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?
Don’t Tell. Do Ask. | Webbyn.com 10:45 pm on July 7, 2009 Permalink
[...] Commission’s forthcoming guidelines on endorsements and testimonials in online marketing. It’s not an easy topic for us marketers to understand. However, it something we will need to understand if physical [...]
Andy Sernovitz 5:19 pm on June 29, 2009 Permalink
It is a fundamental principle of word of mouth marketing that recommendations are earned and genuine. It is also a founding principle of WOMMA — the reason this organization exists.
To back away from that belief risks the end of our organization’s credible role as the trusted voice of the word of mouth marketing profession. The erosion of trust in the profession places all of WOMMA’s members at risk.
This is not about the disclosure issues. Disclosure is always mandatory and not up for debate. Even with disclosure, paying for word of mouth is unethical and illegal. WOMMA must continue to oppose it.
Key issues in paying for endorsements:
1. It is deceptive to hide paid advertising under the “WOM” label.
Marketing that is paid for is not WOM. It is the opposite of WOM — it is advertising.
Advertising is fine, as is accepting advertising revenue; however the advertising industry must continue to be regulated by all the existing rules of advertising. One of those most valued standards is the firm separation of editorial and advertising.
It would be deceptive to allow vendors to use the term “word of mouth marketing” to describe paid advertising disguised as editorial content, or to evade existing regulations on that advertising. The only reason to do so is to hide an advertising practice under the WOM ethical umbrella. If WOMMA allows this, it risks all WOM being discredited as a hidden form of shill adverting.
Allowing questionable paid advertising practices to hide behind the WOMMA Ethics Code destroys the meaning of honest WOM and promotes those who would use that label for non-ethical WOM practices. It also could set up WOMMA as a pariah in the mainstream marketing industry, as the place where shills go to gain credibility for practices not acceptable elsewhere.
2. This is about false endorsements.
It has always been illegal to use false endorsements in advertising and the practice has been banned by the FTC for decades.
When you pay someone to write a review of a product that they have never used, that endorsement is by definition false. There is no way to write an honest endorsement of a product you have never used.
This is why providing samples or review items to generate WOM is fundamentally different. The sample enables the advocate to form an honest opinion about the product. Paying for that opinion without providing the product is paying for false endorsements.
No respectable company would consider paying people to write false endorsements in their print or television ads (you’d get fired for doing so). Just because we are talking about a new medium does not make it any more ethical or legal.
If WOMMA permits paying for false endorsements, WOMMA would be openly advocating an illegal practice.
3. There is industry-wide consensus that this practice is not acceptable.
The vast majority of associations, companies, experts, consumer advocates and regulators have clearly stated that paying for word of mouth is unacceptable. A single WOMMA member promotes it.
It is the role of this association to set the industry standard, and the industry has clearly spoken: No one supports this practice who hasn’t been somehow paid to support it. Most established and trusted voices in this industry are violently opposed.
WOMMA’s role is to raise the standard, not lower it to include the most questionable practices. We were founded first and foremost to set the highest ethical standard in all of marketing. Now we risk selling out the very principles we exist to defend.
WOMMA cannot endorse or support this practice or any member that engages in it.
Andy Sernovitz
WOMMA Co-Founder, Founding CEO, and President Emeritus
Christine Zambrano 4:30 pm on June 29, 2009 Permalink
@Steve Hershberger
From a marketing view and as a consumer, I agree with Steve Hershberger, couldn’t have said it better.
Willem Sodderland 10:14 am on June 27, 2009 Permalink
AS CEO of Europe’s leading WoMM agency Buzzer (Womma international member) I would like to provide some more international background in line with Emmanuel Vivier’s comments.
The current (and very recent) EU’s regulation is built around the key issue of deception. It prohibits practices that lead consumers to be misled about products, services, brands.
I believe this is the right issue to address. If consumers are armed with factual information they are perfectly capable of assessing their personal view on the credibility of a review.
Although this appears to be tackled by ‘disclosure’, it is actually not completely. As pointed out by others, there is little talk about (disclosure of) the value of the compensation/incentive. Readers of blogs should not just be able to see that someone has received an incentive (cash or otherwise) but to what extent. The reason this is so important is that compensation that goes beyond what is needed to try out a product or service creates a very different situation from normal ‘product seeding’. When a consumer receives a free product valued at 30 euro and spends hours trying it out, sending in feedback, filling in polls and sharing samples with others, his/her opinion will be seen as more credible than that of the same consumer or blogger that just received the iPhone 3Gs. At Buzzer, we decided not to give products/services (we never give cash) to consumers over a certain value to prevent this from happening. If a product has a greater value, the Buzzers don’t get to keep the product after trial unless they pay for it. Other agencies are now starting to follow our example. My point here is that cash/non-cash is not the issue, but the value is.
Getting back to the question raised, this goes to the quality of the disclosure. And I believe that is the real issue. Cash or non-cash, people need to be in the ‘now’ about the compensation/factors that might shed light on the credibility of the reviewer. As Sernovitz discussed some time ago in his blog (it was also raised in one of the reactions here), it is very difficult to guarantee that a disclosure travels with the content/review. So where does this leave us ?
The only reason I can see to make a distinction between cash and non-cash is whether cash-compensation is more likely to lead readers to be misled. And you could argue that this ia the case. If a disclosure about a non-cash compensation/value received does not travel with a review when copied or is simply not mentioned, people can assume in the case of a blogger that he/she received the product for free. And decide what this does to the credibility of the review. If someone is paid to do a review and this is not disclosed or the disclosure is lost somewhere a reader is not likely to assume that the reviewer was paid to do this. And that makes the cash-compensation more prone to people getting misled.
I agree with many people reacting that the question raised is not the crucial one. The crucial one is how we can prevent consumers from being misled. And thus I would argue strongly to focus the discussion on the quality of disclosure. If this cannot be guaranteed, a distinction between cash and non-cash might do something good. But it is a suboptimal ‘workaround’ to fix this problem.
Doug Morneau 5:52 pm on June 26, 2009 Permalink
I believe the ultimate goal is to inform, educate, motivate, and persuade.
– We have used blogging to create interest in a particular topic with full disclosure of who paid to set up the blog, who was paying the editor/writer, and what the terms of reference were.
Be transparent on not deceptive.
Many corporations used paid endorsements across all media. I assume that those watching the TV ad, infomercial, radio spot, or see the print ad are fully aware that people are being paid to do and say what the do.
The question for blogging and online due to its ability to operate less transparent is “are the consumers of the media message aware that it’s paid advertising or endorsement?
If so, then fair game. If not, then we need to address this.
——————————
Example #1
http://immunityhealthnews.com/blogs/about-2
——————————
About
Welcome to the Immunity Health News web log – devoted to gathering and sharing news and information about preventative health care and the human immune system.
My name is Mark. As the writer, editor and voice of this blog, I am focused on providing you with a wide range of content that relates to personal health and wellness.
If it has to do with staying healthy and what is on the Internet, I’ll remain as objective as possible and link to it so you may make your own decisions. (Although I may have to add a splash of editorial witticism when appropriate.)
This site is sponsored by Rhino Marketing Inc. an e-marketing services company. While working with a client in the immune space, they realized that there was a need for a blog that looked specifically and objectively at this area of the health industry. This is where I come in. While I am paid through Rhino Marketing, I have been given the responsibility and authority to develop and maintain an editorial content-focused blog that provides relevant, interesting and informative news relevant to health and wellness. The purpose of this blog is not to unfairly promote specific products or companies; it is to provide you with objective information.
I am always on the lookout for new information to help us remain healthy and active. If you have information to share, please post it on the blog as well. We want to encourage interactive conversation about everyone’s health and wellness here!
Enjoy and stay healthy!
——————————
Example #2
http://bc-election.com
——————————
About
“The most erroneous stories are those we think we know best, and therefore never scrutinize or question.” – Stephen Jay Gould.
Welcome to BC Election.com.
We’re a place for discussion. We believe when people discuss the issues of the day in an open and fact-based way, they will make better decisions.
BC Election.com is about information and discussion in an open, interactive forum. Democracies are about all of us; the people. We elect our politicians to participate in government on our behalf; but ultimately we are the government.
The electoral process works best as a two-way dialogue between citizens and those who wish to represent them. This is a place to have that dialogue. We are gathering opinion and facilitating discussion between Tri-City constituents and their BC Liberal candidates for the upcoming May 12 Provincial Election.
If there are issues that you feel strongly about; tell your candidates.
If you’re wondering what your fellow residents are thinking; ask them.
If you have strong opinions you’d like to share; offer them.
And whether you agree or disagree: please participate!
