Ethics

Shilling 2.0

Shilling is a bit of an art form these days.  If you watch the NonSociety girls shill for the Blueprint Cleanse, you genuinely believe that they like the product.  You probably don’t stop and think if they would pay $85/day or $1600/month for it.  Is that really shilling if they like the product and act like regular user but probably wouldn’t buy it?  They’re not being paid.

Let’s revisit the definition, shall we?

Slang
n.
One who poses as a satisfied customer or an enthusiastic gambler to dupe bystanders into participating in a swindle.

v. shilled, shill·ing, shills
v.intr.
To act as a shill.
v.tr.
1. To act as a shill for (a deceitful enterprise).
2. To lure (a person) into a swindle.

Maybe buying the Blueprint Cleanse isn’t a swindle, per se, but whether or not it’s a genuine endorsement of value is certainly a question worth exploring.

Enter the poster child for unscrupulous behavior in online marketing; PayPerPost.  The company has become a little more self-aware over recent months and has made some branding changes in order to give them some distance from the problems of the past.  I think they’re called Izea now – or maybe that’s just an umbrella brand – and they have a bunch of interesting and somewhat sketchy ways you can market your products online.

Kmart took the bait.  The “contest” portion of the campaign is outlined here but the general gist is that Kmart gives a selected group of bloggers $500 to go shopping at Kmart and blog about their experience.  The bloggers then go gleefully spend $500 and tell everyone how great it is.

Loren Feldman got into it and posted a two and a half minute video all about how he’s never been to Kmart before but was amazed at all the stuff they had.  Yes, amazed that a department store has a lot of stuff in it.  This is a slight deviation from Feldman’s normal videos that often include his shirtless rants about how much he dislikes Robert Scoble or his gentle portrayal of black bloggers in his signature “Tech Nigga” piece.  Would Kmart ever advertise on this blog if they were at all monitoring this program at a high level?

But Izea wasn’t only preying on the dregs of blogging, they also got Chris Brogan to join in.  Chris’s post on his Dad-o-Matic blog made a little more sense.  He talked about shopping with children and eventually ended with a genuine revelation he had about how much he saved after spending $567.  I wouldn’t say it was the best media placement for Kmart but it did make a degree of sense (Brogan chose not to post this on his infinitely more popular blog for what I would assume to be obvious reasons).

Welcome to Shilling 2.0.  This new kind of shilling walks a very fine line between genuine and unethical.  I’m sure Feldman and Brogan can defend themselves in a myriad of different ways but is this really a good way to market a product?  If it’s really ethical then why can’t journalists do it?

The reason is because paying people for their opinions affects sentiment and is somewhat misleading.  This isn’t a crime but it isn’t a great way to show the value of your product or service.  Not all bloggers need to act like journalists but following ethical guidelines is one way to build credibility.  The opinion of credible sources adds to the credibility of your brand values.

So what’s the difference between this and sampling ice cream before you buy at Ben and Jerry’s?  It’s simple.  Value.  When you give someone a $500 gift certificate you’re giving them something of considerable value and there is a general assumption that you expect something in return.  Sure, all Izea asked them for was their opinion and to promote their contest but surely they wouldn’t pay $500 to each blogger just for that.  Kmart invested in this campaign to secure editorial content, which is more valuable than ad impressions, and wanted to tap into the networks that the bloggers reach by using them as advocates.  It wasn’t promised but it’s expected when you compensate with something of value.

I’ve been to Kmart.  It’s not amazing when you see how much stuff is there.  Every department store has a lot of products so that’s hardly a key differentiator for Kmart.  I’ve also never been compelled to tell anyone else when I discovered on my receipt that I saved money at a department store.  It happens every time I go to the grocery store so it’s not a big deal to me.  It’s not a big deal to you either.  Unless someone gave you $500.

GM Launches Propaganda 2.0

GM employs a lot of people.  GM buys a lot of materials from people that employ even more people.

GM is also a failing business, which has more to do with the fact that they don’t sell a lot of cars than it does with the current economic climate.  The company really liked selling big SUVs to people long after the market no longer demanded them.

Either way, the message is clear.  Give GM $25 billion now or their failures will cost the US $156 billion, not to mention the social consequences of millions of lost jobs.

The channel?  YouTube.  Is this because GM, the #1 media spender in the world, can’t afford TV time?  Probably not.

In reality, this is an example of a company trying to use social media to create a blind groundswell around an emotional issue.  There are some obvious issues here to the even slightly critical eye.  For example, if GM is a failing business that has been in decline well before the current economic crisis then won’t $25 billion just postpone the inevitable and add to the cost for taxpayers?  This issue isn’t addressed because social media is all too often not the right channel for rational debate.  It’s the channel for snowballing emotionally charged issues.

It appears to have backfired on GM.  The video is the lowest rated video of any video on this week’s top 100 on YouTube.  It has also generated more than 1,400 comments, ranging from anti-socialist tirades to far reaching criticisms of GM’s business model.  Any sign of a groundswell of support is buried in negative sentiment.

