Practicing International Management Case: Psychology of Global Marketing

1. Put yourself in the position of Stephan Loerke of the World Federation of Advertisers. First, make an argument for why the EU should not enact more strict advertising laws. Second, make a case for why advertisers operating in the EU should initiate "voluntary" limits. Third, make a case for why current laws need no modification whatsoever. Which case do you agree with? Which case do you think is the strongest? The European Union should not enact more strict advertising laws because it would simply be a waste of their time. In the article, it says, “But the problem for the Swedes (and others with more restrictive bans) is that they can only enforce their laws on programs originating from within their country. They have no power of enforcement over programs broadcast from other nations or from satellite transmissions.” Therefore, they can try and implement regulations that should be followed, but there are still ways that advertisers will be able to get around them. Advertisers operating in the European Union should initiate “voluntary” limits because those countries like Sweden can try and enforce what they believe in, whereas others do not have to. Current laws need no modification whatsoever because no matter what is put in place advertisers will still be able to get their product or ad seen regardless of whether it be through social media, television, or word of mouth. A child could see a photo in a store magazine and tell their friends about it, but no one can tell a store they can’t sell that magazine because they don’t want children to see it. It’s that simple. Advertisers have a bigger advantage because you can’t put a large enough ban on something that is so extravagant. I agree with the president of the Society for Consumer Psychology, Dr. Curtis