Do
not patronize companies that profit from
pain
By
Maritza Palafox
Special
to the Summer On-line Forty-Niner
I
recently came across some disappointing
news about a Occidental Petroleum Corp.,
parent industry of Unocal 76, from which
I purchased my gasoline. It was implicated
in the killing of people who were protesting
the company’s development of an oil pipeline
Santo Domingo, Columbia. As a smart bargain
shopper I prefer purchasing gas at a Unocal
based in Downey, because it’s cheap, but
with the knowledge of that incident I faced
the decision of whether I should continue
to patronize this company or buy more expensive
gas from another company. As a human rights
supporter I began to think about the image
and experiences that I have had towards
this company. I know that this company appreciates
my business but at what cost? Is it really
necessary for the company to take these
drastic measures of impacting innocent lives
in order to give the lowest gas price?
Most
companies identify their target markets
by gathering information and using it as
an advantage in understanding and focusing
on consumer’s shopping behaviors and their
preferences. In order to find ways to please
potential customers they develop strategies
that are focused on attracting customers
so that they can achieve their goals of
creating strong relationships and profiting.
As they strive towards their goals they
implement personalized services according
to each customers’ preferences. Companies
also make a great effort in maintaining
a positive image and reputation among their
loyal customers so that their relationship
continues to successfully grow. One thing
that comes into mind is the customers’ attitudes
and opinions towards their preferred company,
especially if it is involved in illegal
or questionable activities that violate
human rights. I am aware of two popular
companies, Nike and GAP Inc. that have had
serious problems in countries where they
have their production facilities. I was
shocked when I found out that they had been
accused of violating human rights. I even
questioned my loyalty and needs for their
products. Yet, some customers are still
not aware of these alleged violations because
these companies have taken the steps to
minimize all the negative publicity. Do
these companies consider how their customers
feel about bad things they are doing in
other countries or do they think that their
customers are very naive?
Another
thing that I considered shocking is that
some of the loyal customers that are well
informed of the issues surrounding these
two companies have ignored the situation
by continuing their loyalty to these name
brands. It seems that these customers prefer
to have this kind of attitude because they
rather have a feeling that the situation
doesn’t directly affect them. Every customer
has their own point of view and tolerance
towards a negative situation that involves
their preferred brand. However, there are
some customers with high moral standards
that do react negatively to this kind of
information. These consumers are also granted
the right of speech or silence. Those who
develop a negative perspective towards their
preferred company consider the option of
informing other consumers of the situation
and alleged violations in order to influence
their attitudes towards the company.
Loyal
customers also have the option to maintain
their silence so that this negative information
doesn’t spread and reach other consumers’
ears. Unfortunately, the customers who decide
to keep their silence face a minor consequence
from their friends, family, and co-workers
by being viewed as someone with low moral
standards.
In the end, as every customer eventually
faces a negative controversial issue they
must refer to their own moral standards
in order to make the right choice. What
will you do?
Maritza is a Cal State Long Beach student.
|
