Should Hooters Ban Children's Attendance after 9 PM - Essay Example

Business  Hooters restaurants need to just admit its adult entertainment and ban children after9pm. Agree or disagree? INTRODUCTION: Businesses in the world are expanding at a rapid pace, stretching their spans across borders and generating revenues at historically impressive rates. While the world is aware of notions of liberalism, capitalism and free markets, not much attention has been paid to the ethical soundness of most of the business practices that are prevalent. A couple of decades ago, the lack of academic focus on ethics specially in business studies could be blamed. But in the today’s times where a lot of insight and literature is available on business ethics, empowered by forces such as the media and civilian Watchdogs; ignorance is indeed not an excuse. Most of the literature available on ethics is dominated by rhetoric without accommodating the everyday practical situations that businesses deal with and without an adequate framework. There is also a wide array of ethical theories and explanations that are present, each one holding a particular merit, but the lack of uniformity and coherence makes it hard to standardize or decide on a single formula or framework to deal with such issues. Thus, this paper aims to critically assess an Ethical dilemma with a very objective outlook. This paper aims to systematically present the problem backed by facts and then present a legal and ethical analysis of the facts, without a bias towards either side. And ultimately using this analysis to present a very carefully constructed judgment. While increased globalization has opened up many new markets for trade, it has also increased competition among businesses to capture market share. Competition is naturally deemed as healthy, but it can also lead to practices that circumvent the existing socioethical status quos and thus lead to ethical dilemmas. 1 (Richard M. Locke, 2002) As per observations, increased competition leads to firms looking up for newer and more innovative ways to differentiate their products and services. Hooters, an American chain of fast food restaurants, is another such company that has made the use of a rather unconventional and unorthodox medium of differentiating itself, which in its case is female sex appeal. This strategy has been a source of debate and objection from many different circles but has also been successful in creating a market for Hooters. The extent of success and objections differs from place to place depending upon the demographic makeup of the respective locations. Our aim is to explore the many ways in which this eatery operates, analyze the potential sources of objection using legal and ethical notions and then ultimately form a judgment in context of normative ethics regarding what Hooters ought to do. To be specific, this paper will ultimately analyze the validity of the claim that Hooters is indeed an adult entertainment provider operating under the garb of a traditional fast food restaurant, and should consequently disallow the entry of children after 9 p.m. as per the usual legal norms. SUMMARY OVERVIEW: Hooters, since its inception in 1983 has openly admitted to using female sex appeal as a unique selling proposition. While doing this lies within its legal jurisdiction as protected by the American constitution and other governing laws throughout the world, the crux of the debate regarding Hooters lies in the company not classifying itself as an adult service provider. But once it does so, its market will be constricted mainly to adults, and this is what the company doesn’t want. The main attraction of the Hooters franchise are the Hooters Girls. The Hooters Girls are usually young, attractive females wearing a standard required uniform, the highlight of which is a White Hooters tank top and orange shorts. The clothes are meant to enhance the attraction of the body, but strictly without any nudity. The Hooters Girls are supposed to entertain and interact with the customers as part of the Hooters experience. According to the Hooters official website2, ‘We look for the All-American Cheerleader / Surfer-Girl-Next-Door image to fill our restaurants. In other words...Very bubbly, outgoing personalities!’ While Hooters has carved a niche market of customers which contribute to its annual revenues, it has also stirred controversy, particularly among feminist groups. The result has been negative PR among certain feminist circles that has spread out to family circles as well. Most feminist groups claim that Hooters is guilty of exploiting its female workers and obliges them to sell their bodies and tolerate unwelcomed behavior. In reply to the closure of a Hooters branch in Bristol, England, Sian Norris, of the Bristol Feminist Network3, said: "I think it's a positive step because Hooters is all part of the normalization of the sexual objectification of women.” Hooters has also been in negative limelight in certain male circles which claim that Hooters is guilty of gender discrimination when it comes to hiring. Several lawsuits have been filed against Hooters in this regard with claims amounting to Millions being awarded to plaintiffs. The matter has already been taken to the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) in 1991, which after a hiatus of about 5 years, decided to drop the charges on the grounds that the nature of the business and the job reasonably require certain employment positions to be strictly set aside for females. In a statement, Bristol Fawcett, which campaigns for equality between women and men4, said: "The Hooters brand is outdated and does not have a place in any modern city that values equality.” It is evident that Hooters has already has a negative taboo like status attached to