Authorized By Jim Pipe, Financial Agent BC Liberal Party. Tel: 604.606.6000, 1.800.567.2257 – Copyright © 2009 BC Election: Coquitlam / Tri-Cities
Doug Morneau 4:33 pm on June 26, 2009 Permalink
I believe the ultimate goal is to inform, educate, motivate, and persuade.
– We have used blogging to create interest in a particular topic with full disclosure of who paid to set up the blog, who was paying the editor/writer, and what the terms of reference were.
Be transparent on not deceptive.
Many corporations used paid endorsements across all media. I assume that those watching the TV ad, infomercial, radio spot, or see the print ad are fully aware that people are being paid to do and say what the do.
The question for blogging and online due to its ability to operate less transparent is “are the consumers of the media message aware that it’s paid advertising or endorsement?
If so, then fair game. If not, then we need to address this.
———————————————
Example #1
http://immunityhealthnews.com/blogs/about-2
———————————————
About
Welcome to the Immunity Health News web log – devoted to gathering and sharing news and information about preventative health care and the human immune system.
My name is Mark. As the writer, editor and voice of this blog, I am focused on providing you with a wide range of content that relates to personal health and wellness.
If it has to do with staying healthy and what is on the Internet, I’ll remain as objective as possible and link to it so you may make your own decisions. (Although I may have to add a splash of editorial witticism when appropriate.)
This site is sponsored by Rhino Marketing Inc. an e-marketing services company. While working with a client in the immune space, they realized that there was a need for a blog that looked specifically and objectively at this area of the health industry. This is where I come in. While I am paid through Rhino Marketing, I have been given the responsibility and authority to develop and maintain an editorial content-focused blog that provides relevant, interesting and informative news relevant to health and wellness.
The purpose of this blog is not to unfairly promote specific products or companies; it is to provide you with objective information.
I am always on the lookout for new information to help us remain healthy and active. If you have information to share, please post it on the blog as well. We want to encourage interactive conversation about everyone’s health and wellness here!
Enjoy and stay healthy!
———————————————
Example #2
http://bc-election.com
———————————————
About
“The most erroneous stories are those we think we know best, and therefore never scrutinize or question.” – Stephen Jay Gould.
Welcome to BC Election.com.
We’re a place for discussion. We believe when people discuss the issues of the day in an open and fact-based way, they will make better decisions.
BC Election.com is about information and discussion in an open, interactive forum. Democracies are about all of us; the people. We elect our politicians to participate in government on our behalf; but ultimately we are the government.
The electoral process works best as a two-way dialogue between citizens and those who wish to represent them. This is a place to have that dialogue. We are gathering opinion and facilitating discussion between Tri-City constituents and their BC Liberal candidates for the upcoming May 12 Provincial Election.
If there are issues that you feel strongly about; tell your candidates.
If you’re wondering what your fellow residents are thinking; ask them.
If you have strong opinions you’d like to share; offer them.
And whether you agree or disagree: please participate!
Authorized By Jim Pipe, Financial Agent BC Liberal Party. Tel: 604.606.6000, 1.800.567.2257 – Copyright © 2009 BC Election: Coquitlam / Tri-Cities
Roberto Cassano 12:54 pm on June 26, 2009 Permalink
I’m senior director at Agencia frog, WOMMA international member.
The definition of value is key to solve this dilemma. We do not endorse practices where bloggers or people at large are paid cash to review or recommend a brand/product. Instead, we usually give them samples/trials/low-cost products for review, ensuring they are free to give their real opinion about it – be it good or bad.
In this sense, we follow a code common at journalism – low-cost gifts are acceptable, and they aren’t, in any way, a form of payment for a service. As any PR agency, we try to make it easier for the opinion leader to experiment the product/branding, so they can have an opinion about it.
In our economic reality, it is okay to give a book, a DVD or a movie/concert ticket, but it doesn’t make sense to give a car, a long trip or a TV set for an opinion leader. In this sense, giving large-value goods or money have the same impact on disclosure.
Another point worth of attention is the difference between probloggers and ordinary bloggers. The first group have their blogs as their main revenue source, and are not a “common person”, but professional media. They are “one-man newspapers” and, in this sense, our relationship with them should follow traditional brands-agency-media vehicles logic. They are not “people with blogs”, but small, long-tail media operations.
It is acceptable to pay in cash for ads (traditional banners or innovative formats) in professional blogs, as well as paying cash for their services (such as writing posts in the Brand’s blog, not in their personal blogs) in the same way this is acceptable in magazines or TV. But it is unacceptable to pay in cash for a favorable product review.
Since the Ethics Code is a guide and not a Constitution, there is room for the use of common sense and contextualization. So, with think we should leave it as it now stands.
Deborah 11:21 am on June 24, 2009 Permalink
@Deborah
….without disclosing that payment has been received
Deborah 11:19 am on June 24, 2009 Permalink
I do not believe citizen journalists should be paid cash for promoting brands/products/businesses.
Dan Rua 11:34 am on June 22, 2009 Permalink
Jory provides another great example of the variety of ways sponsorships are being done for cash while complying with WOMMA’s Honesty ROI. In BlogHer’s case, network members are sometimes paid to provide in-content reviews on their review blogs. Likewise, at BlogHer.com they publish sponsorships intertwined with the “SpecialOffers” section of their site.
Additional sponsored content examples include, sponsored video content such as Rhett and Link (Taco Bell) and Fred Figglehorn (ZipIt); and sponsored twitter content such as SavvyAuntie and Perez Hilton.
Suggesting that content creators should only be paid in tacos, zipits or TV shows they get for free anyway just doesn’t seem to grasp the spectrum of legitimate, cash-based sponsored content that exists today and, with Honesty ROI, should be a part of any WOMM toolbox in the future.
Jory Des Jardins 11:10 pm on June 17, 2009 Permalink
I wrote about these different models in a recent post:
Context and Disclosure: Keys to Success in Compensating Bloggers
http://www.blogher.com/context-and-disclosure-keys-success-compensating-bloggers
All of these models may be different, but we think it is critical for publishers and advertisers to have strong (and completely transparent) policies about how they engage with one another.
For BlogHer, our policies focus on three things:
1. Disclosure
2. Clear physical separation of editorial and advertorial
3. Context
My partner, Lisa Stone, outlined what are policies are, how we execute them, and why we set them, in more detail, in this post:
The elephant in the room: How BlogHer is cracking the code on editorial content and paid advertising
http://www.blogher.com/baby-mammoths-and-baby-industry-how-blogher-separates-editorial-advertising
The goal, in the end, is to provide value to the advertiser, while safeguarding the consumer and the blogger-reader relationship. We think it can be done.
Emmanuel Vivier (Vanksen | BuzzParadise) 9:59 am on June 17, 2009 Permalink
Hello,
It is nice to see WOMMA so much invested and really trying to define rules and ethics since its start.
But I am a bit amazed about 2 things :
////// First, it is insane, how US centric you really are!
Sorry but the world is not contained between NY & the Silicon Valley. Despite being a member of the WOMMA, we are really surprised to see that Europe or Asia is nearly totally out of your discussions… FTC is definitely an important matter but you might want to have a look at the EU Commission & regulation since it will impact not less than 27 countries & 500 million people! China alone counts more than 40 million bloggers too as an example.
Some advertisers, agencies and WOM practitioners are already pretty advanced there even if by not always mastering English they may not appear at all on your map and in your discussions. At Vanksen (www.culture-buzz.com : digital & social media marketing agency) & BuzzParadise (www.buzzparadise.com : bloggers outreach platform in 12 countries) we have launched more than 200 buzz, viral and WOM campaigns in the past 6 years in more than 12 countries and I know many EU or Asian competitors /counterparts that are doing extremely fine in the WOM industry at large too (Trnd, Buzzman, Heaven, Goviral, BlogBang, Buzzer.nl, ebuzzing, Streetcom, Azooma in Korea, Unrulymedia,…). Each developed a different model (UGC, viral video, sponsored posts, online communities, social media agency,…).
In these countries, many social media platforms are already offering & mixing PR2.0 (no payment but product seeding & event invitation) + viral content seeding (bloggers are paid for performance for videos, gadgets distribution via clearly labeled sponsored content/player) + sponsored posts (with disclosure & analytics tags). Most of them have already adopted full disclosure since day one and bloggers should off course to be totally free to write about it or not, positively or not… and payment vs gift is no real discussion anymore… (value is value indeed). Ironically payment is a good way to request bloggers to insert a disclosure tag 100% of the times and not only most of the time (with PR2.0 campaign where you don’t have any way to force them to do so (even if most of them do it with pleasure in order to be transparent with their readership).
