Q9 - Organized word-of-mouth marketing campaigns

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Explain a Result

Stimulus Breakdown:
On the one hand, word-of-mouth campaigns led by "extollers" are more successful when the person discloses their affiliation (which should make consumers less willing to trust them - no one trusts a telemarketer!). On the other hand, the supposed benefit of the word-of-mouth campaign is that people trust the source more.

Answer Anticipation:
We need to reconcile people trusting the source with knowing that the source is working for the sellers. Anything that would make these people seem more trustworthy is in play. One possibility is that disclosing their affiliation makes them seem more trustworthy!

Correct Answer:
E

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Unwarranted comparison. Our argument compares word-of-mouth campaigns with disclosure of affiliation vs. other word-of-mouth campaigns where the affiliation isn't disclosed. Products relying on other methods to market them aren't a part of that comparison.

(B) Makes it worse. If anything, this answer states that the disclosure isn't important to the outcome.

(C) Out of scope. The surprising finding is about the impact of product boosters on others; it doesn't matter how they were recruited, as long as they were recruited.

(D) Out of scope. The cost of the marketing doesn't factor into this discrepancy at all.

(E) Bingo. While it doesn't say that the disclosure breeds trust, it does say the person is more relaxed and willing to talk, which subverts the skepticism pointed out in the stimulus.

Takeaway/Pattern: Explain a Result questions are much easier if you clearly define what the discrepancy is up front! I like the "On the one hand/On the other" way of thinking about it.

#officialexplanation