(Bachman, 2013) Is lying about a product’s attributes possible? A company might try to go down this road, although consumers will raise their voices and the authorities will pay attention. Marketers prefer to mislead rather than boldly lie because of the strong ethical objections to said practice. (International Charter, 2012) Not all products are made equal, and thus not all applicable regulations might be the same; but the baseline principles are the same: all advertisements must be truthful and non-deceptive and cannot be unfair. (Federal Trade Commission, n.d.) Companies are required to be honest with the public, their reputation and long-term survival depend on it.
It is based on the study of (Waller & Fam 2000), and (Waller, Fam & Erdogan 2005) as a result, the proposed framework, illustrated in the figure is an adaptation of (Waller, Fam & Erdogan 2005) with two outcome variables, brand loyalty and purchase intention. Attitude towards offensive advertising can have a negative effect to both variables. Consumer’s feelings toward offensive advertising can change their evaluation of the brand. Negative perceptions would lead to low-purchase intention of consumers. Consumers would tend to purchase products of companies that is not using offensive advertisements.
However, if businesses believe they have been a victim of deceptive advertising they can bring an action under s.43(a) of the Lanham Act. The Federal Trade Commission has developed a framework for regulating deceptive commercial speech, in which one must prove the advertisement was a “material representation, omission or practice” that was “likely to mislead a customer”, and that “no one acting reasonably under the circumstances” would believe the claims. Deceptive commercial speech in the UK is regulated by the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD) as well as national advertising codes. The UCPD seeks the protect the economic interests of consumers from deceptive commercial practices but does not seek to protect businesses. The UK also regulates political campaign spending for the 365 days up to the vote and four months after the vote but does this only for relevant elections and does not regulate outside these campaign periods.
This would allow Ba-rilla to be more responsive while ensuring that they meet the desired intent of reducing the distributor’s inventory holding. Furthermore, Barilla could offer strategic partnerships with distributors who are willing to share the possible risk of some inventory holding. According to Wei & Fung (2004), demand fluctuations leading to stock-outs not only leads to costs and losses, but can also lead to severing of the business image when “urgent” orders cannot be delivered. In sum, this relationship would be beneficial to all parties as it would lead to im-proved customer satisfaction. Finally, Barilla must convince the distributors that their data would be secure.
This is to avoid customers being not able to purchase what they want and they might go to their competitor store to purchase it. Besides that, Tesco Seri Tanjung Pinang has to identify which product is their best-selling so they can take on this advantage to sell more to their customer. Feedbacks from the customers are important as they are showing Tesco Seri Tanjung Pinang what to improve. Trade-off is a technique or way of reducing one or more desirable outcomes in exchange for increasing or obtaining other desirable outcomes in order to maximize the total return of effectiveness. Cost minimization is a
It makes markets complete as it renders deceit and exploitation of the ignorance of market participants impossible, thus being consistent with the requirements of common morality. Finally, Gibson (2003) emphasises that businesses are created to serve a particular social purpose: fulfilling certain societal needs by providing goods and services. On the basis of the aforementioned, it can be concluded that roles have a moral substance. On the other hand, however, Duska (2000) stipulates that morality and business can be incompatible if following the rules of the latter inevitably leads to immoral actions, one such action suggested to be the exclusive pursuit of self-interest by profit maximisation. Furthermore, business practices can make use of morally wrong tactics such as deceit or coercion in the pursuit of end goals, outlining how business can cross moral
The third criterion is the seller’s right to cure the defect. Unless the buyer has a legitimate interest in immediate avoidance of the contract, the seller has a right to cure a defect. As a consequence, even a serious breach, as a rule, will not be fundamental if the seller offers to cure it in terms of Article 48. The fourth and most disputed criterion is the reasonable-use test. The question is whether the buyer can make some other reasonable use of the non-conforming goods.
The advantage gained by this type of strategy is that it allows the business to further distance itself from its competition by, in some sense, maintaining a competitive advantage it has gained. Therefore, this strategy is closely related to differentiation and cost leadership because it is a method used by businesses to keep those advantages in place once they have been attained. Whereas the other two strategies are more offensive in nature, this strategy becomes an actual advantage as it becomes increasingly difficult for so-called competitors to offer any real opposition to the
Indian courts have time and again recognised few information like details of suppliers and customers, pricing policies, marketing management, as crucial that can qualify as trade secrets. Also under TRIPS compliance agreement and also due to emergence of competitive environment, there has been pressure on the government for taking initiative towards enactment of granting statutory protection to trade secrets. Identifying Trade Secrets Distinguishing genuine trade secrets from other information that an ex-employee can use freely in the absence of covenant in restraint of trade is very important. Information is a trade secret or not can be evaluated based on: • the degree of secrecy or knowledge of the information outside the owner’s business • the extent to which it is known to the others involved in the business • the measures taken to safeguard the secrecy of the
Under Competition Act 2010, “no-poach” agreement initiated by AAA is not prohibited. This agreement is necessary to protect trade secret or copyright or any confidential information of the enterprises. Moreover, the impact of poaching is very worrying as it could affect the whole market and automatically defeat the aim of the Commission to safeguards the process of free and fair competition in commercial markets. Thus, this is inapplicable under infringement stated by Section 4(2)(a). Plus, the court must take into account the real nature of this agreement to determine the true rights and interests of the