1. Tiger Woods's sponsors made a decision that was in line with their own moral and personal attitude to decide on dropping Tiger Woods. It was an ethical issue as well as a business issue since the company may have wanted to sponsor Mr. Woods for not only his sports talents but also his present-ability as a upstanding icon. It was a decision that harked on whether or not the company could still utilize his image effectively when the information was public and tarnished. He was treated like a broken brand that was dropped when its usefulness could no longer be leveraged. Essentially, the decision of the sponsors had ethical issues with separating Mr. Woods personal life and sports life due to the cohesion that such a dramatic event had on public
…show more content…
If you disclose the information about the drug you are purposely bringing upon material that can dissuade purchasers of the drug over a essentially non-existent issue. You are putting the test which was not very conclusive to the forefront. It is a tactic that could, as a con, make your brand less appealing and cost you more money and resources to look into the drug's problems. As a pro, disclosing could preemptively warn consumers of a issue with the drug and sway liability away from the company. More testing and reassurance of the drugs safety will present a better public image of the company. It is essentially a preemptive tactic that would lower your long term risk and is the better decision since drug manufactures are often questioned and used by several million people. It is not uncommon to disclose information and warn of possible, while unlikely, side effects to cushion any fallout from future problems. The company may not need to disclose the information but with the growing trend of internet access and ubiquitous knowledge of drugs and other ideas it is better to disclose the information so you can control how the information is digested by the public. You can better control to who and how the disclose information is made
If you disclose the information about the drug you are purposely bringing upon material that can dissuade purchasers of the drug over a essentially non-existent issue. You are putting the test which was not very conclusive to the forefront. It is a tactic that could, as a con, make your brand less appealing and cost you more money and resources to look into the drug's problems. As a pro, disclosing could preemptively warn consumers of a issue with the drug and sway liability away from the company. More testing and reassurance of the drugs safety will present a better public image of the company. It is essentially a preemptive tactic that would lower your long term risk and is the better decision since drug manufactures are often questioned and used by several million people. It is not uncommon to disclose information and warn of possible, while unlikely, side effects to cushion any fallout from future problems. The company may not need to disclose the information but with the growing trend of internet access and ubiquitous knowledge of drugs and other ideas it is better to disclose the information so you can control how the information is digested by the public. You can better control to who and how the disclose information is made