The Scandal That Will Knock Marketing On Its A$$
While tactics may vary, at the macro level there is only one way for marketers to reap rewards from Social Media: via candid & transparent participation with their “audiences” (customers, prospects, etc.).
But there are at least three ways for marketers to utterly screw up their opportunities in Social Media…
1. Lack of transparency due to ignorance (as discussed in the post, “Blogger Relations: Good Intentions, Bad Execution, Lessons Learned”).
2. Overcommitment to techniques they don’t fully understand (as discussed in the post, “Beware the GMOOT!”), which leads to disappointment & premature abandonment of Social Media principles.
3. Cynical exploitation of the Rules of Engagement.
It’s this last that concerns me most. I can’t name names but I recently saw a proposal from a so-called guerilla marketing agency which included this tactical approach:
After gaining a sense for the community at the blog/user forum, our rep (posing as a typical user) will begin to post up to 10 separate Comments over the course of a week or two, to achieve credibility – leading up to the post that will be of-value to the client.
“Then, another of our reps (also posing as a typical user), will come in a day later – using a different IP address – to thank the original poster for the ‘great find.’”
It’s GOOD to “gain a sense for the community” and to “achieve credibility” as a user. The approach highlighted above is a perversion of what’s been discussed, ad nauseum, re: Social Media in general, and Blogger Relations in particular.
Yet such proposals are proliferating, I fear. Worse, some clients think that this represents a clever approach; a way to “work the system.”
When such deluded and scornful approaches are discovered and outed by the blogosphere, the bad guys will blithely skip away with a smirk … while all the good & wholesome practitioners are gonna stay behind to protest, explain, autopsy, etc.
And by fighting that good fight, we’ll get smacked upside the head, poked in the eye, punched in the belly and knocked on our collective asses. Again.
Posted on: November 14, 2007 at 11:48 am By Todd Defren
Subscribe by Email
Todd-
That example from the proposal is so scary. Thanks for sharing…
All Australian universities that teach PR include lectures and tutorials in ethics. I would assume they do in the US and UK. It’s only when the students leave are they “corrupted” by business.
Marketers don’t realize it now, but this kind of behavior will wreck the whole enterprise. Cynical (and unethical) tactics will undermine user trust in social media, and ultimately dilute the effectiveness of brand chatter on the web. Cynical marketing = cynical customers.
It also has the unintended consequence of screwing it up for everyone else! When customers find out they’ve been duped, they’re less likely to trust future WOM or viral marketing.
Great post, Todd!
I’m not sure what the status is in the US, but you might have seen this story about the EU laying down the law on astroturfing.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/03/eu_flogging_ban/
Hopefully this will be something that is a step towards keeping brands and marketers playing by the book.
These “guerilla” and SEO marketing agencies are spreading like a bad virus. I’ve recently seen two similar proposals and counseled clients against them. Another gem is that they promise to “look for paid opportunities from bloggers.” This is only going to become more frequent. The role of PR is to counsel clients on the right and ethical way to engage with their online audiences.
Todd,
Thanks for the link! The post is exactly as you say, and I agree completely with how you framed that corner of the issue.
For heaven’s sake, a lot of us in PR are blogging (etc.), and people know who we are– or could. Our relationships with our clients should not sully a good message, nor should it dress up a poor one. It helps if you believe in the message, of course .
Now I will go scrub my eyeballs after reading that “guerilla marketing” proposal in your post.
I’ve got to agree with Albert’s “Shocked!” point…I wasn’t really surprised at all to read that in a proposal. Not to sound cynical, but I think a lot of what has gone on “behind the scenes” in this business in the past hasn’t always been a pristine beacon of “truthiness,” and we still have a ways to go before everyone starts to grasp the concept that transparency is now a must. And you’re right, it’s not just PR, I think it’s probably true of any number of communications fields; marketing, public affairs, government relations…
Perhaps the silver lining is that marketers are including social media in their proposals at all, even if they are getting it all wrong.
Albert – First off, that line was easy; it’s from Casablanca, one of my fave movies (and written by a Bard College alum!) You can keep the Subway gift card, though. I brought my lunch today.
Also, more to the point, thanks for the thoughtful comments. This line in particular is brilliant: Social Media is a people place not a marketplace.
John – I didn’t see the PRN post. I am still against ghostblogging, though it may be inevitable. Sad to say.
Csalmonlee – I think it is ok, within reason, for a PR person to respond in blog comments on behalf of clients, AS LONG AS they clearly define who they are and their role: that way the community gets to decide how much weight to put behind their words (if any).
More often than not, I suggest that the PR person’s contribution ought to be along the lines of:
“Hi, my name is _________, I am a PR consultant to (Company). Just wanted you to know we’ve seen this post, and will be discussing it with our friends at (Company). Will be sure to let you know what comes of that, and/or hopefully I can get them to jump into the conversation themselves. Stay tuned!”
Doug Haslam at TechPRGems has a good post along these lines: http://topazpartners.blogspot.com/2007/10/should-pr-agency-rep-leave-blog.html
Thanks, all.
TD – this is classic it reminds me of the line “I’m shocked, shocked to find gambling going on in here,” the first person to post the name of that movie will get a $10 Subway card.
Background
You raise a wonderful topic – trust. You didn’t think it was going to be that heavy, but the fact is, that’s what we have here.
Technology is once again racing ahead of the rationale to apply it well.
