by | Tuesday, September 29, 2026 · 7:25 am

Fair or Unfair? Amazon Secretly Bids on Itself

What happens when the company running an advertising auction also knows every bid and can influence the price? That question sits at the center of a major marketing ethics case involving Amazon. The Federal Trade Commission and 22 states allege that Amazon secretly raised minimum prices in its retail advertising auctions, causing more than one million advertisers to pay higher rates. According to the complaint, Amazon sometimes inserted its own “soft reserve” into auctions, increasing what winning advertisers paid. Amazon denies deceiving advertisers, arguing that its system reflects the value of each ad and that advertisers never pay more than they bid.

The dispute illustrates the ethics of exchange. A marketplace transaction should provide both parties with sufficient information to make a voluntary and informed decision. However, Amazon allegedly possessed information that advertisers did not: the competing bids, the auction rules, and the ability to alter prices. Is it a fair exchange when one participant controls both the marketplace and its mechanics?

The case also raises questions about corporate culture. The FTC alleges that Amazon executives tracked the additional revenue while limiting advertisers’ awareness of the practice. If accurate, this suggests that the ethical problem was not simply a questionable algorithm. It involved organizational incentives, internal language, and decisions about what customers deserved to know. Marketing writer Chad S. White asks a question that becomes increasingly important as AI and automation expand: Just because marketers can optimize a tactic, does that mean they should? Ethical decision-making cannot begin after regulators intervene. Companies need clear standards for fairness, disclosure, and customer impact before automated systems are deployed. For marketers, the lesson is simple: maximizing what customers will tolerate is not the same as creating a fair exchange. A platform may set the price, but trust determines its long-term value.

Discussion Questions and Activities

  1. What information should advertisers reasonably expect AmazonAds to disclose about how its advertising auctions operate?
  2. Does an exchange remain ethical if advertisers agree to a maximum bid but do not understand how the final price is determined?
  3. How might performance goals, revenue incentives, and internal language influence employees’ ethical decision-making?
  4. Is complying with the law sufficient for ethical marketing, or should companies adopt a higher standard? Explain.
  5. Online research. Compare the FTC’s description of its allegations with Amazon’s response. Where do the two accounts agree, and how do their definitions of fairness differ?
  6. Hold an ethics committee meeting. Assign students the roles of marketing executive, advertising customer, consumer advocate, data scientist, and compliance officer. Evaluate the “soft reserve” strategy and recommend whether to approve, modify, disclose, or reject it.
  7. Test your ethical boundaries. Complete or adapt the scenarios in CMSWire’s digital marketing ethics audit. Compare responses within small groups, identify areas of disagreement, and develop five ethical principles for marketing decisions.

Sources: Federal Trade Commission (31 August 2026), States sue Amazon over secret ad surcharge scheme, FTC; Michaels, Dave (31 August 2026) FTC Files Lawsuit Alleging Amazon Deceived Advertisers, The Wall Street Journal; White, Chad S. (4 March 2026) How ethical are your digital marketing tactics? CMS Newswire.

Leave a comment

Filed under Classroom Activities

Tagged as , ,

by | Tuesday, September 22, 2026 · 7:11 am

When Brands Ignore Social Values

How can 15 seconds of content undo years of brand building? Good Good Golf discovered the answer after releasing an advertisement for its co-branded Callaway driver. The video, which depicted a male golfer pushing a female golfer to the ground, generated immediate criticism. Within days, retailers removed Good Good merchandise, Callaway ended the partnership, a television program was cancelled, and Good Good withdrew as title sponsor of a PGA Tour event. Callaway also acknowledged approving the advertisement and pledged $1 million to organizations working to prevent violence against women.

This case demonstrates why environmental scanning must extend beyond economic forecasts and competitor activity. Marketers must also monitor sociocultural trends – the changing values, attitudes, and expectations that influence how audiences interpret brand messages. A concept that seems provocative or humorous inside a creative team may communicate something entirely different when released into a broader cultural environment.

The controversy also reveals that brand reputation is shared across an entire marketing ecosystem. Good Good appeared in the advertisement, but Callaway approved it. Retailers, sponsors, media partners, and the PGA Tour then faced decisions about whether continuing their associations might damage their own reputations. A horrible creative choice quickly became a strategic problem involving partnerships, distribution, sponsorships, and corporate responsibility. Forbes contributor Kian Bakhtiari argues that when consumers feel uncertain about the future, they often seek comfort in familiar brands. However, familiarity alone is insufficient. Brands must provide emotional reassurance while helping consumers imagine a more hopeful future. Content that conflicts with those expectations can destroy the sense of trust that makes familiarity valuable. This is a cautionary tale for marketers. Attention is not the same as brand value. Before asking whether content will attract views, marketers should ask what those views will teach consumers about the brand and whether that message deserves to travel.