What’s to be learned here?  For starters, it’s important for all brands to understand that transparency is not something to be taken lightly.  Large brands can’t get away with seeding ideas like this without a full representation of the issue or backlash becomes almost inevitable.  Just because T. Boone Pickens can get away with hiding self-interest behind common interest doesn’t mean the same is true for large brands that have a history of layoffs to undermine their newfound interest in protecting American jobs.

The Nelson Award: PR People Impersonating Rabbis

You almost want to let this one slide on the basis of pure hilarity but, alas, you cannot.

We’ve all been there.  You toil away on your kosher slaugherhouse account, putting your heart and soul into every deliverable when, completely unbenownced to you, one of your “interns” jumps on Failed Messiah and starts impersonating rabbis to further your messaging and respond to critics.  Oy vey!

Unfortunately for the otherwise legit PR firm 5W, that’s exactly what happened.  Regardless of what you may think of their CEO or Gawker’s characterization of him, 5W is probably one of the better pure media driving PR firms out there and they have lots of good people at every level.  However, I don’t think “the intern did it” is a viable excuse anymore.

Social media is a minefield so people rely on their professional services firms to help protect themselves.  If PR firms can’t train their employees from top to bottom on how to navigate a modern media landscape then they are in the wrong business.  I know it happens everywhere but that doesn’t excuse it.  Everyone needs to know the risks and take responsibility when things go wrong.  5W, this Nelson Award is for you.

As a side note, this is a immensely comical thread to read through, if you have a few minutes.  I’d start with the Failed Messiah post that outs 5W and then continue on to the follow-up.  It’s not just the scandal that makes it a good read but the comments are priceless.  I particularly like when they get off topic and start arguing about whether or not Jack Daniels is a bourbon (it’s not).

L’Chaim!

Update: It gets worse.

The Flu is Viral, Marketing is Not

My number one least favorite term in the world of marketing and PR is “viral.”  No term is more misleading or shows less insight into the key motivators in media habit than suggesting that people are merely mindless cogs that perform a certain behavior when introduced to a certain kind of stimulus (sorry, Dr. Skinner).

For starters, the behavior that is commonly referred to as viral is a classic example of word-of-mouth.  Someone discovers a piece of content that they find compelling and then they share it with their wider social network.  A certain percentage of that audience performs the same behavior and if the number of people in the next generation of the cycle are greater than the previous then the impressions expand and something seemingly “viral” has occurred.

The only problem is that if the response was merely viral in nature than just about all spam would “go viral.”  Sure, not everyone would forward a spam message but a percentage of the recipients would and then the distribution would grow over time and the Internet would be littered with spam memes.  Fortunately, this doesn’t happen very frequently.

The reason it doesn’t happen is because widespread word-of-mouth distribution is all about trust.  In the first cycle of a “viral” distribution, that first person sends the content to a portion of his or her social network and the only reason it is viewed is because of a level of inherent trust from the source.   If the content producer sent that content to that same group, as is the case with most advertising, it would be spam and probably not viewed at all.

Unfortunately, ethical word-of-mouth marketers now have another challenge to face in “viral marketing” companies.  Some of these companies charge brands for access to a group of people that are willing to send content to their social networks (usually posting content on their actual online social networks) for some sort of reward incentive.  Over time this dilutes the whole concept and will make people trust less in the content they get from their friends and colleagues and bad marketing will have ruined yet another communications channel.

The PR Practitioner Guide to Wikipedia

WikiGeoff Livingston surfaced the topic of marketers’ tumultuous relationship with Wikipedia a while back so I’ve been tinkering with this post for a while.  Considering how the next major Wikipedia/PR snafu is due any minute now, I figured this might be as good a time as any to share a few of the things I learned this year about existing as a PR practitioner in the dangerous nerd jungle that is Wikipedia.

First of all, contrary to what some social media purists think, everyone belongs in Wikipedia. This includes PR people, internal employees, disgruntled customers, academics and anyone else you can think of.

The Wikipedia rule that scare most people away is the conflict of interest (COI) section of the guidelines.  The most important passage is as follows:

A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor.

COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where an editor must forgo advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.

COI edits are strongly discouraged. When they cause disruption to the encyclopedia in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, they may lead to accounts being blocked and embarrassment for the individuals and groups who were being promoted.

While I think everyone agrees that Wikipedia should not be used to “advance outside interests,” the real gray area is in the neutrality.  Put simply, neutrality is rare amongst Wikipedia editors.  The kind of people that actively write and edit the articles you find in Wikipedia are generally enthusiasts who have a distinct point of view and are able to mask it with varying degrees of success.  As a brand participating in Wikipedia, you have to be very careful to not interject your point of view and preserve a very high level of transparency but there is still some content that you are probably the best person in the world to edit.  If the number of employees is incorrect or your stake in investments is misrepresented, I firmly believe that you are in the right to edit it.

