ethical dilemma and analysis

Introduction
The PediaBoost case involves a conflicting set of values: the need for Susan’s firm to develop new sources of growth and the ethical obligation both Susan and her company have towards its stakeholders. The firm has additional legal issues to consider in this case, given the potentially adverse personal and public health outcomes of using PediaBoost as a weight loss or “detoxification” program. As with most other dietary supplements, PediaBoost exists in an ethical grey area, in which the consumer is expected to take personal responsibility for making purchasing choices. It is important to note that the cursory web search Susan conducted yielded no conclusive evidence whatsoever that PediaBoost is harmful or even that it has been proven to diminish the effectiveness of the flu shot. The studies she found were unpublished and had yet to be subjected to the rigorous peer review process. Before she jumps to conclusions about the possible ethical ramifications of marketing PediaBoost to adult users, Susan may want to directly contact the authors of those studies. Moreover, Susan may want to consult with her colleagues on the researcher’s ethical use of PediaBoost in their research. By empowering consumers with information related to the effects of PediaBoost, Susan can effectively and ethically market the product to a new target market.
Analysis Part One: Position and Stakeholders
Susan is the primary protagonist in this case study. She stands to gain much from a successful marketing strategy that repositions PediaBoost. The entire firm seems to support Susan’s vision of creating a new marketing strategy at a relatively low cost to the company. In fact, the firm may only need to change the product packaging to differentiate it from its current position as an infant nutritional supplement. Therefore, internal stakeholders include members of the organization involved in the product re-launch and redesign. External stakeholders include all of the company’s current and potential consumers, including those who use PediaBoost already either as an infant formula or as a “detoxification” regimen. Susan is unnecessarily torn in this case, particularly given her low level of science literacy. What Susan mistakes for scientific evidence is actually just a series of preliminary, unpublished studies. Susan does not know how to scrutinize those studies for their methodological weaknesses, and may not realize that they do not count as being peer-reviewed scientific studies yet. Her concerns are genuine, though, and she is wise to reconsider an aggressive marketing strategy that overlooks the health impacts of using PediaBoost as anything other than what it was intended to do.
The firm seems committed to taking PediaBoost to a new market, whether or not Susan spearheads the project. Therefore, Susan stands the most to loose if she were to cower in the face of her fears. Susan also seems to be neglecting the importance of collaboration and teamwork in her approach to role as product manager. Instead of consulting with her colleagues, and finding out if their legal team can offer any advice, Susan has been ruminating on her own. Marketing PediaBoost to the new target market as a detoxification supplement is ultimately a good idea, as long as the firm approaches their product packaging and positioning wisely, offering clearly worded guidelines for consumers.
Analysis Part Two: Counter-arguments and Responses
PediaBoost was originally approved by the FDA as an infant nutritional supplement, not one for adults. If the firm decides to reposition PediaBoost to adults, it risks diluting the brand. Consumers may look askance at a product that claims simultaneously to be an adult detoxification supplement while also purporting to help infants. Therefore, the company should consider totally rebranding PediaBoost, renaming it as well as repackaging it and positioning it for a different market segment as a lifestyle product.
Rebranding PediaBoost is a shortcut solution to the firm’s deeper problems of maintaining market share and creating innovative products. A lack of innovation has put the company in the position where repositioning PediaBoost seems like a viable solution. The firm would do better to inject the funds used to market PediaBoost to product innovation, research, and development.
As attractive as shifting the firm’s focus more towards innovation, research, and new product developing, doing so is a long-term strategy requiring a significant investment of resources and also a potential organizational structure change. At the moment, the company is in a much better position to take advantage of the market performance of PediaBoost, its brand recognition, and the consumer demand for pseudoscientific detoxification regimes. The rebranding costs the firm far less than new product innovation, and yields a higher rate of return much sooner—allowing rapid profits that can then be injected into the company’s long-term strategy for restructuring and innovation.
Given the results of the preliminary research on the health-related effects of PediaBoost on adult reactions to the flu shot, it may not be wise from a legal or ethical standpoint to rush into this new marketing venture. If further research does in fact reveal that PediaBoost causes an adverse reaction to the flu shot, it could lead to an epidemic with major public health implications. Not only would the company have an ethical obligation to recall the product, it may also face legal charges due to the fact that Susan did know in advance about the studies. Cyberanalysis would reveal that she had conducted the web search, making it difficult for Susan or the firm to claim ignorance.
The fears of liability are valid and understandable, but unfounded. Because the studies that Susan located are not peer-reviewed, they do not qualify as evidence against the use of PediaBoost as an adult supplement. Susan is advised to consult with the scientists who conducted the original research to make inquiries about the methodology used without necessarily divulging the company’s interest in marketing PediaBoost as an adult supplement for “detoxification.” In fact, Susan also needs to recognize that “detoxification” is itself a pseudoscientific concept and one that presents equal if not greater ethical implications than the slim possibility the product interferes with the adult response to the flu shot. By doing her due diligence as product manager and then carefully wording a product disclaimer, the company can avoid liability and empower consumers with the knowledge they need to make informed decisions.
Conclusion
Susan is faced with a minor ethical dilemma, and seems irrationally fearful about the potential dangers of PediaBoost. Product safety will always remain the primary concern of the firm, especially one that has built its brand reputation and identity on marketing nutritional supplements for infants. If Susan consults with her colleagues and team, she may find sources of support that will help to alleviate her fears and market the product responsibly. Of course, the firm has an ethical interest in promoting PediaBoost safely. Primary stakeholders include consumers but also the general public should there actually be a connction between PediaBoost and reduced flu shot effectiveness. Susan’s preliminary research revealed potential—but not proven—adverse reactions to the adult flu shot.
Therefore, Susan should direct her marketing team to carefully word a disclaimer on the new package. The new product packaging should also differentiate the product from its infant counterpart, ideally with different flavors. By following informed strategies for effective marketing, PediaBoost can be positioned in a way that promotes safe use.
References
Gentile, M.C. (2010). Product safety and (preemptive) recalls. Giving Voice to Values.