Although I understand both sides of this argument, I believe that Toys ‘R Us should have removed the action figure sooner. Children and their parents are Toys ‘R Us’s target market. In order to maintain and attract customers, as a CEO of Toys ‘R UsÂ I would go with the larger target market’s opinion because at the end of the day the goal is to make a profit and maintain a steady revenue stream. By going against these mothers (especially with the speed of sharing information and opinions through social media) other mothers and customers of Toys ‘R Us could be swayed to stop shopping at the store in order to show their protest and disapproval. I believe Toys ‘R Us’s initial response was informative in identifying the purpose of the action figure, however, it was too nonchalant because the spokesperson did not work to address and accommodate the mother’s concerns (did not other any alternatives or apology). I think it was a good idea to remove the toy from the shelf and not stand their grounds because Toys ‘R Us is primarily created to distribute products directed towards kids, and kids can not get to the store and make purchases without their mother or parent- thus, this action figure (although in the adult section) is not fitting to the store purpose and values. If the company was to stand their ground, I believe they should have done something to protect kids from entering the adult section and ease the mother’s minds.Â
About this Blog"Ethics in the News" provides a forum for students to compare and comment on media ethics reporting from various news sources. It seeks to critically evaluate events and their coverage as it explores ethical issues and concepts.