Anyway really influential bloggers are not going to damage their brand image or reputation for a few $ or a free phone… If ever they started writing bullshit, their audience would quickly react through comments or by avoiding them, therefore damaging their traffic and finally their audience i.e. a big part of their influence. On the other hand, the biggest bloggers have invested a lot of times and energy in creating a real media and I don’t know what rights we would have to forbid them to monetize their audience or influence (it just have to be done in a smart & respectful way).
////// Disclosure is definitely a required step to avoid deceiving consumers… but how come that everyone is not fighting for traditional media to adopt disclosure too.
As a marketing professional I have a pretty fair idea of the outrageous gifts (ok it is not money, but some of these gifts and travels may reach more than 5000$ in some cases!) that offline press & TV journalists are offered year along. And I have never ever heard anyone talking about disclosure to avoid deceiving their audience… I am 200% for disclosure but I really think that WOMMA should be asking FTC to request the same from the other media to be fair… Consumers trust is as important whether you are a tv audience or a wom audience.
It is great to see that you are very transparent in discussing this important subject… but I am not sure that you don’t miss a part of the equation (geographically or through industries). And don’t forget that bloggers are not our slaves (hopefully) nor our employee. They are as many different types of them as types of human being. “bloggers” in general doesn’t mean anything. One single rule will probably fail especially since they will each be free to choose their own path… good or evil. We should just make sure we try to fight towards the good direction… and stay humble.
Emmanuel Vivier (Vanksen | BuzzParadise) 9:55 am on June 17, 2009 Permalink
test
Emmanuel Vivier (Vanksen | BuzzParadise) 9:26 am on June 17, 2009 Permalink
Hello guys,
It is nice to see WOMMA so much invested and really trying to define rules and ethics since its start.
But I am a bit amazed about 2 things :
• First, it is insane, how US centric you really are at WOMMA!
Sorry but the world is not contained between NY & the Silicon Valley. Despite being a member of the WOMMA, we are really surprised to see that Europe or Asia is nearly totally out of your discussions… FTC is definitely an important matter but you might want to have a look at the EU Commission & regulation since it will impact not less than 27 countries & 500 million people! China alone counts more than 40 million bloggers too as an example.
Some advertisers, agencies and WOM practitioners are already pretty advanced there even if by not always mastering English they may not appear at all on your map and in your discussions. At Vanksen (www.culture-buzz.com : digital & social media marketing agency) & BuzzParadise (www.buzzparadise.com : bloggers outreach platform in 12 countries) we have launched more than 200 buzz, viral and WOM campaigns in the past 6 years in more than 12 countries and I know many EU or Asian competitors /counterparts that are doing extremely fine in the WOM industry at large too (Trnd, Buzzman, Heaven, Goviral, BlogBang, Buzzer.nl, ebuzzing, Streetcom, Azooma in Korea, Unrulymedia,…). Each developed a different model (UGC, viral video, sponsored posts, online communities, social media agency,…).
In these countries, many social media platforms are already offering & mixing PR2.0 (no payment but product seeding & event invitation) + viral content seeding (bloggers are paid for performance for videos, gadgets distribution via clearly labeled sponsored content/player) + sponsored posts (with disclosure & analytics tags). Most of them have already adopted full disclosure since day one and bloggers should off course to be totally free to write about it or not, positively or not… and payment vs gift is no real discussion anymore… (value is value indeed).
Ironically payment is a good way to request bloggers to insert a disclosure tag 100% of the times and not only most of the time (with PR2.0 campaign where you don’t have any way to force them to do so (even if most of them do it with pleasure in order to be transparent with their readership).
Anyway really influential bloggers are not going to damage their brand image or reputation for a few $ or a free phone… If ever they started writing bullshit, their audience would quickly react through comments or by avoiding them, therefore damaging their traffic and finally their audience i.e. a big part of their influence. On the other hand, the biggest bloggers have invested a lot of times and energy in creating a real media and I don’t know what rights we would have to forbid them to monetize their audience or influence (it just have to be done in a smart & respectful way).
• Disclosure is definitely a required step to avoid deceiving consumers… but how come that everyone is not fighting for traditional media to adopt disclosure too.
As a marketing professional I have a pretty fair idea of the outrageous gifts (ok it is not money, but some of these gifts and travels may reach more than 5000$ in some cases!) that offline press & TV journalists are offered year along. And I have never ever heard anyone talking about disclosure to avoid deceiving their audience… I am 200% for disclosure but I really think that WOMMA should be asking FTC to request the same from the other media to be fair… Consumers trust is as important whether you are a tv audience or a wom audience.
It is great to see that you are very transparent in discussing this important subject… but I am not sure that you don’t miss a part of the equation (geographically or through industries). And don’t forget that bloggers are not our slaves (hopefully) nor our employee. They are as many different types of them as types of human being. “bloggers” in general doesn’t mean anything. One single rule will probably fail especially since they will each be free to choose their own path… good or evil. We should just make sure we try to fight towards the good direction… and stay humble.
Emmanuel VIVIER
CEO & Founder
Vanksen (Buzz & Communication Agency : http://www.culture-buzz.com)
&
BuzzParadise.com (Connecting Brands & Bloggers Worldwide : http://www.buzzparadise.com)
Tyler LeCompte 8:54 am on June 16, 2009 Permalink
I would like to throw in my two cents and commend Ted Murphy and Donna Mackenzie for their excellent points. There should be no restriction by WOMMA that differentiates between cash versus product/service-based compensation. With proper disclosure and transparency upfront, any intelligent consumer can make the determination to allow/disallow a “sponsored” endorsement to affect their own purchasing decisions. The better path for WOMMA to march down would be to encourage more disclosure from traditional advertisers (Print, Radio, TV, etc.) as to the compensation relationships between their endorsers and the brands they endorse, that way all “sponsored” endorsement relationships are covered…not just Word of Mouth Marketing. Thanks
DP.org> Disclosure on Old Posts? DPs to the Rescue 5:00 pm on June 11, 2009 Permalink
DP.org> Disclosure on Old Posts? DPs to the Rescue…
Accordingly, the blogger should clearly and conspicuously disclose that he received the gaming system free of charge.
Whereas hard-money compensation has been disclosed for some time, soft-money compensation (like that free video game system) is ….
Ted Murphy 6:41 am on June 11, 2009 Permalink
@Rod Brooks
Rod,
WOMMA members are already compensating bloggers to start conversations and the WOMMA code as it stands allows for it. I have personally been given product because I am a blogger by three WOMMA members in the past two months (with no requirement for disclosure btw). WOMMA members want to be able to provide people with free products, services, experiences and other compensation.
Sponsored conversations are not going away. If WOMMA tries to exclude cash other forms of compensation will just take its place. I would rather have transactions done cleanly and transparently in cash than through some reverse engineered point system or incentive program.
Colleen Carrington 6:57 pm on June 9, 2009 Permalink
Please allow me to clarify my earlier post. I was thinking of bloggers as journalists when I said that ‘paid blogging is unethical and unwise’ and was applying the same ethics criteria to bloggers as is applied to journalists. (Ref: http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp, Society of Professional Journalists, Code of Ethics/refuse gifts or fees).
I realize the issue is a lot more complicated because not all bloggers are journalists. Cyberjournalist’s ‘Bloggers’ Code of Ethics’ addresses this issue but still stresses the need to be honest and fair, to minimize harm, and to be accountable to maintain readers’ trust. They say that, “Integrity is the cornerstone of credibility. Bloggers who adopt this code of principles and these standards of practice not only practice ethical publishing, but convey to their readers that they can be trusted.” (http://www.cyberjournalist.net/news/000215.php)
The real issue here is one of trust. As a reader, I know that bloggers will have certain biases. What I want to know is if their opinions are formed independently or if they may have been influenced by material transactions with advertisers. It’s okay that Nike gives you a $200 pair of shoes to review, but I want to know they gave them to you. Just say.’ Nike gave me these shoes to review … here’s what I think.’
If you receive additional payment to write a favorable editorial, then that’s a paid endorsement. As a reader, I want to know when the editorial shifts from independent review to paid endorsement.
It’s a complex issue and there is no easy answer, but I hope the WOMMA Ethics Code retains the Honesty ROI, which reflects the FTC Guide (Sec 255.5 http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/guides/endorse.htm). This protects not only consumers but the effectiveness of WOMM as well.
Ted Murphy 5:18 pm on June 9, 2009 Permalink
Disclosure: I am the CEO of IZEA, a WOMMA Governing Member.
I believe the title of this post doesn’t accurately reflect the true decision at hand. Under the current WOMMA Code marketers can provide products, services, giftcards, etc (VALUE) to bloggers so long as they disclose and are permitted to be honest in their opinion. Many WOMMA members participate in this practice and it is very common in the industry.
