美國的商業誠信是如何打造的

經常看見國人感嘆，美國、日本等發達國家的商業誠信相比國內商人的高尚無比，言下之意，似乎是這些商人道德的高尚， 具有天生性。

道德高尚與否，是結果，是長期習慣性形成和大環境造就的，想與眾不同“出污泥而不染”， 說起來容易，做起來難於上青天。特別是對於以利潤為追求目標的商業行為和商人而言。

利潤率低，相互主要靠殺價生存，彼此搞無差異競爭，高成本高風險打造的創新得不到合理合法的低成本保護，個人的隨機性權力和決斷高於一切文字性的法規，在這樣的商業大環境之下，除了投機取巧，恐怕也沒有其它的可以長期生存下去的商業辦法。

可能也是由於這種原因，國內的富豪榜最終都成為殺豬榜。因為，欺騙多數人只能成功一時，不可能成功永遠。

再者，國內的商業模式，在那樣的人治大環境之下，除了以操作人際關係來獲得壟斷，並且就此快速發財之外，恐怕也沒有可行的商業操作模式。

所以，國內實業界的關鍵詞，也只能是包裝、操作、關係，和可做的不可說，可說的不可做。在業已取得可以“稱霸”世界的GDP業績的今天，細細思考和分析作為國家經濟基石的以創造價值增值為基礎和核心的商業成就，你能夠真正的發現幾家是靠實實在在的經營（打造效率和創造價值增加值，而不是簡單的強制性的再分配），將企業做大做強的？反過來，這也說明了，為什麼經濟如此“成功”的國家，其股市表現卻是長期的如此不堪入目！

商業誠信是靠制度打造的，而且是靠長期持之以恆和一貫性的法制的執行來打造成的。就像我們培養孩子一樣，沒有捷徑，沒有投機取巧。

如果將國家比作一個家庭，實際上也很像一個家庭，政府就是家長（父母）。企業家和民眾就是孩子，個體的普通民眾實際上也是一個個的微型的企業家，那麼，中國目前事實上實行的就是典型的中國式的家長制：孩子必須強制性的服從於家長的權威和意志，否則就是棍棒相向，還美其名曰是愛！

於是乎，在那樣的環境下成長和生存的企業，也就自然而然的學會了獻媚和投機取巧。於是乎，才有了中國特色的“地溝油”和大頭娃娃奶粉。

而每每出現這樣的事件，都是孩子的過錯。就像孩子成為惡棍，必然是孩子本性太差一樣。孩子是父母親的鏡子，企業家是國家制度和領導者的鏡子！企業家天生的使命就是追逐利潤，也就是回報。孩子的天性就是頑皮和不安分，喜愛找樂子。作為家長，始亂終棄，先是給他們機會折騰撈錢，隨後又隨意性的隨機性的打黑罰惡，而且這種黑和惡的含義還會隨着領導者個人喜愛的變化而變化。這樣的大環境，你能夠持之以恆的適應、生存、並且還得以累積巨大的財富，那麼，你只能是魔鬼。中國的紅頂商人幾乎沒有一個最終得以善終的歷史事實，已經非常能夠說明問題了。

今天的中國，雖然寫在紙上的法規絲毫不少於美國的，但是，沒有執行力的法律，最終只能打造更多更為圓滑的騙子。在一個只有欺騙和欺詐才能得以發達的國度，你的長期經濟發展成功和國家的最終強大，是不可能成為現實的。

一旦出現商業不端行為，不應該也沒有必要先聲討商人道德的底下，而是應該先尋找形成這樣的道德的環境與制度原因。

子不教父之過，而子的行為不端，不就是父母親教育失敗的結果嗎？！既然是，那麼，是不是應該先檢討和處罰做父母親的？治病從源頭開始？！

下面只是一些美國企業因為誇大其辭而被罰的例子，讓大家看看，這些在中國今天的商業環境下非常正常的“包裝”和營銷行為，為什麼在美國，卻不得不受罰？！也正是因為大大小小的類似這樣的懲罰在等着“膽大包天”的商人們，才最終造就了今天美國多數商人的“膽小怕事”，最終才造就了商業誠信的普及。

