SUPPLEMENTAL/EXAMINATION CASES
Using teaching cases for examination purposes can help the instructor gauge a student’s depth of
understanding of the material. The instructor should deduct points if the student fails to identify the
key ethical issues and important stakeholders or to justify their decision relative to their stated
190 Supplemental Case 1: Great State Wheat Flakes Can’t Be Beat
SUPPLEMENTAL CASE 1
Great State Wheat Flakes Can’t Be Beat*
Betty, who has been employed for three years as a copywriter for HK&M, a small advertising agency
specializing in consumer packaged goods, has been feverishly working for the past week on a new ad
campaign for Great State Wheat Flakes, a regionally-distributed breakfast cereal. The agency has
a snowboarding expedition, and even while zipping along on a scooter (“Look Ma, no hands!”).
However, upon reviewing her proposals, Charlie said that while the vignettes were on target because
health-conscious customers would relate well to them, the slogan was off base. He wanted something
more specific and hard-hitting. Charlie developed the theme line, “Great State Wheat Flakes can’t be
beat. No other wheat flakes offer you more vitamins and minerals for fewer calories.”
explained that Charlie’s suggested slogan was an “implied superiority” claim.
Steve explained that such claims are commonly made for commodity brands. They stake out a parity
position that does not claim to be superior to, but only as good as, other brands, while using copy that
suggests or implies superiority for the named brand. He cited several current and classical examples,
such as “Nothing else cleans better,” “The maximum fluoride protection in any toothpaste,” “You can’t
Supplemental Case 1: Great State Wheat Flakes Can’t Be Beat 191
truly better than their competitors. Betty, recalling several other such implied superiority claims she had
recently seen, realized that it was, indeed, a popular technique.
“What’s more,” Steve concluded somewhat sarcastically, “using your line of reasoning, Betty, we
shouldn’t advertise parity products at all, since all brand advertising is designed to create a brand
distinction in the buyer’s mind. Advertising is necessary to differentiate yourself from the pack of
imitators. And it helps a small, underdog brand like Great State get a leg up on its big, deep-pocketed
competitors.”
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
1. Identify the ethical issues facing Betty regarding the nature of the proposed “implied superiority”
advertising claim.
2. What are the ethical issues Betty encounters with respect to organizational relationships and
conflicts?
3. What are Betty’s possible decision alternatives, and what are the ethics of each alternative?
4. Which alternative would you recommend to Betty, and why?
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
1. Some issues and suggested “talking points” raised or suggested by the characters in the case to
discuss the “implied superiority” advertising claim follow.
• Are implied superiority claims like the given examples in the case as misleading or
deceptive as Betty believes, or are they merely honest exaggeration (“puffery”) which
consumers will see through, as Charlie suggests? Where should one draw the line between
puffery and deception? Regulatory agencies historically have recognized the legitimacy of a
192 Supplemental Case 1: Great State Wheat Flakes Can’t Be Beat
• Because implied superiority claims are commonly used by commodity brands, as Steve
notes, (perhaps by Great State’s competitors too) does that make them acceptable? A
common fallacy is that something is acceptable simply because many people engage in it.
Relativists (also known as situation ethicists) would say that morality can be determined by
what the majority believes or by what many others are doing.
• Because puffery and implied superiority claims are legal, does that make them ethical? The
legality argument raised by Steve is another common fallacy in ethical reasoning. Civil laws
reflect a general consensus of what society believes is morally right. Laws can be deemed
immoral and can change over time and place. Generally, the law provides a moral minimum.
Thus, although the FTC allows puffery and implied superiority claims, this is not sufficient
justification for their use.
2. This cases raises several organizational issues. Chapter 7 notes that personal-organizational
ethical conflict occurs when the values and norms taught through the socialization process
contradict an employee’s personal values. Situations in which going along with coworkers and
managers might conflict with an individual’s moral standards are not uncommon in business,
creating a source of ethical dilemmas. Significant others are the most influential variable
impacting ethical decisions in business.
3. At one extreme, Betty could always opt to quit her job. Although quitting might be an ethical
choice which could lead to increased feelings of self-esteem from doing the right thing even at a
personal cost, it might not be feasible, especially if Betty is helping to support a family, the job
market is tight, she has student loans to pay back, etc.
Supplemental Case 1: Great State Wheat Flakes Can’t Be Beat 193
At the other extreme, Betty could adopt Charlie’s implied superiority claim. While this allows her
to keep her job and might be a demonstration of loyalty to her supervisor and the client, it
compromises her moral beliefs. Furthermore, if using the suggested slogan is wrong, she could be
responsible for any adverse consequences, such as deceived consumers. Claiming to be merely an
agent of the organization is unacceptable legally and morally.