For some reason there is a specific carve out in the WOMMA Ethics Code for cash as a form of transferable value. So it is fine to provide a blogger with a $500 TV, but not $500. This clause unfairly restricts trade within the industry and clearly violates antitrust laws.
I believe everyone in this comment stream so far believes that value is value, no matter the form. Certainly the FTC and IRS make no distinction between the two. We shouldn’t be talking about what form of value is exchanged, rather our discussions should focus on the framework of the exchange itself.
Disclosure is our biggest challenge as an industry. I have put forth a solution that I believe could work.
http://izea.com/universal-disclosure/
Donna Mackenzie 3:04 pm on June 9, 2009 Permalink
Are Paid endorsements okay?
What is a sponsored conversation, or pay for blogging but an endorsement? They are one in the same.
What is payment in the form of product, or service, or cash but compensation? They are one in the same.
How are the following different?
– Kobe is paid to endorse a Coca Cola.
– Kobe receives a pair of Nikes.
– Blogger is paid to endorse a product.
– Blogger receives a pair of shoes.
It’s all the same. It’s all compensation. (Just ask the IRS)
Are you really going to tell me it is okay for Kobe to receive a pair of $200 Nikes but it’s not okay for Blogger to receive $10? (btw – we’re all consumers, let’s not be condescending to people who aren’t earning the same $ as Kobe)
Let’s not let special interests get in the way of the facts. Let’s not restrain trade.
Disclosure? Yes, especially if a reasonable person could have doubt. Restrain trade? No.
Colleen Carrington 2:13 pm on June 8, 2009 Permalink
If you put yourself in the mind of the consumer,WOMM will continue to be effective as long as it’s honest. Blogs will continue to have influence as long as the reviews are transparent. As soon as you allow covertly paid blogging, consumers will no longer trust bloggers (or the companies that pay them), and WOMM will lose its effectiveness.
With this is mind, transparency should be the guiding principle of every blogger.
I support the WOMMA code of ethics as it is written. In my view, paying cash for blog reviews is both unethical and unwise.
Colleen Carrrington
Marketing Consultant
@colleencar (twitter)
P.S. Paid endorsements are fine, as long as they are transparent.
Idil Cakim 1:38 pm on June 8, 2009 Permalink
Paying bloggers to write “positively” about a brand contradicts the premise of earning media through public relations. I agree with those who are underscoring the Honesty ROI. When we pitch stories to bloggers, when we train staff, that’s what we have to keep in mind. Now, I think what needs to be clarified in our code is how sponsorship and service deals should be handled in the context of word of mouth campaigns.
There is a whole spectrum of effectiveness (arguably) among the various types of WOM. Some may even say organic WOM is more effective than sponsored posts. Bottomline, disclosure is key. If a brand chooses to pay for a post, sponsored area, etc it needs to be disclosed.
Bob Troia 12:21 pm on June 8, 2009 Permalink
As one of the contributors to the *original* WOMMA ethics code back in 2005, I have personally and professionally made enormous effort to help prevent the WOM industry from going the way of email marketing – taken over by a group of unregulated, unscrupulous marketers. I commend WOMMA for their efforts in this arena thus far, but it appears we are arriving at a watershed moment for the industry, as the lines are blurring between conversations built on trust/personal relationships among consumers (and brands!), the use of Social Media as a WOM accelerator, inferred opinion/recommendation, and what constitutes a “celebrity spokesperson” (providing opinion in his/her own words versus simply lending their image).
There is a much larger ethics debate brewing, but for now let’s focus on the issue at hand – “Is Paying Cash for Blog Reviews (or Tweets or Ethical?” Personally, I will state a resounding “NO”, but situations/circumstances vary, so a good litmus test is to apply WOMMA’s “Honesty ROI” to each situation…
1. Honesty of RELATIONSHIP: Are you paying someone (either $$ or free product, travel, etc.) to provide coverage of your brand/product/service? If so, is there clearly stated disclosure? Must (non-disposable/perishable) product samples be returned? Should there be a “standard” disclaimer paid bloggers should include?
2. Honesty of OPINION: Are you telling them what to say? Requiring positive coverage? Willing to risk negative coverage? Or simply asking them to repost “canned” information ala an “advertorial” in a magazine, without any implied opinion/sentiment about it?
3. Honesty of IDENTITY: Are any reviews/blog posts/tweets being done through the use of fake personas, blogs, or not attributable to the actual author? I.e., do the authors put their personal reputation at stake? Use their real names?
I know the focus of this discussion is on the online space/Social Media, but we should also be looking at how this relates to other forms of WOM-facilitators such as radio, TV, print, etc. What if we found out Oprah Winfrey was making back-room deals to make $$ off every copy of her book club selections?
Lastly, for the sake of true transparency, WHO ARE THE 3 WOMMA MEMBERS WHO ASKED TO REVISIT THIS ISSUE?? I have yet to see one of these members come forward. If anything, it would help steer the dialog/debate…
- Bob Troia
@BobTroia
Pete Blackshaw 6:29 am on June 8, 2009 Permalink
I’m a WOMMA board observer. These still-being-shaped views are my own. In reflecting on this topic, which many of us commenced in earnest starting in 2004 with the founding of WOMMA, I see two really difficult, and unresolved (or perhaps not fully vetted) questions:
1. What Constitutes Tangible Compensation
2. How do we step up Disclosure, especially in a Social Media Environment that has low tolerance for character-building “fine print”
First, I think the environment is world’s more complicated, and far murkier, than when we started this discussion many years ago. What truly matters, at the end of the day, is nurturing the trust and confidence of the very consumers we, as marketers, will be dependent upon for every ad and marketing model we put to the test.
Despite our sometimes noble rhetorical positioning, WOM and social media has now become a de facto “media channel,” and the rules of media gravitate to performance-based ROI principles that put massive pressure on “optimizing” for campaign success. I personally regret the intensity and speed of this “media rationalization,” and I don’t think we as an industry (even beyond WOMMA) have fully thought through the consequences and impact of this rush to the next frontier of “attention” and “engagement” on consumer trust. As marketers flood the social airwaves in the name of “participation,” we’re creating congestion, confusion, and a growing need to drive more transparent (I would argue “obvious”) disclosure around who’s funding or incenting who.
On point #1, I do worry we might be doing a rhetorical dance around what constitutes tangible compensation. We need to vet this one out much more fully and honestly.
On point #2, I just don’t think we’ve figured out the right model or framework for making it REALLY OBVIOUS for consumers to know that a person offering a recommendation is getting cash, a free trip to a mommy blog event at a marketer’s headquarters, or free product (low or high priced). Complicating the matter is that social media is now gravitating to shorter, abbreviated, and sometimes trivial “140 character” conversation snippets that inevitably give short shrift to clarity and transparency in disclosure. Even when I “Twit” Nielsen statistics on Twitter, I sometimes pull my hair out trying to get a squeeze a meaningful “Disclosure: I work for Nielsen” blurb in my tweet. (BTW: that took about 30 characters.) On the flip side, you’ve got regulated industries like Pharma/Healthcare where a basic ad claim in a print ad must be accompanied with as much or greater “disclaimer” content….sometimes up to two additional print-ad pages. Onerous, yes (and perhaps overdue for its own rethink…in conjuction with the FDA), but OBVIOUS, yes!
Part of the solution, I think, is to make disclosure really obvious. We also need what we might refer to as “sustainable disclosure,” which means we need to figure out a way to maintain the disclosure in the process of sharing and pass-along. The reality is that disclosure quickly gets lost in the translation or pass-along, and again, the 140-character and texting communication culture we’re nurturing intensifies that issue. How do we do this? Let’s have that discussion. I have additional comments, but I especially urge the WOMMA community, and others, to think through the very practical dynamics of more obvious (perhaps even “in your face”) disclosure.
- Pete Blackshaw
Online Marketing Blog » Blog Archive » WOMMA Opens a Can of Worms 1:27 am on June 8, 2009 Permalink
[...] WOMMA wants to hear your opinion because your opinion will help WOMMA make a stronger ethics code that is reflective of how honest marketers should behave. Consider adding your voice to this issue on the WOMMA Living Ethics blog. [...]
Pete Blackshaw 10:07 pm on June 7, 2009 Permalink
@Dan Rua That’s a reasonable side-by-side comparison. Thanks for the feedback. I’m soaking it all in.
Julie Wittes Schlack 7:34 pm on June 7, 2009 Permalink
@Matt Moog
Matt, I want to briefly respond to two of the several excellent points you made — this time from my perspective as a book reviewer (and as the wife and mother of journalists).
I *do* think it matters whether the payment comes directly from the brand/company that is asking for the review vs coming from a third party, and I also think that the business model of that third party is of critical importance. As a book reviewer for The Boston Globe, I’m paid by the Globe (well actually, by the New York Times, who owns what’s left of the Globe),not by the publisher of any given book I’m reviewing. And if I was paid by the publisher, then not only would my reviews lack credibility, but they would threaten the credibility of *all* reviewers, regardless of who was paying them.