在中國的商業環境下，商人做不到堅守真正的誠信，也無法在堅守誠信的前提下繼續生存下去。可悲！

什麼時候，當商人作惡的時候，如果我們有制度性的保證，讓普通人也可以先問問：相關的法制是不是完善，如果不完善，是不是有失職行為；是不是有將其完善的機制和制度性保障；法制的執行是不是公平，是不是一視同仁，是不是前後一致？如果不能從根本上解決這些基本的問題，再多的高談闊論，再聲勢浩大的反腐敗，也只能是短期的“成功”，和長期的國家實力的破壞。

美國商人的誠信，在Amish商人身上表現的更為固執：曾經去過一家做木製家具的小作坊。他們的產品都是定製的實木家具，產品只賣給經銷商，不直銷。而且，即使的定製的產品，不滿意也還是可以退換。定製產品退回的，原本就很難再賣出，又是在天高皇帝遠的地方放着，賣出去就更難了。即使如此，“窮”得連汽車都“開不起”的他們，即使你想買，也還得以不低於賣給經銷商的價格（批發價），這樣做，為的只是曾經給出的不競爭的承諾，否則寧可放在陳列室。

當你看到，在大庭廣眾之下還有母親可以肆無忌憚的訓斥孩子，對自己的老人習慣性的大吼大叫的時候，你就應該明白，中國的商人還不可能靠誠信發財致富，中國的領導者還有超乎他們應該獲得權力的權力，中國的。。。

唉，不說了！

The Nine Most Misleading Product Claims

May 14, 2014 by Thomas C. Frohlich

Advertisements and packaging increase consumer awareness of a product and provide information so that customers can make educated choices. Oftentimes, however, marketing strategies are focused more on raising sales than providing accurate product information

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) handles numerous cases each year as part of its goal to protect consumers from unfair or deceptive practices. Last year, the FTC ruled that advertisements and packaging of various lines of clothing from a number of companies — including Sears, Amazon.com, and Macy’s — were misleading and unsubstantiated. In these cases, the companies marketed the products as environmentally friendly bamboo, when in fact the manufacturing process involved toxic chemicals.

This incident is one of a slew of recent confrontations companies have had with a number of groups. Regulators, customers and advocacy groups have especially targeted “all-natural” labelled foods. The growth in such labeling is not surprising given the spike in demand for so-called “natural” products in recent years. Other products under scrutiny have ranged from shoes to cars. Based on recent FTC and media reports,24/7 Wall St.has reviewed the most misleading product claims.

Due to the high volume of litigations in recent years, the word “natural” is slowly disappearing from labels, despite the lucrative sales growths of products with this label. The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is one consumer advocacy group that is at the forefront of lawsuits related to food, beverages and health.

In an interview with24/7 Wall St., Stephen Gardner, Litigation Director at CSPI, explained that food and health-related litigation probably get more media attention because “Americans are increasingly interested in eating [healthy foods].” The problem is that the terms used to identify healthy foods are often inconsistent or vague. Citric acid, for example, can be either natural or artificially produced, which means seeing it listed as an ingredient does not tell a consumer very much,Gardnerexplained.

Kashi, Emergen-C, and Kellogg’s Frosted Mini-Wheats all claimed to be healthier than they actually were. Kashi, which claims to be all all-natural, actually contains artificial ingredients. Emergen-C vitamin C supplement’s effectiveness  at preventing or curing the common cold is controversial. Kellogg’s Frosted Mini-Wheats do not improve children’s attention span.

To make matters worse, information found on packaging is often unreliable. These strategies are anti-competitive,Gardnerargued. “If people don’t want to buy food with high-fructose corn syrup, they shouldn’t be tricked into buying it.” Additionally, if you are a victim of deceptive practices, “You’re not getting what you paid for, and that’s a failure of the marketplace,”Gardnersaid.

