Latest Updates: ethical WOM RSS

• 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, 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?

   

• Is it ethical to target WOM marketing to minors?
  
  

  Paul Rand 6:58 am on December 17, 2008 | 5 Comments Permalink
  Tags: ethical WOM, Ethics (14), Living Ethics (3), Marketing to Minors, WOM (11), womma (8), word of mouth marketing (9)

  One of the more controversial questions posed at the Living Ethics summit involved targeting minors with word of mouth marketing efforts.

  The current WOMMA ethics code re minors is outlined below.  Does this go far enough?  Too far?  Changes needed?

  We manage relationships with minors responsibly

  • We believe that working with minors in word of mouth marketing programs carries important ethical obligations, responsibility, and sensitivity.
  • We stand against the inclusion of children under the age of 13 in any word of mouth marketing program.
  • We comply with all applicable laws dealing with minors and marketing, including COPPA and regulations regarding age restrictions for particular products.
  • We ensure that all of our campaigns comply with existing media-specific rules regarding children, such as day-part restrictions.
   

• Is the current Motorola “flap” an ethics violation?
  
  

  Paul Rand 4:20 pm on December 3, 2008 | 4 Comments Permalink
  Tags: Boing Boing, ethical WOM, Ethics (14), Motorola, paul rand (3), WOM (11), womma (8), word of mouth marketing (9)

  Last week, a popular technology blogger called out a WOMMA member and WOMMA for what he believed to be a breach of the WOMMA ethics code.  The issue has continued to get widespread attention on Boing Boing and other places.

  While WOMMA is not a “policing” organization, we do have a process in place to investigate possible breaches of the code.  When a WOMMA member formally presents a complaint about a possible Code violation (which has occurred in this case), the issues is turned over to our Member Ethics Advisory Panel (MEAP). The Panel will now review the case to determine if there has been a violation.  The group will return with one of three outcomes: There has been a violation and the member must address the violation or risk losing membership; 2., There has been no violation 3, There has not been a formal violation of the Code, but there has been a violation of the “spirit” of the Code and the member receives a warning.

  . Our ultimate goal is to protect our members, our brands and the consumers — while at the same time continuing to refine and reinforce the WOMMA Ethics Guidelines as the Industry Standard that provides clear direction to all marketers.

  This is at the heart of what the current WOMMA Living Ethics project is all about.  Our industry is changing.  Please make sure to make your comments and voice heard.

  So … is this an ethics violation?