More to the point, the Globe is paying me to generate content (and ensuring the accuracy of that content), not to generate buzz and visibility. In contrast, in pay-per-post transactions, even if the brand is not paying the blogger directly (but rather, through a third-party), the business interest of that third party is to satisfy their customers by getting as many bloggers as possible to post reviews (preferably positive ones).
And while I understand your comparison to the pressure faced by traditional newspapers and magazines to avoid alienating their advertisers, I think the analogy breaks down in a couple of respects. Newspapers derive revenue from two sources — advertising and subscriptions. Their ad revenue is in turn tied to the quality and volume of their circulation, both of which are jeopardized when the firewall between advertising and editorial breaks down. In short, they have a vested interest in at least some degree of impartiality, whereas pay per post providers do not.
Mighty Casey 6:02 pm on June 7, 2009 Permalink
The free-ocracy of the web is a canard, in my opinion – expecting writers/bloggers to live on air is, well, nuts. It’s also hard to live on product handouts, unless you have an army of craigslist and eBay droids off-loading the stuff for cash.
Rules along the lines of the full-disclosure disclaimers deployed by mainstream journalists if they’re reporting on an issue that involves their corporate owners would be a good start. Word of mouth…out of whose mouth? Making that clear is paramount.
It’s always good to use the caveat emptor (reader) rule, anyway – don’t trust a single source for anything.
An Ethical Question … Please Comment | Webbyn.com 4:29 pm on June 7, 2009 Permalink
[...] Lots of great conversation is happening about the ethics of compensating bloggers with cash, in-kind gifts, and special access privileges in exchange for writing a post about the product/service a business provides them. [...]
Matt Moog 12:35 pm on June 7, 2009 Permalink
I am a WOMMA member and serve on the Board of Directors so like Julie and Rod let me explicitly state that the opinion I’m about to express is a personal one and not an official stance of the board.
The truth of the matter is that I am torn on this issue but I am pretty sure the answer is going to be nuanced. At this point, however, I don’t see how cash is any different than free products in terms of having the potential to bias a blogger or consumer’s opinion. Here are questions I would pose for your consideration:
1) Does it matter if the payment is coming directly from the brand/company that is asking for the review vs coming from a third party? I am the CEO of Viewpoints Network. We run http://www.viewpoints.com. In the past we have provided free samples to our members and ask them to write reviews. Of our 200,000 reviewers we also give out monthly “simple thanks” that are $25 gift cards to reviewers who have written great reviews. We also have a small group (less than 100) of reviewers who are so good and so prolific that we pay them modestly for their time. Although we guide them to write in certain categories where we need more reviews, we have never exclude negative reviews. We have also recently added a disclosure to our review form for everyone that writes a review to disclose if they receive a free sample or were compensated by the owner of the product to write the review.
2) I think EVERYONE agrees that paying people to write only positive reviews is 100% wrong. There is no nuance there. Can we all agree on that? Paying for a specific outcome is unethical. There is no defending this example: Belkin actually posted a request for only positive reviews: http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/01/17/belkin-paying-65-cents-for-good-reviews-on-newegg-and-amazon/
3) Let’s take the most respected journalists in the country at the most respected papers or magazines. Do you think they shape their opinions to a) ensure they get future access to early releases or b) to avoid their large advertisers from pulling advertising because they came at them no holds barred? If General Motors is the largest advertiser in Car & Driver, how willing is an auto reviewer going to be to write a highly critical review?
4) Payola and influence extend beyond bloggers, beyond journalists and beyond media. Unfortunately there are ethically questionable lapses of judgment happening on a regular basis throughout our society. This is why Wal-Mart has a policy that vendors can offer nothing of value to their buyers. Not even a slice of pizza. I have marveled at the incredible lack of ethics in the past of the media buyer for a major agency who was taken to the Olypmics for 5 days with her husband by a media company because she happened to represent a major auto manufacturer. Or the countless times that media buyers working for me are taken to baseball games or go to a summit for a media provider and come back with a $500 electronics device. Billions are spent on junkets to the superbowl, golf tournaments and the like.
5) This leads me to ask a question. Why does this debate never focus on the value of the gifts as a measure of appropriateness? A $500 gift card or $1,000 junket seems to me a whole other league from a $2 sample of a product. Rather than debate cash or product as a form of payment why not debate about the value of the compensation?
6) This example of a marketer/blogger is an interesting one. She is very upfront about “delivering results” as a blogger for the marketer. http://www.wendypiersall.com/influencer-marketing-case-study-kmart-holiday-hoopla-contest/ On one hand I read this and have a negative reaction that this blogger is really running a marketing campaign that is being represented as an honest opinion piece. However, isn’t that what journalists do, just in a less refined way? Don’t they write to gain a big audience so in turn their employer can sell more advertising?
7) There is a further nuance. What about brands that provide free samples, ask for reviews, but then take steps to suppress negative reviews? http://mashable.com/2009/04/29/general-mills-moms/ Is that acceptable? See how this is not so clear cut?
9) My modest proposal is to drop the distinction between cash and free product and focus more on the value of the gift and the disclosure of the value. What if a blogger or journalists needed to disclose the total all gifts, junkets, samples etc that they had received during the last quarter? What impact would that have? Should we have tech bloggers sign a pledge that they don’t keep any of the free product given to them for “evaluation”? Take a look at this post from earlier today on Tech Crunch about this specific issue: http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/06/ouch/
Julie Wittes Schlack 10:32 am on June 7, 2009 Permalink
I am a WOMMA Member and serve on the Board of Directors, so like Rod, let me explicitly state that the opinion I’m about to express is a personal one and not an official stance of the Board.
I agree with the stance that WOMMA should oppose the marketing practice of brand/manufacturers to consumers in exchange for endorsements or even reviews, and think the hard money/soft money argument is a specious one. I have no objection to companies/brands providing bloggers with a sample of the product or experience that the blogger may then choose to review (with the caveat to which everyone agrees, which is that the blogger must disclose this). In the case of a camera or a new kind of cheese, that product is easy to fulfill — it can simply be sent. In the case of a new store or hotel — where the product is not a consumable or utilitarian item, but an experience — the “sample” can only be in the form of providing the blogger with that experience. Regardless of the cash value of the product in question, the only transaction that’s occurring is the brand providing the reviewer with a sample.
In contrast, when bloggers are paid to post, they are now *obliged* to publicize products or services that they might otherwise have chosen not to review. And they are implicitly obliged to give the item a positive review if they want to obtain repeat business from whomever is paying them. If bloggers want to make a living from what they do, then they can and should run advertising that is clearly indicated as such.
I realize that one can legitimately poke holes in my argument. You can certainly make the case that someone who’s been given a “sample” of a free trip to a luxury hotel for a weekend is going to feel obliged to give it a good review — and probably feel a greater sense of obligation than a blogger who’s been paid a smaller cash amount to write about the hotel. But the goal here is not to achieve infallible logic; it’s simply to articulate a code that is more likely to achieve a better outcome most of the time. I think clearly delineating between editorial and advertising, between voluntary and paid word of mouth, is in the interest of the greater good.
paul 5:14 pm on June 6, 2009 Permalink
@Sarah P
Sarah
Hate to tell you this, but I’ve gone back and checked and do not see any add’l posts from you. Sounds like you put some thought into your response and I hope you’ll take the time to re-submit. Paul
Graham Bird 2:55 pm on June 6, 2009 Permalink
The key here is transparency. I’m a long time advocate of honesty and openness in our marketing and advertising.
I do NOT believe it is wrong to be paid for delivering value. What IS wrong is being paid to deliver that value dishonestly – for example by pretending to be a something you are not, or presenting a less than honest story.
Cheers
Jessica 12:11 am on June 6, 2009 Permalink
Here’s the issue. I’m a blogger, so now I’m both publisher and editor. In MSM the owners of the content sell the ad space and the editors control the content. Now I’m both.
I assure you that Charles Darwin was really a economist and that the bought and paid for conversations will die off. Why? Because people aren’t stupid and no one will read them.
If I’m going to be blogging I’ve got to get paid. I don’t need a bottle of booze and overnight shipping (oh who am I kidding? Send the booze) But really, I don’t need a trinket or a vacation. I need cash, my bills can’t be paid for in free junk I’d never buy anyhow. I can drop into your businesses and see your goods, I can review your software without making a purchase.
Most importantly, I may have dual citizenship. Guess what the FTC or WOMMA means to a blogger outside the US? Nothing.
