As previously noted, WOMMA held a live ethics session during the Marketing Summit in Las Vegas. We had roughly 150 people comment on site and another 40 watch the session from their offices. If you’d still like to watch the session, or review the current ethics code, please go to http://www.womma.org and click on Live Session Video or the Code link.
One of the most lively debated topics was:
* Should people be paid to review or comment on blogs? If they are paid, is that okay as long as it’s disclosed? (defining payment as cash, not incentives)
Any thoughts here?
We’ll explore the other most relevant word of mouth marketing, disclosure and ethics issues in days to come.
Paul M. Rand, VP of WOMMA, President/CEO of Zocalo Group.
picture in hook up kit 12:34 am on February 8, 2010 Permalink |
picture in hook up kit…
t21t…
Simple And Clean Ringtones 12:07 am on June 4, 2009 Permalink |
Simple And Clean Ringtones…
t265t…
Girlfight Brooke Valentine Ringtones 4:51 pm on June 3, 2009 Permalink |
Girlfight Brooke Valentine Ringtones…
t109t…
Curb Enthusiasm Ringtone 9:59 am on June 3, 2009 Permalink |
Curb Enthusiasm Ringtone…
t244t…
Ctu 24 Ringtone Free 9:57 am on June 3, 2009 Permalink |
Ctu 24 Ringtone Free…
t390t…
Crazy Frog Ringtone 9:44 am on June 3, 2009 Permalink |
Crazy Frog Ringtone…
t252t…
Sylwia Presley 12:02 pm on December 21, 2008 Permalink |
I also think disclosure is crucial. But there will be cases when it’s difficult to define if a single comment left by a bloger on a site is a result of a campaign (pre-paid or freebies) or an actual opinion not influenced by anyone or anything. Maybe it’s safer to look at complete non-profit relationship between the brand and blogers?
DisclosurePolicy.org > WOMMA Ethics Code Review 10:06 am on December 12, 2008 Permalink |
DisclosurePolicy.org > WOMMA Ethics Code Review…
Given the speed with which social media is changing the media and marketing landscape, we want to make sure the WOMMA Code remains dynamic and valuable for all word-of-mouth constituents. WOMMA VP Paul Rand is doing a great job of moderating the dis…..
Dan... 10:32 am on December 11, 2008 Permalink |
I’ll start with the observation that the closest analogy to bloggers is radio hosts — particularly talk radio hosts. As blogs often include podcasts, this analogy becomes even more obvious. Radio hosts, even of the smallest, niche programs with less than 100 listeners regularly review and promote products and services for their audience, and are compensated for doing so. Given the maturity of the radio industry, I believe WOMMA could benefit from studying marketing requirements for that medium. I’d guess some of WOMMA’s member companies include radio marketing experts and should be included in ethics code discussions — especially since their WOM efforts via online, offline and radio are subject to the WOMMA code.
I watched the live ethics session (thanks for recording), prompting the following thoughts/comments:
1) Although this question was presented to the audience multiple times, in multiple ways, most audience speakers appeared comfortable with the marketing approach so long as Honesty ROI is followed.
2) If something would be OK for a paid employee to do, it’s not clear why a contractor (e.g. blogger) would not be allowed to do it — assuming Honesty ROI is followed by employee or contractor.
3) It’s not clear where the cash versus product distinction came from in this question and why it makes a difference. If a product is given to a blogger, economic value is clearly given — the value of the product. If a product is given as a loaner, economic value is still given — the value of renting such a product for the loaner period.
4) The core question comes back to Honesty ROI and disclosure applies to free products, free services, cash, gift cards, free passes, contests and even AFFILIATE COMPENSATION. If any WOMMA code tweaks happen around this topic, it could be making it clear that all of these practices involve an element of compensation and, thus, all should include disclosure consistent with the Honesty ROI.
5) Although type of disclosure may differ with different types of compensation and publications (e.g. many local magazines are 100% sponsored without stating such on every page), zero disclosure isn’t an option under Honesty ROI. As a minimum, a Disclosure Policy linked ubiquitously sitewide could provide visitors a standard place to look for the practices of the site they visit — very similar to how Privacy Policy links provide visitors a standard place to look for the privacy practices of the site they visit. In fact, a Disclosure Policy linked sitewide could be a good baseline requirement for any blogger engaged by a WOMMA member. If the sitewide Privacy Policy framework is good enough to protect our credit cards, SSN and identity, an industry-backed Disclosure Policy framework could be valuable for protecting readers/viewers of WOM efforts — and promote self-regulation.
Thanks for the moderation work Paul. This is a topic I’ve spent considerable time researching and I’d welcome discussing any of these ideas — my email was provided with this comment.
Dan Rua
http://Blog.DisclosurePolicy.org/
http://FloridaVentureBlog.com/
http://IZEA.com/
Sam Decker 2:53 pm on December 9, 2008 Permalink |
It’s very simple: disclosure. Disclosure if the contributor, reviewer, poster is paid, and by whom they are paid. The connection between the subject of word of mouth should not be obfuscated from the financial relationship.