it in some circles which reemphasize that such a branding strategy is unpardonable and shouldn’t be excused in the name of business rights.5 Hooters’ general hiring policy and brand philosophy are very straightforward and pose as an interesting specimen for the ethical dilemma in this case. Attached at the end is an employment contract for Hooters girls which is mandatory to sign. This contract explicitly states that the girls will be subjected to sexual innuendos and jokes and that they shall find them offending. Another clause suggests that the girls need to affirm and acknowledge that their job’s effectiveness is based on sex appeal and that a conscious effort has to be made to enhance it. The company’s following description on its website regarding its strategy epitomizes their notion6, “Sex appeal is legal and it sells. Newspapers, magazines, daytime talk shows, and local television affiliates consistently emphasize a variety of sexual topics to boost sales. Hooters marketing, emphasizing the Hooters Girl and her sex appeal, along with its commitment to quality operations continues to build and contributes to the chain's success.” Now that we’ve established the company’s policy and branding strategy, now we can move to the crux of our issue. Hooters does indeed market sex appeal, but does doing that make them adult entertainment providers ? Before we dwell in to this debate any further, we will define adult entertainment and what constitutes it. According to the definition laid down by the Scottish government, adult entertainment is defined as7, " The performance in a public place of any activity that a reasonable person would, in all the circumstances, consider to be for the purpose of providing sexual gratification and/or titillation." In accordance with this definition, Hooters’ brand ideology coincides with adult entertainment because they use their employees to create sex appeal which is supposed to entertain the customers of the restaurant and provide mild sexual entertainment. Though Hooters’ does not classify itself as an adult entertainment provider, specifically in legal terms, otherwise it would have to ban the entry of children. Hooters does not characterize itself as a family eatery, it deems itself a neighborhood place and markets itself in such a way. The website provides two important statistics about its customers:8 68% of customers are male, between the ages of 25-54 10% of the parties they serve have children in them These statistics suggest that in congruence with what Hooters’ markets, the profile of the average customer is very different from that of a child. Simply put, the average customers are males who are there to enjoy the entertainment alongside the food that is being provided. Children are an exception and hooters doesn’t particularly market out to them. And as explained in their website, the reason why they have is a kids menu is because by virtue of being in the hospitality industry, they need to be able to accommodate every incoming customer, even if it’s a child. The entry of children at Hooters has had obvious repercussion, notable among which are the complaints filed by the National Organization for Women, NOW. This organization claims that Hooters, by virtue of being adult entertainment providers (in essence), should be barred from having children’s menus and serving minors.9 As of now there have been no legal ramifications regarding the entry of children, but negative public opinion is seen being molded with regards to the sanctity of children and the environment at hooters. While some parents believe that it is the very tabooed notion of sex that creates problems, and that sex education and controlled exposure should be advocated, specially at places like Hooters.10Other parents do not consider this restaurant chain as benign, but rather see it as a mockery of social values and sexual objectification of women, which they don’t want their children to learn. This has led to community petitions against opening of Hooters in many areas, who see it as a threat to their children. One can correlate this fear to the statistical profile of the general customers of Hooters, who wouldn’t particularly demonstrate respectable or appreciable behavior per se.11 ANALYSIS: LEGAL BACKGROUND: Most of adult entertainment providers and similar businesses in the U.S. are protected by legislation under the first amendment which allows freedom of expression or in this case, exercise of symbolic speech.12 Even though Hooters is not an officially certified adult entertainer, much of what it does technically falls under a similar domain. Hooters has been able to continue with its certification of a regular restaurant which is why children are allowed and normal laws apply to it. According to Hooters, if allegations are based on the behavior of its waitresses then cheerleading and modeling should be placed in a similar group as well. It is here that the objective intent test applies, which denotes that Hooters is not involved in providing direct sexual entertainment but is a restaurant with a particular theme and not necessarily a purveyor of sexual activities. As mentioned earlier, Hooters has been the subject of many gender discrimination lawsuits, as a restaurant it should comply to equal opportunity hiring practices. According to many attorneys, the only escape from such charges is possible if Hooters declares itself as an adult entertainer, which in this case seems like what has been done. The question then is, why doesn’t Hooters publicly and officially announce itself as an adult entertainer and remains engaged in minor related malpractices. Attorney Mona Lisa Wallace, the president of the San Francisco chapter of the National Organization for women, in response to the court proceedings suggests