Chapter 4 Marketing Miscue Vermont Teddy Bear
1. Yes, I would say that they did violate the requirements of corporate social responsibility. They should have thought through what types of feedback they may receive in response to the strait jacket and commitment report. Although, the idea is clever, they should have taken into account how that image would be perceived by some. Especially with Robert as a chair on the hospital board it looks as though they were not being sensitive to the mentally ill as well as not considering all the impact the strait jacket image could imply.
2. In some ways I would say that the controversy was positive for the company, for those that liked the concept of the strait jacket bear it was a positive but the aftermath of the controversy was negative. Robert lost a coveted position on the board of a large Vermont hospital and possibly the respect many colleagues. As the CEO of the company her image may have been tarnished in some ways as being arrogant and insensitive, which in turn affects her company and their image as well. Overall I would say that the “Crazy for You” bear was a negative choice on the part of the Vermont Teddy Bear factory. They could have used the slogan but altered the accessories associated with the bear.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Politically correct (PC) vs. good/bad taste vs. ethical actions. One way to look at this: whose toes are we going to step on and is this O.K.? Burger King is running an anti-health food campaign because their target marktet is NOT Vegans!
If you are on a Board for a hosptial providing care for mentally ill patients, then maybe you should care. Unethical? Probably not. Insensitive? Probably yes; are there any other creative ways to say, "I am crazy about you."?
Post a Comment