Please, take a look at eBay. When Meg left it deteriorated into the bargain basement mess it’s in now. If you try to overregulate to preserve some ridiculous notion of honesty, ethics and transparency, y’all will be on the dole.
I would much prefer a paycheck to a cocktail party or a dumb trip that keeps me from being a mom, it’s better for the companies that work with me, it’s better for my family and it’s better for my readers.
And in the issue of transparency, I notice WOMMA has a .org URL. Can I assume you’re a non-profit or is it just made to look that way?
Stephen Frazzini 7:00 pm on June 5, 2009 Permalink
I have been involved in this topic indirectly and from that viewpoint and one as a consumer do not hold most product/service reviews in high regard. However there are many permutations of what we are talking about. In the basic form you have the simple example of, Company A reimburses Blogger B for writing reviews/articles about their product or service. In that example I do not find the practice unethical, but distasteful. In the more convoluted example of, Reviewer A writes articles/reviews on third party sites e.g. (www.brighthub.com) and is compensated from the third party site and not from the company providing the product or service. In this case I find it acceptable and preferred. In the this last case the reviewers become well known for their expertise (as do many traditional bloggers) but since they aren’t (to our knowledge) compensated directly from the product or service company it has less skepticism associated with it.
All in all I feel this issue will reach a point where most people will devalue most reviews from this source and therefore the benefit to companies to continue such a practice will diminish to a level of noise.
Chris Koch 5:03 pm on June 5, 2009 Permalink
Everyone who supports this seems to hang their hats on the issue of disclosure. But in the fracturing world of social media it seems impossible for disclosure to remain front and center as the comments are sliced and diced and retweeted across the globe.
Sure we’re all paid by somebody, but when you eliminate all the degrees of separation between the cash and the review you are going to run into problems. The B2B practice of customer references is a better way to reach the same end. Potential buyers understand that the reference is receiving some sort of compensation, but they also know that the reference is using the product/service. I think you need more than disclosure, you need proof that the reviewer has real experience with the product/service. Paid reviewers trying to increase their earnings will have an incentive to skip over the experience part.
Rod Brooks 4:55 pm on June 5, 2009 Permalink
First the transparency needed for this post. I am a WOMMA member and am also a member of the WOMMA Board of Directors and Executive Committee. It’s hard to separate those roles. The purpose of this post is to state how I feel personally.
In short, I strongly believe that paying people to have conversations, especially blind endorsements of a product or services, is a very poor and inappropriate business practice. It’s important for the opinions of individuals to be authentic and transparent. Conversations have power, credibility and valuable influence until there is cash for comment involved. Companies should work harder at making their product or service worth talking favorably about. No one wants to feel as if they were tricked when they read a product review or endorsement.
I’ve heard people say we could just enforce transparency… I say, not possible,
Bottom line, I support the WOMMA ethics code as written and feel that those who don’t should find an association whose values are similar to their own. As a member, I applaud WOMMA for striving to hold to the high road. As a board member, I’ll do my best to help hold those standards high.
Rod Brooks
VP & CMO
PEMCO Mutual Insurance Company
Stanley 3:24 pm on June 5, 2009 Permalink
I’ll be brief:
(1) If bloggers notify their readers that they’re being supplied with the product or being paid, I have no problem with it. The people who are willing to take money/products have a reputation that they built up and they should be able to use it any way they see fit. If paying the bloggers is so bad then it’ll eventually deteriorate their reputation anyway.
(2)How is it different than paying Michael Jordan to endorse your underwear?
Sean O'Driscoll 2:58 pm on June 5, 2009 Permalink
Well, ethics is a big word…and as a former philosophy student first and foremost I’m not sure how I want to think about the ethical implications. That said, we at Ant’s Eye View stand firmly against this practice for two reasons:
- First, transparency would be difficult, if not impossible to enforce or assure to the general public, therefore one bad apple…
- Second, we simply don’t think it’s an effective tactic. You already pay people to write, they’re called employees. Success with community/social is about tapping into and inspiring independent passion…in my opinion, there’s no good evidence to suggest that financial terms are the right way to do that. Financial agreements can drive short term results, but rarely lead to long term, sustainable loyalty.
So, is it ethical? I don’t know, I think I reserve that word for a higher level of topic. Is it a business practice that should be supported, I say no.
Sean O’Driscoll
CEO
Ant’s Eye View
@seanodmvp (twitter)
Jessica 2:26 pm on June 5, 2009 Permalink
I’m unclear on this.
Am I now a non-profit? Are you the only one entitled to make a living?
I see this as an absurd ploy wherein MSM and marketers are terrified because people like me might take one of your precious dollars.
Ethics? I call bullshit. When you work for free, I will too.
Sarah P 11:35 am on June 5, 2009 Permalink
Hi Paul,
I wrote a comment on June 1st – stating why I believe it is unethical to pay bloggers cash. Essentially my argument is: Why not just buy a banner ad on their site or blog? That is essentially giving cash and is very obvious. It works for tons of bloggers currently. The problem with a cash exchange is that it is impossible to enforce the consistency of execution with bloggers. Without a uniform practice – ie, all posts must say in big bold font at the top of each post – I WAS PAID TO WRITE THIS POST – it won’t work and the messages will get muddled and be hard to believe to be credible.
Why was this comment not worthy of sharing? You have not posted my comment, although you have posted many others since. Why did you not post it?
If this is a transparent process why are you only posting comments in favor of paying bloggers? Why did you not post my comment? I spent a lot of time writing out my comment and it was thoughtful. Why does my voice not deserve to be heard? I did not get any communication from WOMMA about rejecting my comment so I can only assume that you all are censoring comments.
How can this be a transparent process when you A) aren’t listing the agencies and entities wanting to change the ethics code (ahem, Izea!) and B) aren’t posting everyone’s comments who write something relevant?
As a blogger and a marketer, I am disgusted by this censorship and think you are acting unethically. Ironic on a living ethics blog.
Dan Rua 10:11 am on June 5, 2009 Permalink
Thanks Paul.
Suggestion: I’ve noticed from the dialogue that focusing the question could be of value to this discussion, helping WOMMA understand who supports drawing a line between soft-money (products, trips, passes) and hard-money (cash) compensation. Many comments have discussed the need for disclosure for paid blogging — the WOMMA code already covers that. Others have discussed the need for authenticity in paid blogging — the WOMMA code covers that. As all marketers know, asking the right questions can make all the difference between valuable customer surveys and wasted effort.
The provision that was recently added to the Code singles out hard-money compensation vs. soft-money, forbidding US legal tender as currency, even when Honesty ROI is followed. Therefore, the question on whether to keep that change to the Code centers on compensation type, rather than disclosure, authenticity or opinions of what approaches work best. I hope the following example helps focus the feedback:
Marketer A engages marketing-blogger with free airfare and accomodations equal to $5,000 soft-money to visit an aircraft carrier and marketing-blogger blogs about his/her experiences following WOMMA’s Honesty ROI (although soft-money never mentioned).
Marketer B engages daddy-blogger with $500 hard-money to visit a family retailer and daddy-blogger blogs about his/her experiences following WOMMA’s Honesty ROI (hard-money discussed directly in-post).
The recent Code change blocks Marketer B from membership and aligns WOMMA members to “stand against” Marketer B and daddy-blogger; while promoting the soft-money practices of Marketer A and marketing-blogger. As I shared above, I believe this is wrong for WOMMA, for a variety of reasons. Both Marketer A and Marketer B should be held to the same Honesty ROI standard and WOMMA should stay out of dictating industry payment terms.
Hope this helps,
Dan…
Paul Rand 8:04 am on June 5, 2009 Permalink
@Dan Rua
Dan
Thanks for your very detailed and thoughtful responses. You make your points very clearly.
Andy Beard 2:32 am on June 5, 2009 Permalink
What I would love to see is a general policy that if a blogger is engaged to write about a company, for whatever compensation, somehow they are legally protected if they write something negative, or members of their community say something negative.
In some ways I am in a fortunate position, I live in Poland – the chances of a US company taking me to court are slim anyway, but being in a foreign land reduces that to practically zero.
The shadow of legal action if they say anything negative is actually amplified for paid blogging, because many people hiring bloggers think of it purely as advertising or links, and not feedback.
The feedback will happen, whether from the blogger or their audience, but the advertiser will feel they have been taken for a ride… conned… s…… lets keep this polite.
I have written a few paid reviews – if you are honest about it, there is a massive weight on your shoulders to be overly truthful, because the spotlight is on you. Advertisers don’t take constructive criticism well, or their managers don’t.
Disclosure: A significant chunk of the money I made on paid reviews I gave away as donations, or helping to pay the legal fees of a blgoger who was sued after a paid review went sour for the advertiser – the review was generally positive, until the audience ripped the company apart.
