Seeing red over shades of grey
I recently moderated a panel at one of those social media and marketing conferences that come up every quarter or so. The topic was something rather studious and academic - along the lines of “Considerations for applying social media marketing in Asia”. Perched on stools beside me were colleagues from the research, marketing communications and digital sectors.
With topics such as “Is social media in Asia a fad?” and “how do you measure social media ROI”, the scene was set for an interesting discussion.
Recalling my debate training from 1985, I kicked off with a Mark Twain quote – “Asia is not going to be civilized after the methods of the West. There is too much Asia and she is too old” and let the panellists discuss. So far, so good. Data was passed around and everybody nodded in a sage-like fashion. But I was keen for a little controversy, so, every so cautiously, I built up to the ethics question.
Y’see, as any regular readers of this column will attest, social media and public relations ethics are pet topics of mine. I’ve raged against the PR spammers, girded my loins against pay-for-play blogging, and called out the so-called gunners who “seed” forums and blogs with facile marketing happy-talk on behalf of their corporate masters.
So, when it came time to put this particular cat amongst the pigeons, I was ready for a stoush. The question, if I remember correctly, was something innocent - along the lines of “What types of online behaviours are you seeing in Asia?”
The researcher and marketing folks offered their perspectives. One audience member chose to list the types of services they procure and this included a throw-away reference social media seeding. Seizing my chance, I leapt. Well, truth be told, I asked for clarification. It turns out it was a very regular practice for this company to pay agents to seed positive comments in blogs and forums on their behalf.
Smelling blood, I innocently asked if it was clear at any stage that the comments were from a marketing company and not the vendor they represented. The response was negative, followed up with a rather blasé “People don’t seem to worry about it. And, after all, there are shades of grey.”
Shades of grey? Shades of GREY? Instead, I saw red. Perhaps “shades of grey” is marketing-speak for “misrepresentation”. Perhaps I missed the particular class in marketing and PR school that said it was OK to pretend to be a consumer and make a fake endorsement of a product or service.
C’mon folks. I appreciate it is a brave new world. The days of advertising and PR dominated by the megaphone of mass media are coming to an end. But as we board the train to a world of consumer conscious and relationship-oriented marketing, surely we don’t leave our ethics on the platform?
Surely we’re bringing up our young, impressionable marketeers, budding advertising creatives and suits and up-and-coming PR flacks with a sense of right and wrong? I feel the lines are pretty clear. The Word of Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA) is an organization that also struggles to see the grey in this picture. According to their Ethics Code, members...engage in practices that are designed to enable the reasonable consumer acting rationally to make better informed purchasing decisions.
This doesn’t seem unreasonable. If a consumer feels the person providing product advice or opinion on a blog, forum, Facebook Fan Page or Twitter stream is someone like them, then, according to the researchers, they are more likely to accept that opinion. Fundamentally, this opinion is formed based on the quality of the information provided. Corporations and their representatives have a responsibility to interact appropriately on social channels.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying you can’t endorse your products or services. But you need to do it in such a way that the opinion you offer is balanced; can be validated and genuinely offers value to the discussion at hand. We’re talking about a dramatic change in style here. The language of press releases and strap-lines isn’t going to cut it.
Consumers certainly don’t object to discussing the virtues of a product or service with a company’s representative, but if they want to read a brochure, they’ll go to the website. This is one of the reasons that social channels have sprung up and are shaping opinions – they are seen as objective forums for discussion where consumers share opinions on their own terms. If the corporations want to play the game, they need to learn the rules.
If this sounds like too much work, then perhaps it is time for those companies unwilling or unable to play a responsible role in social media channels to purchase a billboard or buy another TV spot.
- Jeremy
Photo: Shades of Grey, Neilbetter, Creative Commons, Some Rights Reserved
With topics such as “Is social media in Asia a fad?” and “how do you measure social media ROI”, the scene was set for an interesting discussion.
Recalling my debate training from 1985, I kicked off with a Mark Twain quote – “Asia is not going to be civilized after the methods of the West. There is too much Asia and she is too old” and let the panellists discuss. So far, so good. Data was passed around and everybody nodded in a sage-like fashion. But I was keen for a little controversy, so, every so cautiously, I built up to the ethics question.
Y’see, as any regular readers of this column will attest, social media and public relations ethics are pet topics of mine. I’ve raged against the PR spammers, girded my loins against pay-for-play blogging, and called out the so-called gunners who “seed” forums and blogs with facile marketing happy-talk on behalf of their corporate masters.
So, when it came time to put this particular cat amongst the pigeons, I was ready for a stoush. The question, if I remember correctly, was something innocent - along the lines of “What types of online behaviours are you seeing in Asia?”
The researcher and marketing folks offered their perspectives. One audience member chose to list the types of services they procure and this included a throw-away reference social media seeding. Seizing my chance, I leapt. Well, truth be told, I asked for clarification. It turns out it was a very regular practice for this company to pay agents to seed positive comments in blogs and forums on their behalf.
Smelling blood, I innocently asked if it was clear at any stage that the comments were from a marketing company and not the vendor they represented. The response was negative, followed up with a rather blasé “People don’t seem to worry about it. And, after all, there are shades of grey.”
Shades of grey? Shades of GREY? Instead, I saw red. Perhaps “shades of grey” is marketing-speak for “misrepresentation”. Perhaps I missed the particular class in marketing and PR school that said it was OK to pretend to be a consumer and make a fake endorsement of a product or service.
C’mon folks. I appreciate it is a brave new world. The days of advertising and PR dominated by the megaphone of mass media are coming to an end. But as we board the train to a world of consumer conscious and relationship-oriented marketing, surely we don’t leave our ethics on the platform?
Surely we’re bringing up our young, impressionable marketeers, budding advertising creatives and suits and up-and-coming PR flacks with a sense of right and wrong? I feel the lines are pretty clear. The Word of Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA) is an organization that also struggles to see the grey in this picture. According to their Ethics Code, members...engage in practices that are designed to enable the reasonable consumer acting rationally to make better informed purchasing decisions.
This doesn’t seem unreasonable. If a consumer feels the person providing product advice or opinion on a blog, forum, Facebook Fan Page or Twitter stream is someone like them, then, according to the researchers, they are more likely to accept that opinion. Fundamentally, this opinion is formed based on the quality of the information provided. Corporations and their representatives have a responsibility to interact appropriately on social channels.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying you can’t endorse your products or services. But you need to do it in such a way that the opinion you offer is balanced; can be validated and genuinely offers value to the discussion at hand. We’re talking about a dramatic change in style here. The language of press releases and strap-lines isn’t going to cut it.
Consumers certainly don’t object to discussing the virtues of a product or service with a company’s representative, but if they want to read a brochure, they’ll go to the website. This is one of the reasons that social channels have sprung up and are shaping opinions – they are seen as objective forums for discussion where consumers share opinions on their own terms. If the corporations want to play the game, they need to learn the rules.
If this sounds like too much work, then perhaps it is time for those companies unwilling or unable to play a responsible role in social media channels to purchase a billboard or buy another TV spot.
- Jeremy
Photo: Shades of Grey, Neilbetter, Creative Commons, Some Rights Reserved