that13, "Each and every time Hooters, Inc. claims that they are not a restaurant but that they are rather vicarious sexual entertainment. So their workers are not food servers or waitresses. Their workers are sexual entertainers." The results of the NOW complains have yet to be decided upon, but therein lies the fate of Hooters’ policies in the future. The issue then is, regardless of its official status as an adult entertainer, does Hooters’ have an ethical obligation to prohibit the entry of minors, especially after certain hours, keeping in mind the nature of its services and the age bracket of its average customers ? ETHICAL ANALYSIS: There are two major ethical concerns regarding Hooters’ business practices, the first one concerns with the use of women being used as a selling proposition to the customers. While this might be done within legal grounds, to use merely sex appeal and objectifying women has been a matter of debate. Many ethics and marketing experts suggest that a lot of advertising and marketing that corners around sex appeal works on the human body’s natural physical appetites and pleasure, which is ultimately seen by marketers as an area to tap on and manipulate14. Is doing so correct ? The other major paradigm shift that has become a major issue is the emergence of minors, specially teens as a potentially fruitful market. Marketers tend to view the ability of minors to influence purchase decisions and thus deliberately direct and concentrate their efforts towards this circle. The notion of minors being a market segment has legitimized over the past two decades15. There is much debate regarding the ethical soundness of these practices because minors are easily manipulated and lack the wisdom and acumen to assess the benefits and consequences of many products and services that are directed towards them. Consumer protection for children is now being sought in many regions, citing it as a major issue. Is marketing to children, specially products and services that are not appropriate for them, an ethically sound practice ? The question then, that begs our attention, is whether Hooters’ has any moral and ethical obligations to begin with. Milton Friedman would disagree with the notion of businesses having any social responsibility because according to him they are artificial entities whose sole purpose is to make profits. In essence, they are social arrangements that are made with the aim of maximizing wealth. And the only social responsibility of businesses, if any, is to maximize profits16. This in turn would simultaneously contribute to the general wellbeing of society. While individuals can have moral obligations, businesses don’t. In lights of this argument, Hooters does not have any ethical responsibility apart from operating within the prescribed rules of law. And if businesses do engage in socially responsible or ethically sound practices in line with social patterns, that is yet again in the interest of the organization to do so. Simply put, that comes with the analysis of costs and benefits rather than an internal obligation or sense of righteousness. Good corporate citizenship can provide the following benefits17: Reputation management Risk profile and Risk management Low employee turnover Market positioning Investor relations In line with these benefits, Hooters does indeed engage in Social responsibility initiatives, actively engaging in community development18. This can perhaps be deemed as an effort to counter the balance offset by the somewhat negative public image it holds in certain circles. But to deem them essentially as acts done out of purely moral reason would be naive. Businesses while assessing ethical practices tend to measure the benefits of doing so, not to themselves, but to the business. The issue here isn’t whether ethical practices ought to be done, but rather what are the benefits of doing so19. Thus, for Hooters and for other similar businesses, it would be rather irrational to convince them to submit to ethical practices because of possible benefits involved. And in Hooters’ case, it is running a business within legal grounds and making profits with a well established market, and on the other hand it is also engaging in socially responsible activities beyond the domains of its business. Why then should it act ethically in this case, and cause a constriction of its business. We will now analyze this case in light of three schools of ethical reasoning: Ethical Egoism: This is a Teleological or consequentiality based theory which assesses morality based on the consequences on an individual, which in this case would be the moral agent. Psychological egoism suggests that people are naturally inclined to behave in a manner which caters to their self interest. Ethical egoism is a normative theory which suggests that people ought to act exclusively in their self interest, which would be catering to long term interest. In accordance with this principle, Hooters’ would not be obliged to register itself as an adult entertainer because it would not serve its long term interest, though Hooters can engage itself in community service activities if it believes it serves its long term interests. Utilitarianism: Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory which suggests that ethical soundness is determined the maximum amount of pleasure of happiness that is brought. In light of this theory, the Hooters business provides employment and entertainment to a larger group of people as compared to the opposition it faces. And since it voluntarily tries not to market itself as a family place and children constitute a small amount of its customers, therefore there isn’t any moral obligation to deem itself as an adult entertainer when there is no harm created. Deontology: This school of