Response to Kaley DeBoer

In response to the question asked if it is possible that all things legal are linked back to some sort of ethics, or rather could all things that are ethical be linked back to some legality, I think that all things legal are linked back to some sort of ethics because for something to be legal- it has more power and something has already been established. The definition of legal would refer to something of which that is appointed, established, or authorized by the law. For example, in order to buy lottery tickets you would have to be the age of 18. As the textbook has stated, ethics is defined as the moral principles or values that generally govern the conduct of an individual or a group. I think this is the case because for something to be legal you have to qualify for it and fit the qualifications.

There are other differences between ethics and legal. For example, laws can change over time, they vary from state to state. But, for the most part, political and economic interests are often determined for how laws get passed and what is in those laws. But on the other hand, ethics are way different. Ethics exceed time, place, and other qualities. In this case, this is possible for them to not be related at all in this situation.

Do you think that one has more power over the other? How would you qualify which is more powerful?

Corporate Social Responsibility

As stated in our textbook, corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a business's concern for society's welfare. This is related to the best interests of the company and the company's relationship to the society based on how it is involved.

It is known that CSR can be a divisive issue. In other words, it means that they tend to cause disagreement or hostility between people. According to Friedman: "Business executives spend more money than necessary-to purchase delivery vehicles with hybrid engines, pay higher wages in developing countries, or even donate company funds to charity. They are spending shareholders' money to further their own agendas." This can cause an issue among people because they are not spending their own money for their needs. Some would argue that this is not fair and I agree because they are taking money out of someone else's pocket to accommodate their own needs.

But, on the other hand, CSR has an increasing amount of supporters based on several compelling factors. For example, it is simply the right thing to do. Some of them include pollution and poverty-level wages. It is known for their responsibility of business to right these wrongs. I believe that businesses should be given the chance to solve these problems because they have resources and they can help with that. "Business can provide a fair work environment, safe products, and informative advertising." I believe this to be true because they are capable of doing anything they set their mind to and also they can do anything with extra help and support.

CSR has four components: economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic. Which responsibility do you think is right for the society? Do you think different businesses would act upon it?

In Response to Nicholas Vita's Post

I agree with Nick's post that in order for a customer to be satisfied with the product or service it has to be based on what the customer wants and needs. Also, their expectations for that product or service has to be met. They have to know that they are spending money on something that is beneficial to them and long-lasting. Otherwise, what is the point of spending money on something that has no value to them? For example, if the customers satisfaction are not met then they would most likely not want to buy the product. I know for me, customer value also has a huge effect with customer satisfaction. I would go to different stores to compare and contrast that same product that I want to buy. This is a sufficient way to hear different reviews and different opinions. It also helps opt out your choices in price if it takes an effect in your final decision.

If you were to buy the same product for a lower price why wouldn't you?

Customer satisfaction and customer value

Are customer satisfaction and customer value interdependent or mutually exclusive? Can satisfaction occur simultaneously with low customer value?

Customer satisfaction and customer value are two different ideas. But, I feel like they are interdependent with one another because they have something in common; to benefit their customers. 

In our marketing book, customer value is defined as "the relationship between benefits and the sacrifice necessary to obtain those benefits" (pg. 7). Customer value is not simply a matter of high quality. In this case, customers value goods and services that are of the quality they expect and that are sold at prices they are willing to pay. For example, a high quality product that is available only at a high price will not be perceived as a good value or a low quality good selling at a low price. Value all depends on what the customer is looking for and seeing what offers they can get based on different company competitors. For example, I know when I am trying to purchase something I would go to different stores to try and compare the prices of that same product. I mean, why spend more on an item if that same product is being sold somewhere else for much less?

Customer satisfaction is defined in our marketing book as "customers' evaluation of a good or service in terms of whether it has met their needs and expectations" (pg. 9). What this basically means is that failure to meet needs and expectations results in dissatisfaction with the good or service. In this case, customer value does not have to come into play because if they are satisfied with their product then, it doesn't have anything to do with the price. For example, when I got my blackberry I was unsatisfied with the product that the price had something to deal with it because my battery was draining and I had to charge my phone several times a day. But, when I bought my iPhone I was satisfied with the product and what it has to offer. The iPhone has met my needs and expectations more than my blackberry and I could not be happier with the decision I have made. 

  No, I don't think that satisfaction can occur simultaneously with low customer value because if the customer value is low then I don't think it would turn out to be a good satisfaction rate. I know that for most people if they had low customer value, then their satisfaction would also be low too. Therefore, customer value and customer satisfaction are interdependent since they both have something in common with what they are trying to give their customers.

Do you think customer value would affect more than customer satisfaction when customers are choosing what product they purchase?