Josef Nicole A.

Olave
IE 222
Ethical Dilemma: THE SPRIZTER GROUP
I. Statement of the Problem: The word-of-mouth marketing lends itself to one pitfall and that is the
lack of credibility of the people who market the product through social networks.
II. Objective / Background
P & G harnessed the power of word-of-mouth marketing through existing social
networks to sell their products and services. Basically, they sent women sample products and freebies
of the dishwashing shoap they are trying to promote and let these women promote such products in the
form of testimonials and let the word spread. The Spitzer Group, headed by Irving Silberstein is a
regional marketing corporate communications firm which is interested in pursuing the same marketing
technique for a client.
III. Question: How far should Irving emulate the word-of-mouth marketing technique of P & G and
Vocalpoint?
IV. Answer:
It would be wise to emulate P &G to the extent only of using word-of-mouth marketing but I
suggest that they reveal their ties to the corporate marketing program right up front before they
make a recommendation. Far too few business in this modern world care about ethical considerations,
and in my opinion, it is not too late to start. Thus, honesty of the relationship between the company and
a person is non-negotiable.
It is undeniable that in this day and age, social media is pervasive and ubiquitous.
Because of such nature, it is but natural that corporations would utilize social media as an inexpensive
yet effective venue for marketing their products and services. This is more commonly known as wordof-mouth marketing. Like the situation presented in the case problem, various community groups are
tapped into by corporations and asked to market the products by either making a testimonial or sharing
promos and products to friends, usually free of charge. The thing that makes such a strategy so
effective is that word of mouth between social networks is perceived to be authentic. Because a certain
person only markets within his/her social network i.e. her Facebook friends or Instagram followers, his
opinion makes much more of an impact than when a stranger during television show breaks utters it.
The problem with this set-up is two fold. First, the companies cannot determine with accuracy the level
of interaction their 'selected marketer' has with his peers in social networks. Nowadays, the Internet has
become an impersonal space, and the term 'friend' has a different meaning today than it had years ago.
But such pitfall is counteracted by the fact that the companies rarely pay anything for the marketers'
services. The most they would shell out are samples or freebies. Secondly, the moment these marketers'
disclose their connections with the company, their credibility will be seemingly compromised. Their
opinions may be rendered subjective.
But there is a way to avoid it. While at the outset a policy of full disclosure may have
negative effects, it is better to stay in the ethical zone. After all, when a product is really as amazing as
companies say it is, it may speak for itself, and the marketing buzz will just be the icing on the cake. At

first, this may seem to be counterproductive. After all, the purpose of marketing is really to make the
product known in order that consumers may judge its value for themselves. But in disclosing a selected
marketers' connection with the company, as well as the fact that such selected marketer receives no
monetary compensation for promoting the product, ethical considerations will be served and the
companies will get their free marketing through word of mouth. On blogs, disclosure is easy. Bloggers
simply need to clearly mention somewhere in a post that they were approached to write about a
companys product or service. Such a line could read, I received [product name] from [company
name] and heres my opinion
V. Conclusion
The bottom line is that word of mouth must remain credible in the social media realm.
With the written word losing its power because everyone virtually had something to say about anything
at all, companies should be wary about staying true to its ethical promises. Marketers must be reminded
that it is vital to be brutally honest with their reviews and to be careful about the products they promote
in order also for the companies to not be complacent in manufacturing, producing, packaging and yes,
marketing their products.