-phone-ad-2

iSpot: http://www.ispot.tv/brands/dsQ/microsoft-windows-phone

Also researched at different websites, which includes: droid lift, phone arena, TOI, the Wall street journal and Samsung official website.

16

Prof. Natasha Vasanji Business Ethics

TY BMS (A)