Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Business Law, Public Responsibility, and Ethics Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Business Law, Public Responsibility, and Ethics
International Olympic Committee Rule 40: Reasonable Protection For The Ioc Or Unfair Restriction To The Athletes?, Jeri L. Jones
International Olympic Committee Rule 40: Reasonable Protection For The Ioc Or Unfair Restriction To The Athletes?, Jeri L. Jones
Atlantic Marketing Journal
This paper explores the history, legality and ethical perspectives of the International Olympic Committee Rule #40 that was put into effect starting with the 2016 Olympic Games. Rule 40 was established to protect official Olympic sponsors from marketing campaign dilution and ambush marketing attempts from non-official brand sponsors. It was designed to prevent over-commercialization of the Olympic brand and to protect official Olympic sponsors’ substantial investment for exclusive marketing rights during the Games. It also however effectively prevents athletes from recognizing their own individual company sponsors and goes so far as to limit an athlete’s apparel during the Games, their …
Marketing Unhealthy Foods And Beverages: Our Children At Risk, Cheryl Ward, Diane R. Edmondson, Allison Wheeley
Marketing Unhealthy Foods And Beverages: Our Children At Risk, Cheryl Ward, Diane R. Edmondson, Allison Wheeley
Atlantic Marketing Journal
This paper examines the ethical dilemma created because of the largely ineffective self-regulation of the advertising industry as it relates to children and the corresponding drastic increase in childhood obesity. Unhealthy food and beverage companies are intentionally targeting children who have not yet developed the cognitive skills necessary to discern programming content from advertising. Children, who have many years of consumption ahead of them, can be an appealing target market for companies promoting products high in fat and calories. Given that existing self-regulation policies have been largely unsuccessful, four potential solutions are discussed.
Kasky V. Nike: Lurking First Amendment Time Bomb For Marketers?, Michael J. Landry
Kasky V. Nike: Lurking First Amendment Time Bomb For Marketers?, Michael J. Landry
Atlantic Marketing Journal
While attention has focused on the U. S. Supreme Court protecting corporate political speech, the Court has left untouched a California Supreme Court ruling of significance to marketers in their efforts to use advertising and public relations to offset what they view as unfair criticism. The case, Kasky v. Nike, stems from 1995 accusations that athletic footwear and apparel manufacturer Nike exploited and abused employees in Asian sweatshops. Through advertising and public relations efforts, Nike denied the claims. In 1998, Californian Mark Kasky sued, claiming Nike’s denials violated laws regarding unfair competition and false advertising and, because the denials were …