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 The studies she found were unpublished and had yet to be subjected to the rigorous peer review process.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 What Susan mistakes for scientific evidence is actually just a series of preliminary, unpublished studies.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…