thought, pioneered by Immanuel Kant, focuses on the intention and the internal maxim rather than on consequences. Deontology focus on the good will, and suggests that moral rights transcend out of a sense of duty. Hooters does not intend to necessarily provide adult entertainment or cater to services for children on the other hand. The former is an allegation that stems out of the nature of its work and the latter is an obligation that is a result of operating in the hospitality sector. Thus in light of deontology, Hooters’ does not have a moral obligation to fulfill towards children. MORAL AGENT AND DECISION: Ethical reasoning and philosophies provide varied explanations and responses for this case. To take an approach that goes beyond this literary framework to more a basic and personalized framework the process of ethical decision making can be used with the four component model.20We first need to determine the moral agent which in this case is the Hooters restaurant chain. Initially the moral agent must first recognize the moral issue at hand, and then using the moral guidelines that include the principles of Obligations, duties and Ideals should make a moral judgment. It should do so by placing moral concerns ahead of other concerns. And finally, act according to these moral concerns. BARRY’S METHOD: Issue at Hand: As mentioned before, the ethical issue at hand is whether Hooters needs to admit itself as an adult entertainment provider and consequently ban entry of children after 9 P.M. or continue with its ongoing policy of a normal restaurant. Moral agent: The moral agent in this case is Hooters; we have determined earlier that Hooters does not have a legal obligation to deem itself as an adult entertainment provider as the services it provides do not fall in to that category. But according to the definition of Adult entertainment we have used, by virtue of using sex appeal, hooters services encompass adult entertainment. While such services have legal protection under the first amendment and Hooters has found technicalities to not be labeled as one, the entry of children, especially after 9 P.M. raises moral concerns. Ideals: As expressed as a concern by many parents, the entry of children at such an outlet is against social ideals. Children should not be exposed to such crude entertainment as the behavior and outlook of the Hooters Girls is beyond their ability of comprehension. The major case here is against the notion of objectifying women which is opposed in most civilized societies. It is thought that such exposure will lead to the construction of unwelcomed notions among children. While all Hooters employee knowingly and willingly consent to the nature of their work and Hooters doesn’t exactly claim itself as a family eatery, the lack of a well defined line with regards to the nature of its services is a controversial issue because a substantial number of children are part of the chain’s customers. On the other Hand, Hooters is a business operating within the legal domain, and has the right to make a profit like every other business does, with its usual profile of customers. Regulating its rights to operate freely as a legal business is against the notions of free markets and liberalism. The question then is, If Hooters is asked to constrict its business based on social ideals, where do we set down a boundary to decide what a business can do and what it can’t, even if it is complying with the legal code of conduct. And since there is no formal ethical code of conduct and ethical notions are very subjective in nature, what force or agent can coerce such businesses to comply and on what grounds. Ethical decision: Statistically speaking, 10% of the customers constitute children, so even if Hooters categorizes itself as an adult entertainer, much of its customer base will be retained. And since it does not market itself to children, regulating their entry for the promotion of better social ideals wouldn’t cause much harm in terms of profit making ideals or business philosophy. In light of the reasons mentioned above, Hooters should admit to its services as an adult entertainer in the interest of protecting children from unwarranted exposure of females and other sex-oriented behavior which is part of the Hooters environment. Consequently, the entry of children should be banned after 9 P.M. While Hooters can continue with its current market strategy, it should submit to a higher moral ideal and not children by virtue of being an adult entertainer. Technicalities aside, Hooters does indeed use the theme of Adult sexual entertainment, hence even if there is no legal obligation, for the promotion of general social interest, children should be disallowed in such an environment which is beyond their comprehension. Form 1 Bibliography Rest, J. R. 1986, ’ Moral Development: Advances in Research and Theory’ New York Praeger, NY Hooker, J., 2003, ‘Why Business Ethics?’--Carnegie Mellon University Korn, D, J., 2006, ‘Ethical Judgments of Sexual Appeals in Advertising: Image Based Products to Teens’ -University of Rhode Island Friedman, M., 1970 'The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits’ , The New York Times Magazine . A, D, Little., 2002, ‘The Business case for Corporate citizenship’ J., A., Cohan, 2001, ‘Towards a New Paradigm in the Ethics of Women's Advertising’-Journal of Business Ethics-Volume 33, Number 4, pp 323-337 R., M, Locke, 2002, ‘Note on Corporate Citizenship in a Global Economy’- Sloan School of Management and Department of Political Science –MIT D., L., Hudson Jr., 2002 ‘Adult Entertainment and the Secondary-effects Doctrine: How a zoning regulation may affect First Amendment freedoms’, Vol 2, No. 1 " Hooters.com." Hooters.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2012. Read More