美国的商业诚信是如何打造的

经常看见国人感叹，美国、日本等发达国家的商业诚信相比国内商人的高尚无比，言下之意，似乎是这些商人道德的高尚， 具有天生性。

道德高尚与否，是结果，是长期习惯性形成和大环境造就的，想与众不同“出污泥而不染”， 说起来容易，做起来难于上青天。特别是对于以利润为追求目标的商业行为和商人而言。

利润率低，相互主要靠杀价生存，彼此搞无差异竞争，高成本高风险打造的创新得不到合理合法的低成本保护，个人的随机性权力和决断高于一切文字性的法规，在这样的商业大环境之下，除了投机取巧，恐怕也没有其它的可以长期生存下去的商业办法。

可能也是由于这种原因，国内的富豪榜最终都成为杀猪榜。因为，欺骗多数人只能成功一时，不可能成功永远。

再者，国内的商业模式，在那样的人治大环境之下，除了以操作人际关系来获得垄断，并且就此快速发财之外，恐怕也没有可行的商业操作模式。

所以，国内实业界的关键词，也只能是包装、操作、关系，和可做的不可说，可说的不可做。在业已取得可以“称霸”世界的GDP业绩的今天，细细思考和分析作为国家经济基石的以创造价值增值为基础和核心的商业成就，你能够真正的发现几家是靠实实在在的经营（打造效率和创造价值增加值，而不是简单的强制性的再分配），将企业做大做强的？反过来，这也说明了，为什么经济如此“成功”的国家，其股市表现却是长期的如此不堪入目！

商业诚信是靠制度打造的，而且是靠长期持之以恒和一贯性的法制的执行来打造成的。就像我们培养孩子一样，没有捷径，没有投机取巧。

如果将国家比作一个家庭，实际上也很像一个家庭，政府就是家长（父母）。企业家和民众就是孩子，个体的普通民众实际上也是一个个的微型的企业家，那么，中国目前事实上实行的就是典型的中国式的家长制：孩子必须强制性的服从于家长的权威和意志，否则就是棍棒相向，还美其名曰是爱！

于是乎，在那样的环境下成长和生存的企业，也就自然而然的学会了献媚和投机取巧。于是乎，才有了中国特色的“地沟油”和大头娃娃奶粉。

而每每出现这样的事件，都是孩子的过错。就像孩子成为恶棍，必然是孩子本性太差一样。孩子是父母亲的镜子，企业家是国家制度和领导者的镜子！企业家天生的使命就是追逐利润，也就是回报。孩子的天性就是顽皮和不安分，喜爱找乐子。作为家长，始乱终弃，先是给他们机会折腾捞钱，随后又随意性的随机性的打黑罚恶，而且这种黑和恶的含义还会随着领导者个人喜爱的变化而变化。这样的大环境，你能够持之以恒的适应、生存、并且还得以累积巨大的财富，那么，你只能是魔鬼。中国的红顶商人几乎没有一个最终得以善终的历史事实，已经非常能够说明问题了。

今天的中国，虽然写在纸上的法规丝毫不少于美国的，但是，没有执行力的法律，最终只能打造更多更为圆滑的骗子。在一个只有欺骗和欺诈才能得以发达的国度，你的长期经济发展成功和国家的最终强大，是不可能成为现实的。

一旦出现商业不端行为，不应该也没有必要先声讨商人道德的底下，而是应该先寻找形成这样的道德的环境与制度原因。

子不教父之过，而子的行为不端，不就是父母亲教育失败的结果吗？！既然是，那么，是不是应该先检讨和处罚做父母亲的？治病从源头开始？！

下面只是一些美国企业因为夸大其辞而被罚的例子，让大家看看，这些在中国今天的商业环境下非常正常的“包装”和营销行为，为什么在美国，却不得不受罚？！也正是因为大大小小的类似这样的惩罚在等着“胆大包天”的商人们，才最终造就了今天美国多数商人的“胆小怕事”，最终才造就了商业诚信的普及。

在中国的商业环境下，商人做不到坚守真正的诚信，也无法在坚守诚信的前提下继续生存下去。可悲！

什么时候，当商人作恶的时候，如果我们有制度性的保证，让普通人也可以先问问：相关的法制是不是完善，如果不完善，是不是有失职行为；是不是有将其完善的机制和制度性保障；法制的执行是不是公平，是不是一视同仁，是不是前后一致？如果不能从根本上解决这些基本的问题，再多的高谈阔论，再声势浩大的反腐败，也只能是短期的“成功”，和长期的国家实力的破坏。

美国商人的诚信，在Amish商人身上表现的更为固执：曾经去过一家做木制家具的小作坊。他们的产品都是定制的实木家具，产品只卖给经销商，不直销。而且，即使的定制的产品，不满意也还是可以退换。定制产品退回的，原本就很难再卖出，又是在天高皇帝远的地方放着，卖出去就更难了。即使如此，“穷”得连汽车都“开不起”的他们，即使你想买，也还得以不低于卖给经销商的价格（批发价），这样做，为的只是曾经给出的不竞争的承诺，否则宁可放在陈列室。

当你看到，在大庭广众之下还有母亲可以肆无忌惮的训斥孩子，对自己的老人习惯性的大吼大叫的时候，你就应该明白，中国的商人还不可能靠诚信发财致富，中国的领导者还有超乎他们应该获得权力的权力，中国的。。。

唉，不说了！

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.