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?
Tom Augenthaler 2:19 pm on June 29, 2009 Permalink
The crux of the problem here is pay to play. By paying bloggers hard cash to write positively about their product or service, companies are attempting to control the message and/or deceive the readers. In any case, it is unethical and therefore unacceptable.
Companies should not be the only entities to be held to this standard. Online influencers/bloggers should be held accountable as well. They should be unwilling to engage in these practices or risk tainting their own reputations.
As to loaners … this is called “reviews” where I come from. I worked in the PR department of one of the largest tech companies and we held bloggers to the same standards as press reviewers for product loans — and they were very much loans.
All participating bloggers signed a document outlining the loan parameters and were told when they had to return the units (laptops). We encountered few problems and the bloggers we worked with enjoyed being treated the same as press reviewers. If a blogger wished to hold the unit longer, we worked out a time extension if we were able.
My PR team did not have the budget to hand out products to never see them again, nor did we want to engage in the kind of behavior Dan outlines in his comment. We needed every unit to be returned so we could turn them and send to other bloggers/reviewers. Also, we were held accountable for the units as they were/are expensive to acquire.
Dan Rua 1:30 pm on June 22, 2009 Permalink
I’ll save everyone from my conflicted, “multi-perspective” analysis here — you can find that in my comments on the prior question. In fact, my view on this question isn’t much different from each perspective, if value is exchanged it should be disclosed in the same manner. The form of that value doesn’t make a difference and I wouldn’t recommend WOMMA propose a lower bar of transparency for soft-money sponsorships than hard-money.
If WOMMA wants to get into the details, which I wouldn’t advise, there are at least two scenarios where it could provide clarity/consistency with FTC guidelines:
1) De minimis value exchanged may be worth defining. For example, does a $5 sponsored post carry a conflict as material as a 3-month $30,000 loaner car, a $5,000 aircraft carrier trip or a $1,000 laptop? Probably not.
2) “Loaners” that aren’t really loaners. One of the most deceptive forms of compensation/disclosure I’ve seen is where bloggers are given something of value (camera, laptop etc.) “for review” with a request to return or donate after X days. However, the blogger and the marketer know that return is unlikely to ever happen. Even true loaners exchange value: the cost to rent that camera, laptop or car for X days — or a book whose full value is received from a single reading; so disclosure is required regardless. However, is disclosure as a “loaner” sufficient if the item is never actually returned? Should disclosure as a loaner only be allowed AFTER something has been returned (e.g. updating the post later), but disclosure as a gift until that time?
I’m not sure WOMMA should get into that level of detail, but “loaner programs” are one of the most deceptive approaches I’ve seen to date and just one example of how soft-money transactions fall short of the clarity possible with hard-money sponsorships. They should all be held to the same Honesty ROI standard.
Tyler LeCompte 8:47 am on June 16, 2009 Permalink
I don’t think there should be any difference in the disclosure requirements for cash versus product/service. The main issue here (to paraphrase Ted Murphy of Izea) is “value”. If something of value is gained by the consumer who is offering an opinion, in whatever form (verbal, text or visual), then there needs to be disclosure by both the consumer and the brand being represented. To differentiate between cash reward versus product/service reward is irrelevant.