The following email was sent to WOMMA members yesterday.  Feel free to comment here as well!

 

Is it ethical to target WOM marketing to minors?

Is it ok to pay bloggers to write about your or your client's brand?

Is it ethical to create and maintain multiple online identities when engaging in digital word of mouth marketing?

These and other questions are at the heart of WOMMA's Living Ethics project and revisions/update to the WOMMA Ethics Code - regarded as the industry's standard.

We held a live ethics session during the WOMMA Marketing Summit in Las Vegas and many people participated. If you'd still like to watch the session, go to http://womma.org and click the link for the Live Ethics Video on the homepage.

Since getting back to Chicago, we've hosted a blog for members and the public to discuss ethical issues in word of mouth marketing and any refinements needed to the Ethics Code.

Please go to http://womma.org/ethicsreview to make your voice heard in this important discussion. We've extended the deadline for comments until January 20, 2009. Revisions to the code will be announced in February 2009.

Should you have questions about the Living Ethics Project, call WOMMA staff at 312-853-4400 or contact me directly at 312.596.6272 or at prand@zocalogroup.com.

Have a wonderful holiday!
Paul M. Rand

VP, WOMMA Board of Directors
Chair, WOMMA Living Ethics Project
President/CEO - Zócalo Group

Permalink 1 |

One of the more controversial questions posed at the WOMMA 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.

Weigh in here, or go to the WOMMA Living Ethics Blog

Permalink 1 |

Social media has become a catch-phrase for all things digital, at least a far as many companies are concerned.  It's the new hot thing in marketing and word of mouth, and marketers are rushing to "get me some of that."  Twitter, blogging and Facebook have become the poster children of social media efforts, which isn't a bad thing as long as the strategic approach is well thought out, focused and executed properly. 

To continue using favorite clichés, this isn't to say social media is a flash in the pan.  It's simply another tool in the tool box, but one that is proving to be very useful, especially in driving word of mouth.  But not all social media is created equal, and not every program should embed social media.  In consultant terms, it really depends.

One of the keys to successful social media for companies is to avoid being creepy.  This can take all kinds of forms, from creepy treehouses (as Ryan Rasmussen likes to say; ask him what it means), to the equivalent of walking up to someone and talking at them (uninvited and irrelevant conversations) to stalking.  Liz Strauss' post on Extreme Twitter Personalities is definitely worth a read. 

Some have argued that social media is no place for companies.  I disagree with that, but I also recognize that there is a "right" way to go about it without incurring the wrath of the People.  I really like what Mack Collier had to say about it too:  basically, nobody gets it right on the first try. 

On the other hand, social media mavens have to give companies a bit of a break. I mean, we have all committed a faux paux or three, and without companies social media would not evolve as rapidly nor as interestingly.  It's all in how it is approached. 


Permalink 1 |

Establishing an online community can return human interaction to the company and consumer relationship.  However, simply creating a blog, forum, social network, or messaging platform with your company's logo does not make a community.  Both physical and virtual communities require shared beliefs, resources, needs, identities, etc to form a functional network. 

Prior to launching a branded community, consider the following questions:

1. Is participation simple?  Twitter exemplifies the power of easily accessible community - simply create a profile and start typing without an extensive learning curve.  Simple connection with other community members and administrators is also imperative. 
   
2. Who will generate content? Brands do not need to replicate the success of large-scale networks, but should receive benefit from the organic growth enjoyed through user-generated content.  
   
3. How will the community attract members? Even in private networks, maximum and minimum values are important for community health.  If planning to expand beyond Dunbar's number, administrators should be present to help manage the growing distributed network.
4. How long will the community last?  Leaving a vacant portal to perish on the web reflects poorly on a brand's overall Digital Footrpint.  Clearly define your network as temporary or long-term from launch.  
   
5. Is building or borrowing more practical? Creating a respectable white label social network or messaging service is increasingly feasible, but interacting with an establish community might be more realistic for general messages. 
   
6. What unique benefits are provided?  Users are more likely to participate if the service provides a unique offering.  A number of considerations exist including bigger, stronger, faster, easier, better-looking, etc.
7. What is the uniting theme or community interest? Building a topic agnostic community is unrealistic for most brands.  Determining a niche area for conversation provides an interesting exercise in brand analysis as well. 
   

For information concerning the reasons behind failure in certain online communities, visit a recent posting from Internet Communications firm, The Bivings Group, entitled "A Look At Failed Social Networks."


Permalink 1 |

Google released its year-end Zeitgeist (the tool that tells what people are looking for on the internet) today. The interesting thing for me was the fastest rising Global Queries. Sarah Palin, Obama, Beijing 2008 and people searching for Facebook login, Heath Ledger, Jonas Brothers tells me that people using the internet are obsessed with pop culture, and not necessarily weighty world topics, or even great products/brands.  Today's top videos as reported on Ice Rocket support that claim.

