Sprint’s Potentially Racist Advertisement Strikes a Chord
Controversy:
Sprint company logo |
Sprint
is an American telecommunications company that was founded in 1899 as Brown
Telephone Company. In the century since then, Sprint has grown into a large
mobile phone operator and internet service provider. Today, it is one of the
largest mobile service providers in the United States with over 50 million
customers. Sprint’s major competitors are other major telecommunications
companies such as Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile. The rivalry between
telecommunication giants is often evident by the advertisements that are shown
on television, radio, and the internet.
In
2016, an advertisement released by Sprint seemed to go too far in the minds of
many consumers. The advertisement featured Sprint Chief Executive Marcelo
Claure asking consumers for their opinions on Sprint and its competitors. Claure
asked a few customers what came to mind when he mentioned ‘T-Mobile’, one of
Sprint’s major competitors. One customer responded by saying ‘the first word
that came to my mind was ghetto!’ Claure posted the advertisement on his
Twitter page, tagging T-Mobile in his Tweet with the comments ‘sometimes the
truth hurts’.
Sprint Chief Executive Marcelo Claure |
Almost
immediately, Claure and Sprint began to see backlash from the advertisement on
Twitter and other social media. Many people took issue with the consumer who
used the word ‘ghetto’ to refer to T-Mobile. The advertisement was called
classless, insensitive, and racist by many. Due to the harsh backlash, not only
6 hours later, Claure removed the advertisement from his Twitter page. Claure
apologized for what he called bad judgement, but defended that the
advertisement was not racist. He responded to one Twitter user who claimed the
video was disrespectful to Latinos by saying “I am just as Latino as you are so
don’t try to pull that card.”
Stakeholders:
There are quite a
few stakeholders in regards to the Sprint advertisement controversy. Most
notably, chief executive Claure and other high-ranking Sprint employees are
stakeholders, as they would likely receive the most fallback from the
advertisement. Such negative publicity could result in employees resigning or
being fired, or otherwise punished by other corporate leadership. Additionally,
Sprint’s competitors pose to gain from the advertisement as well as the
mishandling of the situation by Sprint and Claure, making them stakeholders as
well. If people who felt that the advertisement was negative enough to search
for alternative means of communication, these rival companies could see an
increase in sales. Lastly, these consumers who were upset or offended by the
advertisement’s use of the word ‘ghetto’ potentially referring to specific
groups of people would make them stakeholders in this case as well.
Individualism:
Individualist
Theory states that the only moral responsibility of a business is to increase
profits for the company and its shareholders, as long as the business stays
within the limits of the law. Someone looking at the Sprint case using individualist
principles may say that the company did not break any laws, therefore the
company is not in the wrong. However, by releasing an advertisement that may be
seen as racist by a large percentage of the population, Sprint may have
potentially done something to decrease its profits. While advertisements are
typically made to attract people to its business, this particular advertisement
may have pushed people away from Sprint and towards one of its competitors.
Utilitarianism:
Utilitarian
principles focus on creating the most benefit for the largest share of the
population possible. Looking at the Sprint case through a utilitarian lens, it
is clear to see that Sprint did not act in the best interests of its company or
its customers. By releasing an advertisement that may be construed as racist or
offensive, Sprint is portraying itself in a way that is not beneficial to
increase profits or customer satisfaction. It is acceptable to use
advertisements to try to put yourself or your company in a more positive light,
but not by including offensive language or images.
Kantianism:
One user's response to Sprint's 'racist' advertisement |
Kantianism focuses
on rational decision making and the freedom for all people involved. When using
a Kantian point of view is where the absurdity of this case really comes into
light. It is clear that Sprint and chief executive Claure did not act according
to rational thought. If Sprint had shown the advertisement to several audiences
or some sort of focus group, it would have been obvious that the advertisement
was not acceptable. This should have been a commonplace solution to Sprints
problems, but due to Sprint and Claure’s negligence, the company is left to
face the aftermath of rightfully angry consumers who may not want to do
business with a company that produces and releases insensitive advertisements.
Virtue Theory:
When
examining a case using virtue theory, one must use the four main virtues:
courage, honesty, justice, and temperance. In the case of Sprint, if it is not
already clear, the production and release of a commercial that has been
received by many as insensitive or racist is not conducive to a better
lifestyle. Claure showed slight courage when he removed the advertisement and
apologized after receiving backlash, but did not completely exemplify the
virtue by denying the advertisements racist overtones. The remaining three
virtues were not shown by Sprint or Claure during this case, as the
advertisement offended many people, and Sprint’s lackluster response did not
repair the damage done. The company not making a public statement and not
publicly reprimanding Claure was not the right move to help the company and its
stakeholders move on from this instance.
Words
Cited:
Andrews, Travis M. “Sprint pulls ad featuring white woman
calling T-Mobile ‘ghetto’. Do we see a trend yet?” The Washington Post,
WP Company, 13 Apr. 2016.
Brueck, Hilary. “Sprint Pulls Ad
Calling T-Mobile The 'Ghetto' Carrier.” Fortune, 13 Apr. 2016,
fortune.com/2016/04/13/sprint-pulls-ad-calling-t-mobile-ghetto/.
Vranica, Suzanne. “Best and Worst
Ads of 2016: The Things We Can't Unsee.” The Wall Street Journal, Dow
Jones & Company, 28 Dec. 2016.
Your post was very informative and interesting! I think it was helpful to the post to discuss Sprint's background and it's competitors initially in the case description as you did. Sprint definitely could have easily avoided this entire advertising mishap if they had tried out the ad on a focus group or even just to any sort of third party to make sure the ad wasn't offensive to anyone. But instead, the company assumed everyone would accept the term "ghetto" and not question it. Sprint certainly gained some negative attention which is never good for a company's profits. Overall your blog post looks great, good job!
ReplyDeleteThis scandal could have easily been avoided if Claure had just used common sense! It amazes me how many people and representatives if companies create issues just because of lack of common sense. I enjoyed reading your blog, it had some good information and I feel it was explained well using the theories discussed in class. Great job!
ReplyDelete