CASE 1- CHILDREN'S ONLINE PRIVACY PROTECTION

Table A provides a grid that can be used to evaluate how well various Web sites targeted toward children under 13 years of age adhere to The Rules under COPPA (Children's Online Privacy Protection Act). Each row represents one of the key provisions of The Rules under COPPA (for more detail on each pro¬vision, see Table 20-3). Each column represents a different company Web site.

TABLE A The Ruks Under COPPA-Evaluadon Grid

Each company Web site can be rated in terms of its adherence to each COPPA provision on the fol¬lowing scale: 1 = very poor; 2 = poor; 3 = adequate; 4 = good; 5 = very good. Altematively, a check box procedure might be used in which a check mark is placed in each cell where the provision is met.

Discussion Questions

1. Visit at least three Web sites designed to appeal to children under 13 (e.g., Nick.com, Disney.com and so on) and complete the COPPA Evaluation Grid.

2. Prepare a report including the COPPA Evaluation Grid and discuss how well these companies appear to be adhering to the The Rules under COPPA. Are there areas in which you see room for improvement? Explain.

3. Do you feel COPPA is adequate? Detail any areas where COPPA could be strengthened in order to better protect children's online privacy.

4. CARU (Children's Advertising Review Unit) has its own self-regulatory program, which is an FTC-approved Safe Harbor. Participants (companies) who adhere to CARU's Guidelines are deemed in compliance with COPPA. Visit CARU's Online Privacy Program area at www.caru.org/program/ index.asp, and address the following:

a. In what ways do CARU's guidelines (under CARU's compliance checklist tab) help companies inter¬pret the broad mandates of COPPA?

b. Do CARU's guidelines help you make finer grade assessments of the companies you evaluated in Questions I and 2 above? Do your assessments remain the same, or do they change? Explain.

c. Describe and evaluate any tools provided by CARU to help companies evaluate their Web sites with respect to children's online privacy.

CASE 2- SAFER CIGARETTES?

For some years, there has been an ongoing debate over the marketing of so-called safer cigarettes-cigarettes with lower levels of cancer-causing substances that could be seen as healthier alternatives to regular cigarettes. One brand that was tested in recent years but is currently not on the market is Advance. Advance was produced by Brown & Williamson Tobacco (now owned by R.J. Reynolds). "Safer" cigarette brands have not done well in the U.S. market, although some in the industry think there is a niche in this area. As such, the test and various reactions to it, which are detailed next, are instructive regarding the issues surrounding this product.

In November 2001, Brown & Williamson Tobacco placed Advance cigarettes into Indianapolis stores for a sales test. Ads supporting the brand featured part of a man's or woman's face focusing on one clear eye. The headline was "New ADVANCE ... A step in the right direction." The tagline was, "All of the taste ... Less of the toxins." The text credited the toxin reduction to a "revolutionary new filter design," and a "patented new method for growing tobacco." The text again stated, "Less toxins and great taste." In addition to the required Surgeon General's warning, the ads contained a boxed statement: "There is no such thing as a safe cigarette, nor is there enough medical information to know if Advance with less toxins will lower health risks." This statement was also on the back of the package.

At the time, there are four views of the likely impact of this product and its message. Brown & Wil¬liamson felt it met a market need. It used the "less toxins" claim because

[i]t seems to be the clearest and most impactful statement we could make of the facts that are behind Advance and the product itself. We did not want to get into polysyllabic chemical names.

One analyst felt that the taglinc would backfire and remind smokers of the harmful effects of smoking:

People are aware of the fact that when they purchase cigarettes, there are significant adverse health consequences, but it doesn't seem to be a winning proposition to remind them every time.

Mathew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, felt it was unethical and misleading:

It's always a good thing to remove a known carcinogen from cigarettes, but it is irresponsible to make statements in marketing that will lead consumers to believe that the product is safer. And that's exactly what happens when a manu-facturer touts a product as having fewer toxins, no matter how many disclaimers they put on it.

A final view was expressed by an analyst who saw very little demand for a safer or less toxic cigarette:

Cigarette smokers are risk-takers. If they're truly concerned about health. they quit.

Discussion Questions

1. Which of the four positions described above is (are) most likely accurate? Why?

2. Why would consumers believe that Advance was a safer, if not a safe, cigarette despite the disclaimer?

3. What are the ethical issues involved surrounding Brown & Williamson's launch of this product?

4. What regulations, if any, should be applied to promoting toxin reduction in cigarettes?

5. Less-educated individuals are much more likely to smoke and smoke heavily. Does this fact impose additional ethical or regulatory requirements on companies trying to market a so-called safer cigarette?

Sower: C. B. DiPsscoszlc. "B&W Smoke Beads FeANT Toxins. Arherering Age. November 5. 2001. p. 3: 'Blowing Smelter Acherreleg Age. November 12. 2001. p. 26; B. Garfield. "Softly Lit or Bluol, 'Las Toxic' Ciprele At Hint at Health," Aahnising Age. November II. 2001; C. B. DiPequale. "B&W Leads Lower-Toxin Pitch." AaVenistng Age. hoe 24. 2002. p. $22; "B&W Seeks to Advance 'Safer Smokes' Catepry."Bnandwerk. July 26-Aupts 2. 20434. p. 10. and Cigarette Smoking among Addb-Ihtlted STata. 2006 (Atlanta: Cadets foe Disease Control.