Updates from June, 2009

• Living Ethics Project Comment Period Closed
  
  

  Paul Rand 5:33 pm on June 30, 2009 | 0 Comments Permalink
  

  Thanks to all of you who participated in the Living Ethics Project blog. The current comment period has closed.

  As you may recall, one section of the WOMMA Code of Ethics was re-opened after the requisite three members requested a review. To date, more than 60 members and interested parties have commented on whether the statement, “We stand against marketing practices whereby the consumer is paid cash by the manufacturer, supplier or one of their representatives to make recommendations, reviews or endorsements” should be part of the Code.

  Under the outlined procedures, the WOMMA Member Ethics Advisory Panel (MEAP) and I will review the feedback and make a formal recommendation to the Board of Directors, which will be announced by July 31, 2009.

  Once the Board has reached a decision the following will happen:

  • WOMMA will confirm to all members if a change that has been made.
  • WOMMA will provide members a 180-day compliance period in which to comply, if necessary, with the new Ethics Code.
  • If member companies are unable to comply with the changes the Ethics Code, any affected member company will be asked to resign from WOMMA membership.
    
    

  The Living Ethics Project is an annual review of the Ethics Code. WOMMA is striving to ensure that we respond effectively to you, our members. It is imperative to the strength and growth of our industry that we remain proactive in our approach to ethical and effective word of mouth and social media marketing.

  Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Kristen Smith, Executive Director at WOMMA at Kristen@WOMMA.org or me at prand@zocalogroup.com.

  Regards,

  Paul M. Rand
  WOMMA President-Elect
  President/CEO, Zócalo Group

   

• Should there a different form of disclosure for receiving cash vs. receiving product to review?
  
  

  Paul Rand 9:13 am on June 14, 2009 | 3 Comments Permalink
  

  We’re now half way through the Living Ethics comment period on whether excluding cash compensation should remain part of the WOMMA Ethics code.  Lots of good comments so far.

  Please continue to weigh in on the main question, but would also like feedback as to whether receiving cash needs to be disclosed differently than receiving product.  Is one form being paid for a job and the other simply being asked for an informed opinion?

   

• Is Paying Cash For Blog Reviews Ethical? Re-Opening the Debate
  
  

  Paul Rand 2:40 pm on June 1, 2009 | 62 Comments Permalink
  Tags: ethical WOM (3), Ethics (14), Paid blogging, WOM (11), womma (8), word of mouth marketing (9)

  In the last formal, WOMMA Living Ethics Review the WOMMA Membership agreed to include the following language in the revised ethics code: “We stand against marketing practices whereby the consumer is paid cash by the manufacturer, supplier or one of their representatives to make recommendations, reviews or endorsements.”

  Three WOMMA members, as part of the Living Ethics Review process, have formally asked that this issue be revisited.  Through this blog, we are hoping to generate comments from WOMMA members, industry insiders, bloggers and brands.  At the end of June, the WOMMA Board will consider whether to revise the Code, as currently written, or to leave it as it now stands until this Fall, when the formal review period commences.

  Paid Blogging:  Ethical or Not

  Forrester’s Josh Berhnoff, is an AdAge Article, stated that paying bloggers for recommendations is “easily the most contentious issue I’ve dealt with recently.”  He’s right.  It’s driving strong points of view on all sides.

  So, please make your opinion heard.  Is it ethical or even acceptable for brands to pay bloggers cash to write reviews?