24/7 Wall St.has identified the major government actions and private lawsuits directed at companies on the basis of deceptive practices or false advertising. In order to be considered, a product had to be involved in some major settlement since the start of last year. We excluded incidents that were related to services rather than specific products, such as cases of predatory lending.

These are nine of the most misleading product claims.

1. Sears’ Bamboo fabric
> Parent Company: Sears
> Ad changed: yes
> Settlement Amount: $475,000

Sears Holdings (NYSE: SHLD) agreed to pay $475,000 and remove false advertising from its line of “100% pure bamboo” products, which were anything but. Sears was the find the most out of several large companies, including Amazon.com and Macy’s, that agreed to pay fines totaling nearly $1.3 million for violating for violating the Textile Products Identification Act last year. The FTC charged the companies for labelling clothing products as made of bamboo, when they were actually made of rayon. While using bamboo to make clothing is arguably “green,” rayon — a synthetic cellulose fiber — is manufactured using toxic chemicals in a process known for its hazardous byproducts, the FTC noted. These companies had previously received warnings from the FTC in 2010 but did not alter their marketing strategies until last year, when the settlement was reached.

2. Vibram FiveFinger
> Parent Company: VibramUSA
> Ad changed: Yes
> Settlement Amount: $3.75 million

So-called minimalist running gear has gained popularity in recent years, most notably the Vibram FiveFinger shoe, a close-fitting mimicry of the bare foot. The FiveFinger shoe’s initial reception was lukewarm. The glove-like shoe was simply too weird for many Americans.Since then, the market for minimalist shoes has boomed, due in part to the success of author Christopher McDougall’s best-selling book, “Born to Run,” which touted the benefits and freedom of barefoot running.While the best-selling book did not explicitly endorse FiveFinger shoes, Vibram sales soared after the book was released in 2009. However, following a recent settlement, Vibram has agreed to stop making any claims that its shoes strengthen muscles or prevent injuries, and has agreed to refund customers who bought its shoes. In its settlement, the company noted “Vibram expressly denied and continues to deny any wrongdoing alleged in the Actions, and neither admits nor concedes any actual or potential fault, wrongdoing or liability”

3. Kellogg’s Frosted Mini-Wheats
> Parent Company: Kellogg
> Ad changed: Yes
> Settlement Amount: $4 million

Approximately five years ago, Kellogg (NYSE: K) claimed that “Eating a bowl of Kellogg’s Frosted Mini-Wheats cereal for breakfast is clinically shown to improve attentiveness by nearly 20%.” While Kellogg did not admit to false advertising, it did create a $4 million fund last year to reimburse misled customers who bought the cereal between January 2008 and October 2009. The agreement was part of a settlement in a class-action lawsuit charging Kellogg with false advertising. The company settled similar accusations in the past, when the FTC charged Kellogg with misleading health claims on its Rice Krispies cereal. Cereal boxes at that time claimed the food would boost immunity and provide essential portions of healthy nutrients.

4. Snapchat
> Parent Company: Snapchat
> Ad changed: Yes
> Settlement Amount: N/A

Snapchat is a smartphone application designed to send disappearing photos, or “snaps,” to friends. The FTC, however, charged the company for misleading consumers into believing the photos would actually disappear forever, when there are actually a number of simple ways to preserve the snaps. The FTC also accused the company of misrepresenting the extent to which it collected personal information, including geolocation data. This is not the first misstep for the company. Earlier this year, Snapchat leaked the phone numbers and names of millions of users. The incident was particularly embarrassing for the company as it dismissed a security warning it received shortly before the leak. In January, Snapchat finally apologized for the fiasco, detailing how it would prevent further abuse of its application.

