Prahalad is a renown market theorist who referred to the world to contain 4 billion people whose purchasing power parity had reduced to less 1500 dollar or less(Prahalad,2008). He continued his argument by proposing the idea that involving large companies specifically from the private sector where most people belonged would empower the poor and give them entrepreneurial opportunities. By largely involving the private sector provides growth and profitability opportunities which will tremendously increase the purchasing power(Prahalad,2008).
Roger Crisp (“Persuasive Advertising, Autonomy, and the Creation of Desire)
Crisp also one strategic marketer argued in his book that not all types of advertising use the same sort of persuasion, and therefore, it would seem that not all sorts of advertising carry the same amount of moral responsibility(Crisp,2009). More so he stressed and emphasized that the partial responsibility of ...view middle of the document...
Both of them share one ideology that the middle class are the majority .Not necessarily that most of the people are poor but Prahalad views Fingerhurts price strategy as one that eventually crumble and reduce the purchasing power of people. Prahalad advocates for more employment of people in order
their income can increase and this would mean increasing the purchasing power of the people(Prahalad,2008). On the contrary Fingerhuts approach is exploitation where deceptive marketing strategies are used in order for companies to make profits. This Fingerhut,s approach is in contrast with Prahald approach in that the world is dynamic and that advertisers should be responsible for the customers decisions. Having deceptive advertisements is irresponsible as it would promote impulse buying and unnecessary expenditure from consumers. Consumers are deemed to be the main point of focus. Fingerhut,s seems not to care about the consumers and misleads the consumers into purchasing products that they do not need. Prahalad is against such kind of strategies and focuses on the conscience of consumers where with time consumers will realize the advertisements are misleading and in no matter of time the consumers will stop buying the products meaning the profits of the parent company will reduce significantly hence draining up a company. In short Prahald view on the Fingerhut strategy is not a valid way of gaining profits.
Crisp view of Fingerhut,s strategy is that advertising should carry some amount of moral responsility. Being deceptive to consumers does not make consumers to be sovereign but makes consumers have irrational decisions on products. Crisp argues that irrational decisions reduces the purchasing power of the consumers. Figerhut’s deceptive moves in advertisements are a channel of failure because Crisp would support the idea of having a persuasive advertising rather than have deceptive advertisements. Crisp’s support for persuasive advertisements leads to consumers making the right decisions and becoming responsible(Crisp,2009). As opposed to Fingerhut strategy, deceptive methods would not bring clarity to the consumer in
times of making decision