Jacketta Collins
REST386-Morality in Business
October 22, 2014
Commissions at Brock Mason When offered the opportunity to make more money, who is the victor and who suffers? In a struggling economy, who will come out as the victor and who will lose? When it is the sole purpose of a company to maximize profits and (in essence) take from consumers should they be held accountable if a customer feels wronged? In the case study “Commissions at Brock Mason”, those are the questions that must be answered. Millions of people feel wronged by big companies like McDonald’s and Apple, claiming that those companies are unethical or immoral. Businesses and corporations are amoral. In a world of business, corporations (in this case, brokerage houses) exist solely to make money and become profitable. Pursuing profit is not inherently immoral of unjust, it is how one chooses to pursue it. Brock Mason was not legally obligated to inform the 55 year …show more content…
It is important to consider the company’s brand and its value should Brock Mason continue with the trial. Brock Mason has the means to go to trial and exhaust the widow’s litigation power, but that would not help the brand’s image and reputation. With any company, customer retention should be their priority. It takes about five to ten times more money to attract new customers than it does to keep one customer. I think Brock Mason should attempt to reconcile any ill feelings that the widow has towards the broker and the company by settling outside of court, privately. The broker should not be reprimanded in any way, because he was simply doing his job. James and his higher ups should refund the widow her investment and offer her a private one on one financial consulting. Hopefully through this course of action, the widow will regain trust in Brock Mason and make more investments in the
REST386-Morality in Business
October 22, 2014
Commissions at Brock Mason When offered the opportunity to make more money, who is the victor and who suffers? In a struggling economy, who will come out as the victor and who will lose? When it is the sole purpose of a company to maximize profits and (in essence) take from consumers should they be held accountable if a customer feels wronged? In the case study “Commissions at Brock Mason”, those are the questions that must be answered. Millions of people feel wronged by big companies like McDonald’s and Apple, claiming that those companies are unethical or immoral. Businesses and corporations are amoral. In a world of business, corporations (in this case, brokerage houses) exist solely to make money and become profitable. Pursuing profit is not inherently immoral of unjust, it is how one chooses to pursue it. Brock Mason was not legally obligated to inform the 55 year …show more content…
It is important to consider the company’s brand and its value should Brock Mason continue with the trial. Brock Mason has the means to go to trial and exhaust the widow’s litigation power, but that would not help the brand’s image and reputation. With any company, customer retention should be their priority. It takes about five to ten times more money to attract new customers than it does to keep one customer. I think Brock Mason should attempt to reconcile any ill feelings that the widow has towards the broker and the company by settling outside of court, privately. The broker should not be reprimanded in any way, because he was simply doing his job. James and his higher ups should refund the widow her investment and offer her a private one on one financial consulting. Hopefully through this course of action, the widow will regain trust in Brock Mason and make more investments in the