TheSpew, Episode 10: Jeremy Schoemaker - Feet Still on the Ground; Just Wearing Better Shoes | AffiliateCarnival 11:10 pm on June 4, 2009 Permalink
[...] Womma’s potential re-evaluation of their ethics code when it comes to cash vs product debate and how it will affect bloggers. [...]
TheSpew, Episode 10: Jeremy Schoemaker - Feet Still on the Ground; Just Wearing Better Shoes — MissyWard.com 10:44 pm on June 4, 2009 Permalink
[...] Womma’s potential re-evaluation of their ethics code when it comes to cash vs product debate and how it will affect bloggers. [...]
TheSpew, Episode 10: Jeremy Schoemaker - Feet Still on the Ground; Just Wearing Better Shoes 4:22 pm on June 4, 2009 Permalink
[...] Womma’s potential re-evaluation of their ethics code when it comes to cash vs product debate and how it will affect bloggers. [...]
Don 3:22 pm on June 4, 2009 Permalink
WOMMA should focus on the quality of experience by consumers of content, rather than how the review wants to be compensated. People are very, very familiar with sponsored tv commercials, radio spokesmen, paid search results, and much more. If there is a clear disclaimer for the consumer, you shouldn’t be taking it a step farther to dictate the precise manner in which a review is compensated. There are point systems, rep, free merch, trips, access, and so many ways people get compensation for good content, why single out cash? Bloggers that get access, exclusives, freebies, and the like are just as susceptible to be biased to keep those doors open to Apple, Dell, Sony, whoever. That access is gold to them, a career in some cases, and much more valuable than many cash-driven reviews bring.
The suggestion to single out posts for cash, does one thing, it punishes those bloggers who are honest and up front about it, and ‘rewards’ those who hide their compensation. It encourages deception, rather than deal with sponsored information as upfront as AdWords or radio spots.
Finally, when a movie ad lists “Siskel and Ebert give it two thumbs up!” in their copy, I believe they get paid? Yet they were the top of the food chain for trusted reviews for years. People can decide who and what they want to trust if the blogger is up front about it. WOMMA needs to focus on transparency, not choice of compensation currency.
Sarah Hofstetter 2:00 pm on June 4, 2009 Permalink
My comment on this as a WOMMA member is focused on the impact of cash exchange in social media. One of the most important things to consider when launching a social marketing program is the value exchange between consumers and brands. Whether it’s an actual product, entertainment, access, dialogue or even intangible forms of social currency such as inside information or a virtual asset, consumers expect more from brands today, and they expect it for free. Providing value to customers can ensure continued engagement in your brand in the social landscape, and might even inspire them to share the value you provide with others.
One missing piece here in the value exchange discussion is cash, because there is no reason to pay for a response from someone. If there is a direct correlation between a person’s interest and your product, they should organically want to discuss/review/endorse on their own.
Forrester Research published a report discussing the value in paying bloggers to talk about brands. According to the story, the time to use “sponsored conversations” is when the brand can’t interest bloggers without additional incentive. Marketers considering this approach may want to ask themselves: Would the blogger inherently write about it editorially because it provides value to the readership? If you can’t get your product on the radar with bloggers, it might be worthwhile to rethink your product strategy and pitch when approaching the blogger. Why should they discuss your brand and product? What would be of interest to their readers?
For marketers, paying bloggers can create trust issues with blogs’ readers. Because it is often left up to the blogger to decide how (or if) to disclose payment, marketers can end up bearing the brunt of a bloggers violation of their readers’ trust. As marketers, we need to be as absolutely transparent to consumers as possible, whether directly or through a blogger. How else can we earn trust?
We applaud WOMMA’s efforts to quash any efforts to pay consumers for reviews and endorsements.
Josh Willits 9:30 am on June 4, 2009 Permalink
I got a link to this page from Brand Autopsy’s newsletter. I’ll keep this simple. Why doesn’t WOMMA suggest that companies interested in compensating bloggers for reviews compensate those bloggers up front – for instance, provide their product for review with no strings attached. If the blogger is free to write a good or bad review AFTER the compensation, then the business is actually just paying for consulting (and WOMMA if it’s a good review). If it’s a bad review, then people will be watching how the business reacts. If they fix the problem, that will go a long way (and the blogger should agree to help spread the word when the product has been “fixed”. Chris Guillebeau recently did this with an airliner (Air New Zealand), and his review wasn’t that great. They gave him a free flight so he’d blog about it, and he did – with full disclosure and honest feedback.
Andrea Febbraio 4:19 am on June 4, 2009 Permalink
As a marketer, blogger and WOMMA members i feel this issue extremely intriguing and “hot”. Genral speaking the concept of honesty of ROI should already cover the matter. I think infact that every time a blogger receive products or cash to write an honest review about a product should always underline the fact that he has received some form of compensation to do it. What I instead believe is more the fact that “pay per post” in form of cash is probably less effectvie because less natural or “organic”. Make sense to select a specific blogger expert on some matter to ask him to write a review on a product. God or bad the brand is more interested in a fair opinion…even criticts are accepted but need to be motivated. Obviously if he is paid cash this will impact the quality of his review… Anyway here in italy “pay-per-post” is not considered accetable and we do not propose it to our clients. I am looking forward to seeing the future of this issue. Thanks all for your interesting feedbacks.
jon burg 6:55 pm on June 3, 2009 Permalink
Earned attention is currency. If a blogger or other social personality has proved smart enough to earn the attention of their constituency, they have the ethical right to share whatever content, perspectives and messaging with their constituency as they deem proper.
Sure, social messages are personal sentiment, and there is no room for being “fake” in the conversation. The basics of disclosure (the following post is/was a sponsored post) at the top and bottom of a post are all that are needed.
The community has an invisible hand. They are smart enough to filter quality content from rubbish. Success won’t come from anything other than sincere, honest and compelling conversation. Insincere posts and unethical behavior (like paid endorsement in content w/out fair disclosure) ruin the reputation and earned attention the blogger.
The WOMMA Code needs to be clearer, but it doesn’t need to be revised.
misspella 4:59 pm on June 3, 2009 Permalink
I leave my name in support of what has been said here, couldnt say it any better than the above! Thanks Dan
Madison Paige 4:35 pm on June 3, 2009 Permalink
As a consumer, I admit that I feel suspicious of bloggers that promote any product. It naturally makes be skeptical when I see links within an article to a specific product. Ultimately, it erodes my confidence in the blog and the blogger. Perhaps not enough to stop visiting the blog but with my radar up while there. In fact, as it is right now, I cannot know whether the blogger has actually been paid or not but rely mostly on my own instinct about it as I read, in much the same way people are skeptical of overly glowing reviews or comments on so-called “consumer review” websites.
I’m not convinced that internet users aren’t already well attuned to filtering out advertising, no matter how well disguised. I know that I am, but I’m not so sure I’m typical.
When Marketers Collude, Bloggers Lose 4:04 pm on June 3, 2009 Permalink
When Marketers Collude, Bloggers Lose…
As an active investor in social media, I’ve followed the Word of Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA) since it’s founding by a handful of marketers back in 2004. The growth of marketers in the organization is a testament to the power unlocked by consu…
Richard 2:49 pm on June 3, 2009 Permalink
If you’re paid cash for anything by a company or brand, you’re an employee of that brand, and if you’re blogging about it, you should say so every in single post: “I’m an employee, or “This is a paid endorsement.” Readers deserve at least that much consideration and honesty.
If you’re given products/services to review, you should say upfront that you’ve been given free products/services to review, and then write your piece.
Transparency and honesty, every time.
Richard (businessman)
Anon 1:14 pm on June 3, 2009 Permalink
Poor Kobe Bryant. How will he survive without being paid for his endorsements?
Dan Rua 12:56 pm on June 3, 2009 Permalink
As a WOMMA and industry stakeholder, I believe dictating non-cash terms is inappropriate, unnecessarily risking the industry, the association and it’s members in one fell swoop.
I’ll start with the most dangerous risk: trade association antitrust. In the interest of brevity, this DOJ speech (and multiple related guides) provides a decent summary of Trade Association Antitrust risks: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/speeches/0106.htm One example in that speech is US vs. Association of Retail Travel Agents, whereby the association attempted to dictate pricing terms and transaction structure. Similar to current WOMMA “stand against” language, members of the association boycotted doing business with any providers who didn’t meet their pricing structure/terms. The DOJ’s view was as follows: “This is the kind of trade association activity that is of serious competitive concern. ARTA developed a position for its travel agent members on the prices and terms upon which they should be compensated, and then invited and encouraged members not to deal with travel providers that did not follow its prescription. This amounted, in effect, to an invitation to engage in price-fixing.”
