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.
Subscribe by Email
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Todd-
That example from the proposal is so scary. Thanks for sharing…