Discussion questions and Activities

  1. Which sociocultural factors and trends should Good Good and Callaway have identified before approving the advertisement?
  2. How did the relationships among the brands, retailers, media partners, and PGA Tour amplify the consequences?
  3. Was Callaway’s apology, decision to end the partnership, and $1 million pledge an effective response or could these actions be perceived as reactive? What else should the company have done?
  4. Follow the trend. Use Google Trends and recent news coverage to examine public interest in “Good Good Golf” and “Callaway.” What does the search activity suggest about how quickly a brand issue can expand beyond its original audience?
  5. Build the crisis timeline. In teams, map the advertisement’s release, public reaction, corporate statements, retailer decisions, partnership termination, and sponsorship withdrawal. Identify the point at which the situation became a business crisis rather than only a communications problem.
  6. Create a content-approval system. Design a five-step review process that Callaway could use for future partner-created content. Identify who approves the content, what questions must be asked, and which potential risks would automatically trigger senior review.
  7. Conduct an online reputation audit. Review Reuters coverage of the controversy and compare it with Good Good’s and Callaway’s public responses. Evaluate each organization on response speed, accountability, consistency, corrective action, and credibility. Conclude with three recommendations for rebuilding trust.

References

Bakhtiari, Kian (26  February 2026) 7 Cultural trends for 2026 and Beyond, Forbes; Deighton, Katie (29 August 2026) The magic number: $1 million, WSJ Leadership Institute; Greif, Andrew (27 August, 2026), Callaway severs ties with golf brand after controversial ad sparks outrage, NBC News Digital; Shanoff, Dan (28 August 2026) Good Good Golf’s bad bad week: Timeline of implosion following controversial Callaway ad, The Athletic.

Leave a comment

Filed under Classroom Activities

Tagged as , ,

by | Tuesday, September 15, 2026 · 7:19 am

The Business Behind the Brand

What does a football club have in common with a company buying millions of dollars in software? Both are customers and both expect marketing to deliver more than a memorable message. When we think about marketing, we often picture individuals choosing a restaurant, phone, or streaming service. But organizations are customers too. Their decisions involve budgets, multiple stakeholders, long buying journeys, and pressure to demonstrate results. The latest thinking in B2B marketing shows why understanding those customers requires more than knowing what they want to buy.

The Association of National Advertisers’ research highlights a challenge: 98% of respondents consider creativity extremely or very important, but fewer than half are equally confident in measuring its impact. The issue is not whether creativity matters. It is whether marketers can connect creativity to business outcomes such as pipeline, revenue, trust, and differentiation. SAS’s partnership with Liverpool FC offers an interesting example. SAS provides data analytics for the club while using the partnership to build brand awareness. Its “Make the Smart Play with Data & AI” message connects a complex business service to a familiar, emotionally engaging environment. The strategy suggests that B2B buyers are still people who respond to stories, experiences, and recognizable brands.

A CFO may care about financial performance, a marketing director about customer insight, and an employee about ease of use. Effective B2B marketing connects these different needs to one clear value proposition. B2B marketing is complex, but the lesson is simple. Organizations have different needs, multiple people influence the buying decision, and marketers must show how their products create value. Effective B2B marketing connects those needs to a clear message and measurable business results.

Discussion Questions and Activities

  1. Watch the video about SAS’s Liverpool FC partnership and discuss how the partnership demonstrates the role of emotion in B2B marketing.
  2. Why might a B2B marketer need to communicate different benefits to different people within the same organization?
  3. What can B2B marketers learn from successful consumer-facing brands like Owala or Nike about building trust, creating emotional connections, and influencing organizational buying decisions?
  4. How should marketers measure the effectiveness of a creative campaign when the buying journey may take months or years?
  5. The Organizational Buying Committee. In groups, students choose an organization that might purchase SAS analytics, a workplace meal service like Door Dash, or another B2B product. They identify three to five people involved in the decision, describe each person’s priorities, and create a value proposition that addresses the committee as a whole.
  6. Online Brand Investigation. Students visit the official websites of SAS, Liverpool FC, and one additional B2B brand of their choice. They identify how each brand communicates value to organizational customers. Students then compare the brands and explain which uses emotional or functional benefits most effectively.

Sources

Byrd, Andrew (4 September 2026) B2B marketers are rethinking creative effectiveness, Chief Marketer; Klara, Robert (19 August 2026), Data giant SAS’s deal with Liverpool FC signals a broader B2B shift, Adweek.

Leave a comment

Filed under Classroom Activities

Tagged as , ,