Read the following article: Domino's, Subway Battle Heats Up http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/news/client/e3icc0b0d908a93102267f811e8500c473c
To view the commercial, visit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnADo4h6vSo
Post your answers by Wednesday, February 4th at 12pm.
1. When Domino's president set fire to the cease and desist letter from Subway on national TV, was this simply a publicity stunt or did Domino's have an ethical obligation to defend its taste test results?
2. Subway has objections to the manner in which the taste test was conducted. In you opinion, based on Subway's objections, was the taste test ethical or did Domino's fudge the facts to get the results they wanted?
3. Both Domino's and Subway are getting publicity from this fight. Is the attention and increased business both companies get from such publicity ethical? Why or why not?
1. Good article and questions Frankie- There were
ReplyDeleteNo Doubt publicity interests when the president pulled the "set fire stunt" on National television. This was a perfect opportunity for the president to "Defend" his product publicly knowing he already had network backing. Even his quoted responses in the article sound as if they were worded as show for the public. Pretty much all publicity is good, there isn't a CEO who doesn't know that.
"Defending" his product was not an ethical obligation but an advertisement opportunity.
2. Subway's objections are totally legit. The opposing company typically wont go out of it's way to make sure the competition's product is served in it's prime.
ReplyDeleteObjection#1- Three sandwiches of the Domino's choice, built they're way is subjective to their decisions and could easily have misrepresented Subway's product.
Objection#2- It is safe to assume that Domino's had researched their competition(Subway) and were well aware that they also offered a Filly cheese steak product. However they compared Domino's Philly cheese steak with Subway's steak and cheese. This is a different meat product and not a fair product comparison to Domino's Philly cheese steak.
Objection#3- Domino's referenced the Subway photo for a veggie build reference. Those photos are to display all of their options. Who eats a load of veggies on a Philly cheese steak anyway? That is a hot sandwich that is typically eaten with no veggies at all. A pile of cold veggies on a hot sandwich,yuck.
Objection#4- If Domino's had to buy the sandwiches at a Subway location and bring them back to their testing area, who knows how long after they were made, were they actually tasted. The Domino's product may have been fresh while the Subway product hours old.
The facts were fudged, but legally fudged.
3. This bipartisan publicity is not unethical. Advertising can sometimes be a cutthroat business and both parties inevitably benefit from "controversial" publicity.
ReplyDeleteIf anything is unethical, it is the lack of standards and regulations on "product testing". How can the reported fate of a product be left in the hands of the competition? No product is safe. The network and all others involved in these regulations should have representatives present at the time of testing. It should be a law that both companies should be present at the time of testing to ensure true results.
I don't see the letter burning as unethical if not a slap in the face to subway. Its obvious Domino's cheated the taste test to ge the results they wanted which clearly put out subway's sandwiches- specifically the philly cheese steak (which i have tried and find it to be delicious). I don't believe Domino's which is a pizza giant honestly had it in their agenda to rival Subway on these sandwiches but to simply give consumers an alternative. This is publicity at its finest....in a way.
ReplyDelete1. I saw this as a publicity stunt and an immature one at that. The use of Domino's president as a representative to give a speak on their 2 to 1 taste test is just a personal testifying speach to get people to believe what he says is true. I saw him as a "bully" poking fun rather than being professional. He could have just kept it as a 2 to 1 taste test without having to add the other humility of the letter to top it off. he seems cocky for his own good and the practice, though not breaking any laws, was unethical because it was unprofessional and more so for personal gain.
ReplyDelete2. I will have to side with subway's objection. The facts as well as their hypothesis of what really happened isn't far fetch and believeable. comparing two dissimilar sandwiches nulls the reasoning of it being the same type but better. also, the topping option for subway gives the consumer a choice of what vegies they want and I bet the consumer had no choice in what was placed in their sandwish. Also, i think presentation had a play in it to. if Domino's was conducting this experiment then they will do their best to make their meal seem better in all aspects. I see subway as being right in how unjustified they really were being made into when the results were fickle vs solid. The argument plus lawyers on domino's side say other wise unfortunately.
3, I don't see it as ethical or unethical. My reasoning for this is because subway wanted to try and reason with domino's about what they were saying and the proof they said they had to back up their taste test wasn't strong enough. Domino's is the one who made it a big issue and spent money on the advertising and also created an embarassed scene with the letter. i saw that as unethical on their part and subway just happens to be pulled in because of it. subway seems to just want to keep a steady business and don't mind the competition as long as they get their facts right. when ever conflicts arrive amongst two companies. both sides will get publicity whether they like it or not. the increase in business is purely the result of consumer curiousity/loyalty and nothing more. its not a thing to boost their business on the consumer's end. it is more likely just to see what the buzz is all about. soon it'll fade like every fade in major conflicts amongst companies.