How has the evolution of the internet and ethics changed the practice Essay

How has the evolution of the internet and ethics changed the practice of marketing communication - Essay Example eception doctrine has been relatively easier to substantiate compared to unfairness, and this is specifically applicable for electronic media (Johnson & David, 1996; Who’s Watching the Web, www.aaf.org/relations/onlineprivacy.htm). The current study seeks to evaluate the evolution of the internet and ethical and their implications on the practice of marketing communication. It presents the factors which are perceived as unethical by internet consumers, and the significant predictors of consumers’ evaluations of fairness and ethicality. The following section presents the review of related literature. The components of the unfairness doctrine suggest that an organization is in discordance only when â€Å"injury† is sustained as an outcome of the marketing communication under contention. A critical issue has been borne out of the tangibility of the requirements to justify injury, and the intrinsic intangibility of the internet. Particularly, this has reinforced the ability to concretely link an organization’s marketing activities on the internet to a monetary or physical injury inflicted on the consumers. This challenge has caused the FTC to dedicate substantial attention and energy to drafting standards for internet marketing communications, in that claims to consumers must be adequately justified through research. However, the issue remains regarding how such a policy that is drafted in the present will be transferable to unfairness issues in the future (McGrath, 1999). The FTC has very distinguished and specific principles and guidelines with regards to determining when marketing communications have committed a violation of fairness. The original policy has been drafted on December 18, 1980, with the intention of precluding â€Å"unfair†¦acts or practices in or affecting commerce.† Drafting a list that stringently expressed that all that is considered â€Å"unfair† would be unproductive due to very dynamic and fast changing market conditions in each industry.

Interpretation of Statistical Tables and Testing Hypotheses Statistics Project

Interpretation of Statistical Tables and Testing Hypotheses - Statistics Project Example Therefore, there appears a difference in grade for unmotivated, motivated, and highly motivated diploma students that are there is difference in grade based on participation. The average grade for unmotivated scholarship students (23 to 32 years old) was about 78.89 (SD = 7.59), for motivated scholarship students was about 71.17 (SD = 6.05), and for highly motivated  scholarship students was about 76.80 (SD = 7.12). Therefore, there appears that unmotivated and highly motivated scholarship students grade is higher as compared to motivated scholarship students. The average grade for unmotivated government students (33 and above) was about 62.67 (SD = 4.32), for motivated government students was about 62.56 (SD = 5.03), and for highly motivated  government students was about 63.20 (SD = 9.63). The average grade for  diploma students was about 87.85 (SD = 5.66), for  scholarship students was about 76.05 (SD = 7.49), and for  government students was about 62.75 (SD = 5.93). Therefore, there appears difference in grade among three age groups of students. The average grade for unmotivated students was about 79.00 (SD = 13.09), for motivated students was about 72.68 (SD = 11.50), and for highly motivated  students was about 74.75 (SD = 11.00). Therefore, there appears difference in grade among three motivation (participation) groups of students. There was a significant main effect of age group on student grade, F(2, 4.06) = 39.92, p =.002, ÃŽ ·2 = 0.952. In other words, there is difference in student grade for different age groups. The result indicates a very strong effect of 0.952 as measured by ÃŽ ·2. There was nonsignificant main effect of participation (motivation) on student grade, F(2, 4.02) = 1.77, p =.281, ÃŽ ·2 = 0.468. In other words, there is statistically no difference in student grade for different participations