Ferrera, Josef Edward N.

BSMA501 GBERMIC

Case Analysis: G-Teleco

Part I. Recognize an Ethical Issue

What is the issue? Why is it important to address the issue?

 False advertisement of the product being
sold by G-Teleco.
 It promotes an unethical business
practice of which they are trying to
deceive potential customers by hiring
actors to act by means that could falsely
perceive the product as on demand.

Part II. Get the Facts

a) Facts table

What is Factual? What is not Factual? Is there anything else we need

to know?
 Desperation to attract  The artists’ demand of  Actors are hired with
customers. the product being sold the deliberate intention
 Poor decision-making as by G-Teleco which was to mislead the potential
to the negotiation made only done as an acting customers.
between Blueberry, Inc. party
Unforeseen the current
trend in the technology,
particularly the demand
between the s-Phone 7,
which is issued by
Blueberry, Inc. and
Samson Universe 8, the
rival brand.

b) Stakeholders

Who is/are the stakeholder/s
 G-Teleco
 Blueberry, Inc.
What is/are their stakes and/or Power over the situation
interests in the case? (High, Low)
Unethical business practice High – They are the ones
that could affect the brand responsible for the actions they
image. The risk of loss due made. Hence, it is up to them to
to the mishaps in decision- own up their bad practice
making. whether they are called out or
not.
Affiliation to G-Teleco by High – They are affiliated with
means of associating their the company who conducted a
product together with the bad business practice. It is their
company could also affect responsibility to do a
their brand image background check the
Ferrera, Josef Edward N. BSMA501 GBERMIC

company’s history of whom

they transact with. In this case,
Blueberry, Inc. should have
done a further inspection as to
the company’s business
practices which could also affect
them.
 Customers Maybe subjected to the usual Low – Customers are the first to
exaggeration in trade of which suffer loss in the given case.
they cannot held G-Teleco liable Here, it shows the effect of
for misleading conduct. bandwagon wherein just
because small time actors
indirectly advertised the
product, doesn’t guarantee its
best use, hence, are subject to
exaggeration of trade in which
they are more likely to suffer
the loss.
 Actors Being hired and knowing the Low – Agreeing to the contract
employer’s deliberate intention and knowing the true intention
as to the reason of hiring for act of G-Teleco, the actors already
can hurt an artist’s image as to know the risks involved in the
the promotion of unethical case of which they also commit
business practice to the fact that they tolerate
such practice which makes
them on the same par with the
company but in lesser control
due to their knowledge.

Part III. Evaluate Alternative Courses of Action

The alternatives The Values The Consequences

What is upheld? Not upheld by
this alternative?
 If the company cannot Utilitarian Approach It may hurt G-Teleco in
cancel the contract with profitability but in this
Blueberry, Inc. develop alternative, the least harm done
a marketing strategy of is the company’s financial
which promotes the status.
best features of s-
Phone 7 of which could
outrival the competing
brand.
 If the company can Virtue Approach It can hurt the relationship of G-
cancel the contract with Teleco with Blueberry, Inc. as
Blueberry, Inc. do it. well as with its existing
partners, but in this alternative,
Ferrera, Josef Edward N. BSMA501 GBERMIC

G-Teleco exercised their

honesty as far as their deal goes
of which they express the
practice of values of which
telling the truth about the
profitability of the product in
the given market may not seem
viable.
 Compromise – with the Common Good Approach This alternative focuses on the
understanding of the community as a whole where
case given, it was stated no party suffers. G-Teleco
that the company has exercises the option of doing
the exclusivity of s- variety of products to its
Phone 7 but it was not customers and compromise
expressed that between the exclusive product
Blueberry, Inc. and its rival as all parties are
demanded that G- given with compassion as to
Teleco should only sell their respective roles done to
s-Phone 7 only of which the organization.
enables G-Teleco to
restructure the
contracts as to the
supplied product by
Blueberry, Inc. as per its
demand in the market
and alternatively offer
the rival goods, hence,
exercise the principle of
“if you can’t beat them,
join them.”

Part IV. My decision

With the conclusion of all these approaches, the best course of action is the option number three
which is to compromise. Due to its all over effect, it does not only give benefit for G-Teleco, but also
Blueberry, Inc. and the customers.

G-Teleco’s reconstruction of contract does not violate the rights and image of every party involved
and the decision would still make them profitable in which no further problem arising from the
concern given in this given case would exist.

In Blueberry, Inc.’s perspective, G-Teleco did not violate the contract between them and It will appear
as an acceptable practice being a Telecommunications company, therefore, acknowledges G-Teleco’s
decision that would seem more in favor for both.

Lastly, for the customers’ perspective, it can maintain existing customers who demands s-Phone 7 and
those who wants to change to Samson Universe 8 and acquire potential customer without the use of
Ferrera, Josef Edward N. BSMA501 GBERMIC

unethical practice.
Ferrera, Josef Edward N. BSMA501 GBERMIC

Part V. Reflection

My reflection with the given case of G-Teleco is that to not rush such business strategy to the point
where some factors are overlooked. Pay attention to the detail of the behavior of the market in this
case the demand between s-Phone 7 and Samson Universe 8. In addition, manipulating the people in
the market can give consequences to the organization, in the case it was not stated that G-Teleco got
caught with the said conduct but if they were, they can face legal sanctions or worse. Lastly, with
regards to my decision making it must be observed that it is for the common good, if available, just
like in this case it was viable that the course of action can be for common good where no party is
gravely injured.