Academic Integrity: tutoring, explanations, and feedback — we don’t complete graded work or submit on a student’s behalf.

11. A retail store carries goods from two small beverage manufacturers. The owne

ID: 3493046 • Letter: 1

Question

11. A retail store carries goods from two small beverage manufacturers. The owner of the store has asked you to pay a flat $100 “supplemental fee” weekly to be featured prominently by the checkout aisle.

a. Is this “supplemental fee” ethical?

b. Would this “supplemental fee” be ethical if the store owner agreed to move your competitor’s merchandise to a remote corner in the back of the store, but did not change how your product was displayed?

c. Would this “supplemental fee” be ethical if the store owner agreed to feature your bever- age prominently and discontinued stocking your competitor’s merchandise altogether?

Explanation / Answer

A). No, the supplemental fee is unethical. Charging additional cost to feature my product prominently is the checkout is straight up unethical. However, the product is more likely to sell-off if it is at the checkout aisle, as the customer would be enticed by the product while standing in the queue to bill and is more likely to buy it. However, charging extra amount for is indeed unethical.

B). The 'supplemental fee' would still be unethical if he agreed to move my competitor’s merchandise to a remote corner in the back of the store, but did not change how my product was displayed. My competitor in that case would be at loss. It is unethical to indulge in any activity which helps you reap profits and losses for any other person or company. It is unethical to put somebody else as subject to risk.

C). If the store owner agreed to feature my beverage prominently and discontinued stocking my competitor’s merchandise altogether, that would be extremely unethical. It is only fair that his product stays at the store as much as mine does. We both have paid nominal charges to display our product at his store. It's unethical to charge any extra in the first place and extremely wrong to have the competitor's stock discontinued.