CASE 2. sales aT world Camera and eleCTroniCs 

Sales personnel at World Camera and Electronics are given a financial incentive to sell overstocked cameras; each week, the management identifies a particular camera that sales-people should try to sell over other brands. When such cameras are sold, the salesperson receives a 20 percent commission in- stead of the usual 10 percent. 

Matthew Anderson, a college student, wishes to purchase a digital camera. After carefully re- searching different styles online, he decides to buy a camera that he believes is ideal for student pho- tographers. He finds the exact model that he desires at World Camera. The salesperson agrees that this model would be a fine purchase. 

However, rather than simply sell this camera, the salesperson shows Matthew another camera. This one is far more expensive and a bit less prac- tical for his needs. The salesperson has a financial incentive to sell this camera and convinces Mat- thew that it is indeed a better buy. While this model 

is widely recognized as having numerous advanced features, Matthew does not require these aIDitional features-and is not likely in the future to need such sophisticated options. In the end, Matthew buys the more expensive camera believing that the salesper- son’s expertise is valuable in finding the “perfect fit” for his future needs. 

discussion Questions 

1. Is this a case of deceptive sales? Does the fact that the salesperson sold a “better” digital cam- era with sophisticated features justify the sale? Is the fact that she will receive a financial bonus relevant to a moral assessment of her actions? 

2. Does the salesperson’s “steering” toward a particular product, in this case a more expen- sive camera, represent a “significant harm”
to the customer? Should customers expect salespeople to be objective, with the customer’s best interest in mind, or should they accept the principle “buyer beware”?