Please read the below text.. the highlighted text is the question that needs to be answered.
"Giimme a bird!" the wino shouts, entering the liquor store and fumbling for the change in his pocket.
The clerk mutters something under his breath and reaches for a bottle from what he calls his "bum collection."
The wino pays, and staggers out with the bottle of Thunderbird.
Thunderbird as a brand has been around a long time. It was introduced by Gallo right after prohibition was repealed. It's a favorite of inner-city, skid row bums. It's produced by adding grain alcohol to low grade wine, resulting in a high-power drink. Bottles are a couple of bucks for a 375 ml bottle.
Gallo keeps its name off the bottle's labels, attempting to reduce the link between the "wino" brand and it's great reputation. Even Gallo's web pages don't include information about Thunderbird.
Thunderbird is very cheap to make and market. The wine part is made from the cheapest grapes available, and is not aged. It's heaped with sugar, which tends to make the drinker more thirsty and lose their appetite for food. The product is being manufactured for the poor, homeless and skid-row individual.
The reputation for Thunderbird is so unsavory that many liquor stores won't carry it. Wines of this caliber are generally highly profitable for their makers, with net profit margins ten percent higher than for ordinary wines. Wines like Thunderbird come in no-frills packaging, and require little or no advertising.
What are some marketing ethics issues that are raised in this case? Please provide 3 or 4 ethical issues.