The Marketer’s Dilemma

 

Statement of the Situation

Obtaining proprietary documents from an opposing company is considered as industrial espionage even if it is presented by a disgruntled employee to a competitor in a trade-off for an employment position with the competitor’s workplace.

 

Background of the Situation

A prominent marketing manager is approached by a relatively drunk rival business employee with an under the table offer to reveal his company’s marketing plan for the following year in exchange for a position at her workplace. She is told that a copy of the marketing plan will be left for her to view, so long as it is returned where it was obtained.

 

Issues to be Resolved

• Should the marketing manager accept the bribe, which is ethically immoral and clearly violates The Economic Espionage Act of 1996?
• The document is a trade secret; therefore the employee is committing industrial espionage since it breaches his confidentiality agreement with his company.
• By accepting, viewing, and acting on the information gathered from the rival business’s marketing plan, the marketing manager would be placing that company in an obvious disadvantage since the information received is not publicly available.
• The marketing manager’s method of obtaining information is not competitive intelligence because she is deliberately accepting knowledge about the competition’s marketing plans that are inaccessible to the public.

 

Procedures Employed

The employee offers the marketing manager his company’s marketing plan in exchange for a position at her company, since he is giving her an unfair advantage that would certainly promote her status. The dilemma is that the marketing manager could be risking everything she has worked for should it be revealed that she obtained her information from illegally.

 

Outcomes

In the event that the marketing manager accepts or applies the trade secret for her use and is convicted, then depending on the level of damage committed to the rival business, she must pay restitution to the company, in addition to possible imprisonment and fines. 

 

Summary of the Case

While competitive intelligence is legal, there is a line of separation over what one person can do to obtain certain information about a rival business. Trade secrets are off-limits to everyone outside the company; it is critical information that is confidential, and is kept away from the public. By offering the marketing manager his company’s marketing plan, the employee infringes his confidentiality agreement. In accepting the information, the marketing manager knowingly holds information that gives her an unfair advantage over the competition. There is, however, no sure way of knowing whether or not the information offered is reliable, for it is coming from only one source. It is probable that the marketing plan itself is not real, and could have just been made up by the employee in an effort to sabotage the marketing manager. In any case, just glancing at the document is risky, and should be avoided since the outcomes are not favorable.

 

Principles of Practice Demonstrated

• Theft of trade occurs when a document concealed from the public is obtained by a competitor. This causes the opponent considerable damage since the competitor has their private documents and is then able to have the upper hand by having restricted information.
• Competitive intelligence is used to detect threats, eliminate surprises, enhance a company’s advantage by lessening reaction time, and to find new opportunities. However, the means by which a company receives their information from rival businesses is the difference between what is viewed as legal and not. Should the company obtain their knowledge from publicly available information, such as the business’s website, online sources, publications, etc.; then analyze them to form strategic knowledge about their opponent is fair and legal.
• Industrial espionage occurs when a person knowingly acquires private information about a company without authorization. 

 

Identify the Competencies Demonstrated

Theft of trade, trade secrets, competitive intelligence, industrial espionage, confidentiality agreements, unfair competition.