When pop culture has such a grip on our attention( carrie fisher, call in gay day, cc sabathia...all hot on Google 12/10/2008) how does a brand, a specific product, an "unsexy" but worthy idea cut through the cluster? If who is playing for what sports team is more important than which brand is saving the world one green initiative at a time, then getting a brand/company message to cut through the pop culture noise, requires a great deal of creativity and some calculated risk on behalf of a brand.




Permalink 1 |

Ryan's recent post titled "Disclosure is not enough" outlined considerations for entering conversations on behalf of a brand.  Outside of the usual reminders to be authentic and familiarize yourself with the content creator, Ryan also prompted slight consternation through "Make the message relevant, personal, and 'invited.'"



A recent example of a message containing relevancy and personalization but not invitation occurred after I recommended a search plugin via Twitter.  The startup responsible easily located my suggestion and sent several messages surrounding new products with praise from other users - obvious attempt to spread adoption of new offerings.  Fantastic!  I obviously enjoy the plugin (demonstrated through my unsolicited promotion) and am glad the company is still in producing new products.  However, immediately responding to my comment presumptively assumes all mentions of your product are potential engagement points.

"But Andy," you might be asking, isn't interacting with customers essential to WOM?" Is this not a good sign for social media adoption in DWOM?  Perhaps, but in a situation where no immediate action is required - a simple follow might have sufficed.  The gesture of following on twitter (interchangeable with friending, subscribing, digging, etc) informs me that the company was "listening" and establishes a direct line of communication for any future questions. 

So as an add-on to Ryan's previous post, I would like to suggest that listening is not enough either.  A conscious effort to make "invitation" possible is also required before engagement.  Any suggestions on creating an environment conducive for brand invitation?         

Permalink 1 |

Photo Courtesy: Mikael Altemark


Paul just posted an open question concerning a potential ethics code violation at the WOMMA blog.

I think the active parties perceived their actions to sufficiently disclose their relationship and intention of spreading messages on behalf of their client, Motorola. Listening to the growth and adoption of the social media mindset within the world of PR and marketing, I actually think astroturfing was the furthest objective from their minds.

However, there is a very traditional mentality at work here wherein agencies see the internet as a place to put or publish messages for a brand.

There are too many definitions for authenticity when it comes to online participation, and too many inauthentic "hits" / one-off messages that completely miss the value of participatory consumer marketing.

From a blogger's perspective:

• It's not enough to disclose your affiliation when you are advertising in our comment boxes.
• Take the time to get to know us.
• This means introduce yourself, then contribute.
• If we like you, we'll embrace your message (And, it will be a lot more effective if it comes from our voices instead of yours.)
• Your job is not to get the message out there - it's to show us that you care enough about the community for us to get the message out for you.

For a DWOM practitioner

• Make the message relevant, personal, and 'invited.'
• Bloggers still want your participation!
• Re-align your tactics with your program goals in such a way that you are building marketers of bloggers - as opposed to marketing to bloggers
• Be visibly authentic.

How else can we help drive sustainable word of mouth marketing best practices to not just abide by a code of ethics such as the ones put forth by WOMMA, but to actively seek relevance and authenticity within the communities they hope to foster long-term brand advocacy and earn trust?

Capture Collage Courtesy Gizmodo

Permalink 1 | TrackBacks (0) |

Interesting stats coming out about the intersection of advertising and social networking. A recent Ad Week article discussing the findings of a recent IDC report, "US Consumer Online Attitudes Survey Results Part III," addresses an important issue:  how can marketers better reach social network audiences through traditional advertising?

Quite frankly, this debate surprises me on one level, and yet doesn't surprise me on another.  It surprises me only because we have heard the mantra--or is it a loud and unanimous declaration?--over the past few years that the way audiences receive and manage marketing messages has changed, and the same ole' thing won't work with social media.  In a world where active listening is a necessity, this message doesn't seem to be getting through.  

IDC's study found that only 3 percent of social network users are OK with publishers using their contact information for advertising.  This is a powerful signal that people don't want their Facebook experience perverted by corporate messaging, and companies that do not listen may face some blowback and achieve exactly the opposite of what they wanted to do.  

Does this mean that there is no place for marketers in social networks?  I don't think so.  I think it, though, that the traditional approach must be reevaluated.  Perhaps it is a function of asking a new question: instead of asking how to make traditional marketing more effective in today's world, marketers should be exploring how they can best understand and engage an audience that increasingly eschews traditional advertising.  Or, "how do we engage people, get them talking and spark sustainable word of mouth"?  And this starts with listening, understanding, and accepting that what once worked so well simply isn't going to work any longer.   



Permalink 1 |