NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="phloog" data-source="post: 4204295" data-attributes="member: 59219">Thanks for the winkie at the end.It's actually a big concern of mine, but probably journeying too far off the main thread....my big concern is based on a definition of business ethics given to me by a business professor that explained those ethics as rules for behavior that are 'ethical' within the norms of an industry.I'm a bit of an absolutist, and it's always bothered me that this definition (which I've seen in various forms since as I've worked in business) makes it clear that as long as enough of the competition is doing it, it's ethical.  I see corporations as neither good nor evil, but blinded - - or perhaps victims of tunnel vision - the tunnel being shareholder value.  As long as the shareholder is rewarded, the activity is valid.  So when I say $1.38, I'm serious - - of course most companies will include in that calculation lost customers, bad PR, etc...but when all is said and done, not only will they do something that I might find horrible to net an extra $1.38, but they are 'ethically' BOUND to do so - it is their promise to the shareholder.In terms of 'PR Nightmare', you might well be right...but it seemed like that small number of people was significant - not necessarily in terms of count, but in terms of share of voice/mind.  If only ten people are concerned or annoyed, but they include the heads of major third party publishers, that could be a 'nightmare'....but I get the difference between a real widespread perception and a 'tempest in a browser'.</blockquote>

Verification