Fingerhut’s Pricing Strategy
Teaching Notes
Synopsis
Jane Johnson is director of Communications at Fingerhut Company. The firm, based in
Minnetonka, Minnesota, is a direct marketing company that sells consumer goods –
clothing, housewares, furniture, electronics, appliances, and more – through an array of
specially targeted catalogs. In November of 1996, an unfavorable article appeared in the
Star Tribune, a major Minneapolis newspaper. The story drew attention to a class action
lawsuit pending against Fingerhut that suggests the firm made its profits by exploiting the
poor. Several civil rights groups rallied around the suit and submitted amicus curiae in
favor of the litigation.
Johnson believes that Fingerhut’s pricing strategy offers customers and affordable method
of obtaining valued consumer goods on credit. She recognizes that the lawsuit and its
related publicity could damage Fingerhut’s image as an ethical, socially conscious
company. The firm’s CEO was renowned for his philanthropy and environmental
awareness. Yet the lawsuit portrays Fingerhut as a predatory company that used unfair
and deceptive marketing techniques. Although the company’s advertizing and credit
policies might be legal, are they moral?
Objectives
Was Fingerhut Company engaging in unethical marketing? Or were they providing a key
service to economically disadvantaged citizens that they highly valued and no one else
would offer? The discussion of this case will require the class to investigate a variety of
issues including those related to:
Questions for Discussion
1. Was Fingerhut’s marketing strategy unethical? Why or why not?
3. What are the arguments for and against, or the strengths and weaknesses of the
framework you used to answer the last question?
4. Fingerhut’s practices have been condemned. Yet the Grameen Bank (which extends
microloans in developing countries), despite also having high interest rates, has been
praised. What accounts for this discrepancy?