study questions 1 and 2. i will like the response

The Toy Wars case. Tom Daner wants to follow two fundamental principles in all of the advertising he creates for children -- 1. Include zero violence and zero suggestion of violence. 2. Follow all of the network requirements that not only require no violence, but also require that the sets used in children's ads must depict things that are within the financial reach of most children (that is, not create unrealistic expectations) PLUS must be filmed with normal lighting that does not create undue intensity (that is, emotional disturb the kids). Daner's problem is that one of his major clients, Crako Industries, wants a TV ad to promote its toy helicopter gunship that shows a helicopter gunship strafing and blowing up a jungle village. This is against both of Daner's principles. So he tries two different ads -- The first one was a peaceful helicopter rescue mission that met both of his principles. This was turned down by Crako because it was not "macho enough." The second one was an exciting, intense rescue mission from a burning village with dramatic, intense lighting and a $25,000 set for the ad. This one violates the network requirements, which Crako does not mind because they can run it -- even on network-affiliated stations -- before the prime time evening hours. Your Study Questions are: 1. Let's assume that Crako accepts the "macho" but non-violent rescue ad. Should Daner give up following all of the network requirements (Daner's 2nd principle) in order to preserve his ability to keep to his 1st principle (no violence)? Why or why not? 2. If Crako refuses to accept the "macho" but non-violent ad, should Daner give in, or should he just give up the Crako account? Why or why not? -_1820