In Response to Professor Johnson...

Should John Smith sell the names? Also, Does the AMA Statement of Ethics address this issue? What in the Statement relates to John Smith's dilemma?

After reading the Statement of Ethics that the AMA runs under, it seemed quite apparent that John Smith should not sell the names. Ethics aside, when marketing, there is always an interaction with a producer and a consumer. If business is simply just business, the producer has to satisfy the consumer. If John Smith is interacting with people for survey purposes, then they are now his customer. Smith is trusting them to make their honest judgment about cars and in turn the surveyors are trusting Smith's firm to keep their information confidential. It really doesn't matter if it is the right thing or not to sell their information because if Smith sold it, then the surveyors would recognize that his firm is not trustworthy. After this, word of mouth could completely jeopardize everything that the firm does.

There are three main principles under the AMA's Statement of Ethics that must be followed by all marketers. They are: "do no harm, foster trust in the marketing system, and embrace ethical values." The principle that relates to John Smith's dilemma the most is embracing ethical values. The reason for this is because it is all about building relationships with the consumer. And while doing so create a confidence in them about the integrity of marketing.

          Core Values: Honesty, Responsibility, Fairness, Respect, Transparency and Citizenship.

If John Smith sells the surveyors information he will be in violation of all of these ethical guidelines that are meant to create a successful marketing interaction for both the producer and consumer. It is definitely a good thing that Smith wants to use the money in order to save some jobs for his employees, but this is the wrong way to do it. Could it be possible that if he sold the information it could cause even more harm to his firm than having to fire a few employees?

French Making In-Car Breathalyzers Mandatory

France plans on making in-car breathalyzers mandatory. What first comes to mind is all of the different political stand points that this could take on. But, in the article, it is explained that it is purely to help reduce the amount of under the influence deaths in France.

In the past decade, deaths have already halved to around 4,000 deaths a year due to safety precautions. Now, with the new mandatory law, the President Nicolas Sarkozy plans to get that number down to 3,000. Drivers that are caught driving without the $2 single-use breathalyzer will be sentenced a $23 fine.

Since no country has ever made in-car breathalyzers mandatory, there are tons of marketing opportunities. Automotive companies that are attempting to advertise their newest model car as one of the safest yet, could advertise that it comes with an in-car breathalyzer. This way, the new owner of the car would not have to worry about buying one.

Another opportunity is that the law states that you must have at least a single-use breathalyzer at all times. But, there are some people in Europe that are definitely out having drinks more than every once in a while. So, they might want a multi-use one. Or an extremely accurate one. So, this opens up a market for technology companies to create the best, most affordable and easy to use in-car breathalyzer for consumers in Europe. Who knows, this could eventually be a law that becomes enforced in the United States.

 Living in a college town and seeing people get into cars when they shouldn't makes me think that it might not be such a bad idea to enforce that law as soon as possible in the United States. Could this new law in France open an entirely new market for in-car breathalyzers?