People should know if a professional book reviewer is being paid, and who they’re being paid by. CNET reviewers are paid, but not paid by the brand. Many times companies do a sweepstakes to get people to review, but it’s not enough to ‘make a living’. For example, PETCO offered a $100 gift certificate sweepstakes and increased ratings and review volume 800%. That didn’t effect the average rating.
jeff@Natural Beauty Tips 8:32 am on December 9, 2008 Permalink |
Well i think it depends 100% on the blog. Some blogs are massive and are contributed too by many people.
Take a Microsoft official blog, they are been paid by MS to blog about software, etc. I think this is ok, as usually the blogs are very informative.
Where i think blogging for cash is wrong, is where bloggers are just creating a blog post for the hell of it and stuffing it with keywords just to rang well in the search engines.
paul 9:15 pm on December 7, 2008 Permalink |
Excellent feedback, Gordon and and Yvonne. So, is there a difference between being paid cash for a blog post and being given a “freebie”?
Yvonne DiVita 7:23 am on December 7, 2008 Permalink |
This question begs more thought. Do writers get paid to do reviews of books? Yes. A professional blogger being paid to review something has to be honest and open about his or her status, and not guided in the review by the company asking for the content. That practice has been acceptable in the “dirt world”, so why not online?
Being paid to post…is similar. I have a “sponsored” blog – which means I am paid a fee to write the content. However, it’s MY blog. I achieved sponsorship because of my affinity to the topic. I have guidelines, as all blogs should have guidelines, and I am happy to write within them. The sponsoring company does not ask me to post anything about them. IF they send me content, it is my choice to write about it, or not. And often I repurpose it. I do link to them. I do remind readers that the blog is sponsored. And I do not hide anything.
The goal of the blog is to raise not only brand awareness, but to show the company is approachable. There have been times when visitors have gone through me to get to someone at the company, to ask a question or open a dialogue. I think that makes the blog a success.
Unlike Gordon, I do not feel I have lost the ability to control my content. The blog is for information purposes and I do not feel obligated to write anything I don’t feel comfortable writing. When I promote an event for the company — it’s because I approve of the event and the company’s work in it. This is no different than being sponsored in other areas. Sponsors are attracted to conferences, seminars, writers, bloggers, etc. that can help them reach their core market.
As long as we are all above board, open about the writing, and honest about the reason…what’s wrong with that? I get to write content I enjoy writing. The company gets more traffic to its website by readers clicking the sponsor logo (or when I link to it – which is not all that often), and readers get to know more intimate things about the company than they would otherwise.
If I were directed to write something, or told I had to write specific things…I would say no thanks. It’s all in the openness. And, the fact that I was a fan of the company from way back.
Gordon 3:36 pm on December 5, 2008 Permalink |
Speaking as a blogger, I would say…no, I shouldn’t be paid in cash to provide a post.
For me, it’s about “control” of my content – if I receive a graphic novel (as a comics blogger) for review, I feel free to be honest in my assessment – I may feel obligated to blog about it, but my opinion is independent of the material. (If I didn’t like something, I can share that as easily as if I enjoyed it). I feel able to share an honest opinion, provided that I openly state that I have received a copy/item for review. If asked for a time commitment, I can choose when (and if) to participate – in short, I am able to make independent choices.
However, if I’m paid to post, I lose the ability to “control” my content. It’s a variation of the Golden Rule – he who has the gold makes the rules. I feel obligated to write a positive post, regardless of my true opinion of the material. Being paid to blog makes me feel less than honest and authentic, and more an extension of a brand’s marketing arm.
WOM should ideally be about building new kinds of relationships, not relying on old ways of thinking, in my opinion.
paul 8:55 pm on December 3, 2008 Permalink |
Thanks for feedback, Andy. Any other thoughts out there?
Andy Angelos 12:07 pm on December 3, 2008 Permalink |
Thanks for the interesting question, Paul. Paying for comments and posts is an old practice in the blogosphere (see payperpost), but can detract from the enthusiasm generated by participants without financial motivation. However, paying for comments internally (i.e. Reward employees for participating in discussions on corporate blogs) can be an effective practice and means to promote corporate engagement.
From my own experience working with multi-author blogs, paying authors .50 (or another small fee) to propel the conversation on their own posts can exponentially increase the breadth of content. Also creates motivation to actively seek comments from twitter, other blogs, digg, etc. Ideally, contributors will maintain conversations through these tools without incentives, but sometimes small rewards are necessary for fuel.
I am assuming this question emanated from the MGOODE debacle. Payment of MGOODE was not fundamentally flawed, but an emphasis on numbers probably forced MGOODE to post messages in inappropriate venues. What is considered a comment in one community quickly transforms into spam in another if the contribution is not viewed as a productive addition to the conversation. A solution to this problem is to remove the focus of contact points from WOM campaigns…If MGOODE was rewarded based on his creation of conversions or thoughtful conversations rather than the standard “Hit 150 blogs in 2 weeks” mantra, this conversation would probably not be occurring.
More and more, I see “social media” transforming into the salesman of the 21st century…brand affinity, sales, new business, awareness – all goals for social media previously held by sales teams.
Andy Angelos