The following quotes were taken from an article in the January 29th Wall Street Journal titled "Philip Morris Readies Aggressive Global Push". The article talks about their pursuit of "product innovation" particularly in developing markets.
Among the new products in test phase is a hand-held electronic smoking device called the Heatbar, which emits less smoke than a regular cigarette. Another is Marlboro Wides -- an extra-thick cigarette whose package flips open from one side. To appeal to customers in some emerging markets, the company is making sweet-smelling cigarettes that contain tobacco, cloves and flavoring -- with twice the tar and nicotine levels of a conventional U.S. cigarette.While smoking rates in developed countries have slowly declined, they have shot up dramatically in some developing counties, where PMI is a major player. These include Pakistan (up 42% since 2001), Ukraine (up 36%) and Argentina (up 18%).
Here is a link talking about their new product innovation:http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid452319854/bctid1395217394So the question becomes...is Philip Morris behaving in a socially responsibile manner by creating these products? If so, why? If not, why not? Who are the stakeholders that they are serving with this strategy? Which stakeholders may not be happy with their strategy? Is it ok to put out cigarettes that have twice the tar and nicotine levels of conventional U.S. cigarettes in the developing world even if the people in the developing world prefer the higher levels of nicotine?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Personally, i cannot stand smoking or being around it, but if i were Philip Morris and running a business, i woud do whatever it takes to make money and a lot of it that is an ethical way. Some people smoke, some do not but you have to provide for both smokers and non-smokers since it is a legal activity that many people partake in. Morally, it is not right to raise the amounts of nicotine and tar because it makes the cigarettes more deadly but people will continue to smoke because it is already addicting enough.
People who smoke may not consider what they're doing to be unethical. Therefore companies such as Phillip Morris may not think they're doing something unethical by making cigarettes no matter how powerful they are. Coming from a business standpoint the company is doing what it can to produce revenue for its stakeholders, and its stakeholders who may or may not be smokers themselves are probably OK with whatever strategy the company comes up with. Personally, I don't think it's ethical to produce these cigarettes, but that judgment falls on the shoulders of those who buy them.
I have to admit that Philips Morris is pretty smart for coming up with this idea and gaining more customers though it is unethical. It's unethical because smoking is already worse than ever and just adding more nicotine and tar makes it an even bigger problem. The one thing that does not make sense here is why cigarettes do not have a sort of restriction, like a certain amount of nicotine and tar it can have.
AS a company business, philip Morris is developping great ideas and products to make more money; however, I think it is really unethical to raise the double amount of nicotine and tar only becuase of make more money. People who smoking are alrealy addicted from nicotine it can't be worse than now.
If Philipp Morris would not bring them on the market, somebody else would do it. It's the same field as alcohol, as long as there are products, they will get consumed. I think what Philipp Morris does is ok. The Heatbar actually is a good thing because it reduces second- hand smoke. The Marlboro Wides are ethical definitely not correct but as I said, somebody had started to produce heavier cigarettes anyways.
To the stakeholders....The Marlboro Wides are just another product on the market and I don't think that the amount of smoking will change for the smoker. Additionally, the Wides are more expensive than the regular cigarettes. Government could have influence on Philipp Morris and the public interest is already active.
The Heartbar could help Bars to bypass the smoking law.
The issue with this is that people will smoke if they want to. I believe that it is ethical to put out new cigarettes as long as the consumer still knows what is inside. you need to bring something new to the table to keep your business interesting. Even if you put them on the market it is still the consumer buying them not the company forcing you to light that next smoke. The idea to reduce second hand smoke is a great idea and will provide another product in the smoking industry but this time helping out some of the non-smokers.
i personally believe that is morally wrong to promote and sell something which can cause numerous diseases and death. unfortunately it is legal to smoke so you cannot really blame Phillip Morris for advertising new products to make more money. I mean that is any business's goal, to make the product better and more appealing to consumers. I do not believe it is a morally correct thing to double the amounts of tar and nicotine in cigarettes because there is already ridiculous amounts of each of those in cigarettes that it is just unnecessary. But as long as Phillip morris is not forcing anyone to smoke and consumers are aware of what they are doing to themselves there is really nothing you can do about it.
To be honest, I've inconsistently smoked through many different periods of my life. My cigarette of choice was Marlboro lights and even I know those were bad for my health. To increase the level of nicotine and tar per cigarette would increase time effiency to those who smoke because they wouldn't have to have as many cigarettes. I guess that would also mean that you wouldn't have to buy as many packs of cigarettes...Or would it? I guess I'm not like the average smoker because I usually smoke a set amount of cigarettes per day. My cravings do not increase when I intake nicotine. I do know that a good majority of those who do smoke have a consistent craving. So in conclusion to this subject, prices will be higher for these cigarettes. Nicotine and tar that's doubled will double the amount of cigarettes smoked. This is a good strategy, but is not moral. This would probably be bad for those who don't smoke. It's double the second-hand smoke. There should be health regulations that prevent PMI from doubling the nicotine and tar. Everyone will benefit from these regulations.
I personally think Philip Morris’s marketing strategy to shift its focus from regulation strict countries to developing countries is crafty and unethical. However, if I were a manager of Philip Morris who has to seek the profit increase, I will also do the same as long as there are market needs and law restriction has not been introduced to the countries. Some stakeholder who cares company’s reputation may not be happy with this strategy but I guess most of others would support it to have profit increase. From moral point, it is not good to sell twice deadly product but as long as it is legal, judgments should be made by consumers. It is same to choose or not to choose fatty food.
Of course its ok.l Until federal law deems it illegal to produce such cigarettes, this should not be an issue. As a non-smoker, I still believe it is within peoples rights to smoke freely and choose the type of cigarettes they desire. Peoples minds shouldn't be made for them by the government or "social responsibility." As lnog as there is a market for a product, it should be manufactured.
I agree with most of the comments already posted. it all really depends how you look at the situation. I personally don't smoke and can't stand the smell of it. I know the effect regular cigarettes can have on someone, so developing a cigarette with basically twice the effect is obviously unethical to me. But, Philip Morris is running a business, and many individuals do smoke, so in his defense, why not produce a product that can make you money and possibly more than an original product depending on the consumer. He's running a business therefore, I'm sure he sees it like this, "If smokers like his product then buy it, and buy a lot of it. if you don't smoke then keep it moving because it doesn't concern you." It all depends on how you view the situation.
The company is doing what it can to make a higher profit. Most likely this idea will sell because people are so addicted to smoking that they will not care. Yes, it may be unethical to propose more of a health risk on the general public, but then again it comes down to the people choosing what they want to do with their bodies. As far as the stakeholders stance in this matter goes, I really do not think that they will be opposed to it as long as their profits are well above other companies.
Post a Comment