5. Kashi
> Parent Company: Kellogg
> Ad changed: Yes
> Settlement Amount: $5 million

Earlier this month, Kellogg agreed to stop including terms such as “nothing artificial” and “all natural” on its Kashi brand of products. The agreement was part of a $5 million settlement filed at the beginning of May. The class action lawsuit accused Kellogg of misleading its customers with claims that its Kashi line of cereal contained “all natural” ingredients. The FDA currently has a vague definition of the term “natural.” According to the FDA, “From a food science perspective, it is difficult to define a food product that is ‘natural’ because the food has probably been processed and is no longer the product of the earth.” Kashi cereal contains pyridoxine hydrochloride, calcium pantothenate, and hexane-processed soy. According to The New York Times, “such ingredients do occur naturally,” but food companies often use synthetic versions of the ingredients.

6. Emergen-C
> Parent Company: Alacer Corporation
> Ad changed: Yes
> Settlement Amount: $6.4 million

Alacer Corporation reached a $6.5 million settlement late last year with plaintiffs over its claims that its Emergen-C vitamin C supplement boosts energy, the immune system, and metabolism. While vitamin C is a necessary component of a healthy diet, its effectiveness in preventing the common cold is still controversial after decades of scientific research. In fact, too much Vitamin C can cause diarrhea, nausea, can cause several side effects, including diarrhea, nausea, and stomach cramps, according to the National Institutes of Health. Anyone who purchased Emergen-C in theUnited Statesbetween June 1, 2006 and February 27, 2012 could have claimed reimbursement prior to the end of March.

7. Nissan Frontier
> Parent Company: Nissan North America
> Ad changed: Yes
> Settlement Amount: N/A

In one of Nissan North America commercials, Nissan’s Frontier pickup truck was seen as pushing a dune buggy up a steep hill in a desert setting. The FTC objected because the truck was not actually capable of doing what the commercial showed. Nissan’s ad agency, TBWA Worldwide, later admitted the commercial was altered to make it appear that the incline was steeper than it actually was, and that the truck was actually being pulled up the hill by cables. While Nissan and TBWA did not claim, either verbally or in print, that the pickup truck could perform such a feat, the FTC ruled the visual depiction was enough to warrant misleading advertising. The FTC prohibited Nissan from “Misrepresenting any material quality or feature of a pickup truck through the depiction of a test, experiment, or demonstration.”

8. E.K. Ekcessories
> Parent Company: E.K. Ekcessories
> Ad changed: Yes
> Settlement Amount: N/A

Like many companies, E.K. Ekcessories used patriotism as a marketing tool. The Utah-based company sells outdoor accessories such as iPhone cases and bottle holders. The company boasted that many of its products were “Made in theU.S.A.” or “Truly Made in theU.S.A.Our source of pride and satisfaction abounds from a true made in theU.S.A.product.” The claim, however, wasn’t true, as many of the company’s products were actually manufactured abroad. Last October, as part of a settlement, the FTC prohibited the company from making any such claims. The settlement also required the company stop “providing deceptive promotional material to third-party retailers,” as many of its products are sold in online retail stores, including Amazon.com. Lesley Fair, a senior attorney in the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, called E.K. Ekcessories’ practice a “Yankee Doodle Don’t” on the FTC’s blog.

9. Sensa
> Parent Company: Sensa Products
> Ad changed: Yes
> Settlement Amount: $26.5 million

Earlier this year, the FTC fined diet products company, Sensa Products, for falsely claiming its products lead to weight loss. As part of a settlement, Sensa agreed to pay the FTC $26.5 million, which will be used for Sensa customers’ refunds. Sensa was particularly faulted for its claims that all dieters have to do to lose weight is to sprinkle its salt-like product on to their food. In one of its commercials, thin women in bikinis dance on a beach and sprinkle Sensa’s product on foods such as ice cream, hot dogs and hamburgers, while a background voice states that all dieters have to do is “Shake, eat and lose weight.” Women’s high-end beauty chain, L’Occitane, was also fined $750,000 as part of the same crackdown. L’Occitane claimed that one of its creams could slim users’ bodies.