Re: A VERY unethical practice?

From: James Santagata <james_at_audiencetrax.com>
Date: Thu 05 Sep 2002 19:49:26 -0500

"Bob Gordon" <bgordon_at_theautochannel.com> wrote:

> Non-ethical advertisers are never picky about how they generate traffic
> or leads. They obviously opt to buy bulk traffic and not quality
> traffic, to them its only a numbers game...it_s the amount of traffic
> generated...and if their methods and lack of honesty piss people off
> ..so what!
>
> When you have weak management who are more interested in short term
> results and don't care a snoot about protecting the franchise or long
> term vulnerability, who can blame anyone for stooping to accept and
> disseminate crap!
>
> Another bunch of idiots is our politically appointed FCC...until those
> know nothings changed the law, Broadcasters could only own or control 7
> Radio and 7 TV stations and were made to be serious about broadcasting
> for the public good...but no more, when a group owner like clear channel
> can own 8000 plus radio stations, who can monitor them?
>
> Just look at Adelphia, AOL, and other newcomers to the media business
> and see why the fish rots from the head down.
> Unfortunately this is another case where, freeing a market only freed
> the owners from a responsibility to serve the public.
>
> Shame on our politicians and shame on us!

While I agree with your general comments about unethical advertising,
I don't see any evidence that would lead you to lay the blame
for unethical advertising on the Free market. Fact is, there are
plenty of markets that are regulated by the gov't that are no safer
nor exhibit any more morality than the unregulated markets. In many
cases these regulated markets cause severe distortions that harm consumers
worse than any Free market could ever imagine.

"Well, I just thought Enron was a safe investment -- it must be because
the SEC has oversight."

"Well, I thought that XYZ drug was safe. I mean it was approved by
the FDA."

"Well it must be true, the FTC wouldn't allow them to say so otherwise."

"Of course it was safe to fly before September 11th, 2001, I mean
the FAA wouldn't allow people to come on the plane with box cutters, right?
Oh, you mean, box cutters and fingernail clippers were legal before
September 11th?"

In most cases, it is usually government regulation that distorts markets
and encourages customers to ignore "caveat emptor" and rely on some
ineffective gov't bureaucracy to protect them. Whether they be the
SEC, FDA, FTC, FAA or FTC, these gov't bureaucracies usually
function about as well a a broken spring and that's being generous.
They look good and feel good on paper, but when put into action
they take away our choices and cause more harm than good.

James Santagata

A U D I E N C E T R A X
http://www.audiencetrax.com





Received on Thu Sep 05 2002 - 19:49:26 CDT