This time, unlike the 90s, it cuts to our very core as humans the need to be recognized as individuals and to be part of a larger group. It also twists the knife into the Achilles heel of capitalism, which is competition and greed.
Points
1) Social media believes in transparency, honest discussion, and civility
2) Financial markets rewards growth and meeting prescribed expectations. It usually penalizes the straight-forward discussion of events
3) Media, as consumed by most Americans, benefits from conflict and in our sports oriented, entertainment dominated society there must be a victor and a loser. Also there must be a solution before the consumption of my next event.
4) Political system benefits accusers over the accused which caters to the media (see number 3)
5) Legal system has become an apparatus to paralyze innovation, and a source of revenue rather than a resort for justice
6) Companies reward plans and predictive behavior. They usually can’t handle an unknown or unpredictable.
All of these things run counter to the brilliance of social media. Because social media, absent the consultants, gurus, et al addresses the need in humans to be connected
At its essence, social media is a movement. It is a movement to repair the cynicism that has gripped our society. It is a medium that allows for the voices in the middle to speak as loudly as those on the extreme, It allows for the questions to be asked that are not intended to bait, deceive, or entrap, but to enlighten, educate, and advance the discussion.
Hey in the spirit of social media disclosure, I pay my mortgage and the salaries of employees by providing communications advice. But I have to say, we are not dealing with some new kind of printing technique for direct mail or even some technology platform upon which to put your marketing stuff.
We are dealing with the interaction and relationship of people. People who have sought each other out for a common purpose. This is a people place not a market place.
Our competitive monetizing society wants answers now on how to use this technology to the advantage of its investors. Society is still trying to figure out how it can use it to address its desire to be connected.
Great post Todd.
Did you see the PR Newswire request for thoughts on why it is now okay to ghost blog? Are we going backwards or forwards?
I think the community and associations need to call out the agencies and people who participate in these sort of inappropriate behaviors.
@Mike
Regarding your point about what do they teach in schools. I think I would not worry too much about that. Though keeping students up to date is a goal to pursue. I’d worry more about experienced communications professional leading junior professionals down the wrong path. That’s why if something does blog up it’s important for all the community to comment on it. As the community can act as a counter weight to poor leadership.
I’m amazed at how many potential clients still think that posting under fake names is a good marketing tactic. My answer is usually that if you can create enough noise out of that to actually matter, you’ll end up caught and looking like an idiot.
I expect that where firms will end up joining the ranks of the bad guys is when clients insist on these kinds of tactics, and they need the money.
I think the comments here address questions a lot of us have. In my opinion, Guerrilla marketing can be anything from the Boston-Aqua Teen Hunger Force-type stunts to a YouTube video with the intent to drum up awareness. PR, on the other hand, can use these tools (for example, a YouTube video) to help generate understanding around a product or service by handling these relations within the community. I may have that wrong, and not sure if the distinction makes sense. Regardless how the executer is identified, transparency is a must.
In regards to commenting on blogs, normally the company spokespeople answer. If your CEO is busy (which is often the case), it might not hurt to have a community manager from the marketing team to act as the social media face of the company. Dell, LinkedIn, Intel and others have already created these positions. If a PR professional must comment, that person must be easily identified as being related to CompanyXYZ.
If digg self-promotion IS used, again there must be a clear indication of the identity and relationship with the article/company. The community will decide whether the article will rise.
How do these people live with such blatant ethical transgressions? FUBARed, what a sad story.
This raises an interesting question – should PR firms be commenting on behalf of companies they represent? If the idea is to create trust and transparency, shouldn’t a representative from the company should be posting?
I bring this up because I had a firm recommend this strategy. My initial reaction was – you shouldn’t be doing this. However, I do recognize that due to resources and time constraints, a company rep may not be able to comment.
So what would your thoughts be on this?
Todd,
Guess I see “guerilla marketing” as being part of public relations, in the broader sense (rather than strictly media relations).
As Jeremy Pepper and I’m sure others pointed out (including me to my dpt director several times), social media is the one area of marketing where nearly all agencies will collide and stake a claim: traditional PR, advertising, interactive/web design and even specialist agencies.
– Mike
FWIW, Mike, that outrageous proposal did NOT come from a PR firm.
Which points to two issues:
1) Who cares? It will be perceived that way.
2) “Blogger Relations” is not being strictly seen as a PR responsibility. (You can argue whether that is good or bad, I suppose, but in this case I’d rather that a competent PR agency jump in, vs. the guerilla marketers who espoused this approach.)
Agreed that the universities can be, should be (and may be, for all I know) focused on Ethics as a core part of the PR curriculum.
I sense a theme — a bad one — during the past few weeks. PR people suck. They are lazy, dishonest shysters. (See Chris Anderson/WIRED and other posts.)
Is it the chase of the almighty $$?
Is it because they think they can get away with it?
Is it because they have such low disregard for people that they “meet” only via email, blogs and forums?
I think the colleges and universities need to include a morals course or three in all communications majors.
That example you gave, Todd, is sooooooo very wrong. And, like you, I do think that, that approach is too typical.
The only good thing about this is that the blogosphere is so good at eventually filtering out these PR weasels. Sooner or later, they’ll get caught.
And, leave the rest of us to fight to maintain the honest reputation each has honestly earned.
–Mike
It is frightening, but sometimes it is down to ignorance. I caught a client of mine in posting under a different name. It wasn’t through any evil intent but they thought it was worse to be seen to be supporting their own product in public – too pushy. But that’s the modest Danes for you.