The penalties for such trade association activities can be severe (up to treble damages) and can extend to collaborating members. As such, setting all other arguments aside, I believe disallowing US legal tender in a social media marketing transaction puts the association and members in unnecessary legal jeopardy. I believe WOMMA probably understood this at it’s founding because it’s own 2004 antitrust guidelines specifically state: “Since both the Sherman and Federal Trade Commission Acts prohibit combinations in restraint of trade and since an association by its very nature is a combination of competitors, one element of a possible violation is already present. Only the action to restrain trade must occur for there to be a violation.” It may be understandable that WOMMA accidentally wandered into antitrust territory by competitive members, but now that multiple members have raised the question, the association won’t be able to claim ignorance. Therefore, I believe WOMMA should immediately remove any pricing structure/terms distinctions in the code.
Although I’ve already covered the industry risk for disallowing a young, promising marketing model; as a WOMMA stakeholder, I believe there is another industry risk at play: wasted association energy/resources. The WOMM industry will be better served helping everyone understand compensation and conflict exists whether payment is cash or shrouded in non-cash forms. The FTC makes no distinction between the two and, in fact, recent FTC Guide updates added specific examples for social media non-cash transactions to make their concerns clear — all compensation and conflicts must be disclosed. There are multi-billion dollar industries, such as social media affiliate marketing, that will not abandon cash payments, but could be encouraged by WOMMA involvement/cooperation to increase transparency. Focusing WOMMA’s resources on driving Honesty ROI across all social media marketing will serve the industry far greater than drawing arbitrary lines on an unsettled topic that, by your own words, “is driving strong points of view on all sides.” Find common ground within your membership and focus WOMMA’s scarce time and dollars where we can agree…
Thanks,
Dan (WOMMA Stakeholder)
Dan Rua 12:49 pm on June 3, 2009 Permalink
As a blogger, I also believe the distinction between cash and non-cash paid blogging is inappropriate. So long as I blog with disclosure and authenticity (including follow all FTC guidelines), I don’t believe it’s appropriate for marketers to collude on the terms I’m allowed to charge for my time, effort and publication. If I’ve built an online media business that is worth $1,000 in goods/freebies/trips, it’s equally worth $1,000 in cash. Coordinating marketers to disallow the latter payment terms is tantamount to price-fixing.
Given discussions I’ve had with other bloggers, it’s obvious to me that cash/non-cash distinctions in WOMMA weren’t driven by bloggers. Depending on the product or service in question, bloggers will decide what’s appropriate for their blog/audience, but they almost universally agree that cash (with transparency) should be one of many valid options.
I believe the closest analogy for the majority of bloggers is talk-radio hosts – even more obvious as bloggers do podcasts & videos. Like most bloggers, talk-radio hosts are more discussion-starters and entertainers than journalists. They grow their audience by topic, geography and/or talent. Some are small-town voices that wouldn’t be recognized elsewhere and some are national celebrities. However, they almost universally accept cash and non-cash payment from sponsors — mostly cash — to speak in their own voice about the sponsor. The FTC allows this radio model, even without disclosure, so why in the world would we handicap radio’s online counterparts with an arbitrary distinction between cash and non-cash sponsorship even when Honesty ROI is followed?
Thanks,
Dan (Blogger)
Dan Rua 12:48 pm on June 3, 2009 Permalink
As a marketer, blogger, and WOMMA stakeholder (via IZEA investment) I’ve lived this topic firsthand from many perspectives. To share those experiences as clearly as possible (and to enabled threaded dialogue), I’m providing separate comments from each view. From all perspectives, I believe the WOMM market and its participants are best served by allowing and requiring the same standards for cash and non-cash compensation in WOMM campaigns.
To start, as a marketer, I believe even your topic “Paid Blogging: Ethical or Not” misses the point. WOMMA’s code already allows “paid blogging”, so long as payment is done indirectly via products, gifts, passes, trips etc. Therefore the real question is whether advertisers who do it directly via cash should be held to a different standard than those who shroud their compensation in non-cash forms. So long as both advertisers follow WOMMA’s Honesty ROI, I see no reason for such a distinction other than to protect the “old guard” who have built their agency businesses on shrouded influence and compensation. Let’s embrace and encourage transparency of all forms of compensation.
Likewise, I believe a cash vs. non-cash distinction creates an inappropriate “caste system” between advertisers with large-ticket items and those with small-ticket items. For example, the recent “Bloggers at Sea” boondoggle arranged for a group of large and small bloggers such as Kawasaki, Scoble, and Sernovitz to visit the USS Nimitz is a free trip worth thousands of dollars and probably an experience of a lifetime. There is no way one can argue posts about the trip are not paid blogging — typically without disclosure of free airfare etc.. However, the owner of a free content website has nothing of that value to exchange for similar blogger coverage. Why should the former be allowed “paid blogging” when the latter is not? Those agencies wielding free gifts to provide such as cars, electronics, consumer goods etc. may not like it, but cash gives everyone a shot at social media coverage — something WOMMA should support.
Finally, cash and systems based upon cash rather than manpower can be more efficient, delivering ROI in a social media world that still struggles with unlocking marketing ROI. I’m sure there are some who might claim non-cash compensation delivers better ROI, but who’s right in a specific case study doesn’t really matter. The question is whether WOMMA should foreclose an approach, assuming Honesty ROI is followed, while the industry is still so young and in need of creative solutions. Like cash-based sponsored content today, cash-based sponsored search ruffled the status quo when Overture/Yahoo and Google leveraged it to deliver better ROI. Sponsored search is arguably the most successful online business model ever, powering all of the innovation at Google, Yahoo and much of the online ecosystem. Imagine if the largest trade association of the time had disallowed it before the world realized its potential? As a beneficiary of those innovations, I believe such a move would have been short-sighted and, frankly, tragic to the future of the medium.
Thanks,
Dan (Marketer)
Paul Rand 9:05 pm on June 2, 2009 Permalink
@Steve Hershberger
Very thoughtful response, Steve. Thanks for taking the time to make it. Eager to hear reaction to what you wrote.
Paul
Steve Hershberger 12:05 pm on June 2, 2009 Permalink
Alhough personally I do not believe that paid endorsements are appropriate when associated with consumers, I look for existing correlations within the current marketing environment and find some loose examples to help me come to a conclusion if absent my personal opinion, this is a viable challenge to the code. First, there are very few examples which fit this situation exactly or even close enough to really be comfortable. Therefore, we still find ourselves in new territory.
The issue, in my mind, associated with this topic deals with a few items I outline below. However, I want to point out one important point prior to this. I believe there is a fundamental difference between paid pitching and providing ‘delight and surprise’ rewards that are unexpected and random (so as not to allow for gaming the system). That said, onto my points:
1. The transparency of the ‘pitch’; a passionate plea based on personal experience and altruistic intent is very different than one that is driven by financial gain. There is a lesson to be learned here in the financial meltdown we face ourselves in. If mortgage brokers and loan officers weren’t so strongly compensated on generating a transaction instead of the quality of the transaction, we might be in a different place. I worry about the same thing here.
Moreover, since much of these ‘pitches’ are/will be electronic, there will always be some degree of anonymity to the pitch person; which works in the brand’s favor. As an example, does the Sham-wow guy really use and love the product? Wouldn’t you like to be able to ask him face to face (Hey, stop the commercial, I have a question for you! Do you really use it and can you prove it Sham wow guy)? Since it is a commercial you can’t ask him and the brand knows it. You’ll never know the answer, so promote away!
2. The accuracy and quality of the information provided. As a paid pitch person, does the information provider have the resources to be accurate in both the technical and anecdotal knowledge they are imparting? Maybe to a point, however, it is doubtful the person ‘pitching’ is as well equipped as an actual customer…unless they are both, in which case, what is driving the motivation? The altruistic love of the brand or the $10 per promotion blog they post? Both? Ten dollars a pop starts to add up…
The ONLY way I would be in support of this would be if the following occurred:
-The person hired inserts into every message (on and offline)a ‘this is a paid endorsement’ blurb into their post or message. Every single one. Text. Email. Video. Blog. Forum. Whatever. Offline, they must acknowledge they are under contract with that brand to offer a paid opinion. Every one. If they don’t like it, don’t take the paid gig. “I’d like to tell you what I think about that baby stroller but first you need to know…”
-The brand must publish a list of ‘blogger’s and spokespersons’ who receive compensation DIRECTLY or INDIRECTLY (agency, payperpost, whatever) for pitching. Think of it like WOM Sarbanes Oxley. If you don’t like it or can’t ‘control’ it, don’t do it.
Violations should be treated in the same manner that false advertising is treated; with the same risks and legal ramifications.
Only with such a black and white approach that has big stick attached will this slippery slope be avoided.
Best,
Steve Hershberger | ComBlu