Marketing and Ethics

On October 31, 2005 you wrote a piece and appeared to criticize the marketing of some of the companies that you mentioned. You are high and mighty with your condemnation of these companies, yet you did the same thing by calling your company NEW Hair. Why are you any different than they are?

You are referring to my blog entry, Recapeen, FUE Plus & Lasers for Hair Loss?, in which I discuss the word “NEW” used in advertising. I may not like the tone of your question, but I relish tackling the answer. Marketing is not a bad word. The business community looks at marketing as the sum of product research (or service research), development of products and process, public education and advertising, and sales. The scope of what falls into marketing reflects the value of a product or service as it impacts the consumer.

You seem to be angry about my exploitation of the word NEW in our market branding for a hair transplant medical group. Well, putting aside the clever exploitation of a proven adjective in marketing, sales, and promotion of our service, I believe that the term NEW is appropriate for our business and the massive publications that led the world of hair restoration. I would direct you to the Medical Publications page on the New Hair Institute website, where we have posted the papers that originated much of what was NEW in hair transplant standards and now have become the standard of care today. Few terms would be more appropriate for our many contributions in this industry. We even pioneered an outspoken position on medical ethics, which was not a popular position to be in at the time. Please read Comparitive Shopping for Hair Restoration, Doctor Availability, and Low Laser Light Therapy, which I feel are all relevant to my answer.