Ok, so these are all grand principles, which PR bloggers are all great at pontificating about, but how exactly do you do it?  In my opinion there are a few rules that brands can follow to participate organically in Wikipedia:

  1. Create a profile – Your user profile is your best tool to promote complete transparency.  Say exactly who you are, who you work for and what exactly you plan on doing in Wikipedia.  Maybe you won’t be editing but you will be contacting editors so it’s still important that it is clear who exactly you are.  This goes for both PR agencies and client side representatives.  Anonymous edits hold very little weight and are usually overwritten within days.
  2. Know your editors – Chances are that you’re only monitoring a few Wikipedia entries and you are more than likely to come across editors who participate in more than one article.  These editors have Talk pages and this is generally the best way to engage with them directly but keep in mind that Talk pages are public so you shouldn’t call them out or expose them in any way that might make them defensive.
  3. Know your Sandbox – For some reason, very few marketers seem to know about the Sandbox in Wikipedia.  The Sandbox basically has all the functionality of a normal Wikipedia page except that it doesn’t get published to the community.  It’s a place to work on entries and get an article up to the guidelines without risking the violation of any policies.  You can still flag your articles to get help from other members of the community and, ultimately, get other more established editors to finish them and publish them without raising COI suspicion.
  4. Know the language – If you can learn basic HTML, you can learn most of the important codes and rules of Wikipedia.  There are many ways to flag articles to get the attention of other editors if something is wrong.  There are also fairly strict formatting and content rules that you should be aware of before doing any editing.
  5. Don’t just stick to your brand – If you work for a dishwasher detergent company, I’m sure you’re an expert on more than just your detergent.  Don’t be afraid to tell the world about what you know about different dishwashing technologies and the environmental impact of different kinds of detergent.  The more you contribute, the less you will be suspected of astroturfing.
  6. Only edit articles relating to your brand as a last resort – Sure, if there is a factual error on a Wikipedia page about your CEO then I believe you have a right to correct it but that doesn’t mean that jumping in and making an edit is the best way.  Try contacting the creator of the article on his or her Talk page to make a correction or flag the article for an inaccuracy.  There are people policing Wikipedia for every possible flag and, if you flag something, they will generally find it and act surprisingly quickly.

Although I don’t think this justifies it’s own rule, it should go without saying that Wikipedia should never ever be used as an SEO tool.  Yes, Wikipedia is one of the most valuable properties to Google but if you start manipulating the links on your Wikipedia article to move search rankings, you’re really doing a disservice to both organic search and social media as a whole.  You might get away with it but if you don’t you will feel the wrath of a lot of people.

That said, Wikipedia is not the playground of purity that social media pundits would like you to believe it is.  It’s a sector of media that brands have a right to participate in as long as they understand the rules and leave everything they know about PR and advertising at the door.

Lifetimetv is Now Following You on Twitter!

Lifetime TVOMG! The Lifetime television network cares about me enough to follow me on Twitter!  I wonder why the television network is interested in me.  Could it be that they think I have script for a great relationship drama that can be shot in periodic soft focus or perhaps they’d like to cast me in one of their signature shows like “How to Look Good Naked“?

Of course @lifetimetv has no real interest in me other than hoping that I will choose to follow them as soon as I find out they’re following me on Twitter.   So far the company has actually tweeted eight times since July 2007, consisting of insightful messages like “ looking at http://www.lifetimetv.com some good stuff up right now.”  They also managed to follow 1,067 people, convincing 153 people to follow them back.  Some marketing person, whether internally or at thier agency, is hoping to report thousands of people are following them on Twitter to justify their existence.  

While this is only mildly unethical – since it is, in fact, spam – it certainly is bad marketing.  Friending as many people as possible to gain brand awareness is the social media version of blind reach marketing.  Additionally, if you’re adding all these people to your social network and not providing anything of value past “snow and now rain? at least Jersey Girl is on tonight” then you’re actually providing a negative brand experience and the whole thing is backfiring.

Then again, “me too” marketing isn’t new to Lifetime…their Web site is mylifetime.com.  Mygodwhycantyoubeoriginal.com!

I guess I’ll have to wait another year to meet Carson Kressley.  *sigh*

Observations from Suxorz: The Worst Social Media Campaigns of 2007

SXSWThe word of the day at the Suxorz Worst of Social Media session at SXSW was transparency.  Led by Jeff Jarvis of Buzz Machine and Steve Hall of Ad Rants, the session poked fun at what are mostly well known blunders in the world of social media marketing.

The winner (?) of the distinction was none other than the largest client at my agency, HP.  Of course, we had nothing to do with their work with PayPerPost, who really should’ve won the award, but there was something about the combination of a huge brand with such a low concept marketing idea that really made the crowd turn against them.

Other runners up included:

  • Molson – A Facebook group that encouraged people to post drunk pictures to win a try to a trip to Cancun (presumably to get drunker)
  • Carlton Beer – The famous YouTube commercial that got millions of views but had no connection to any of their actual brands
  • Wal-Mart – The classic Edelman fake blog Wal-Marting Across America
  • Whole Foods – Their CEO posting negative comments anonymously about a competitor to drive their acquisition price down
  • Cisco – Paying bloggers to write about what the “Human Network” meant to them
  • Coke – For jumping on the Coke/Mentos bandwagon about a year too late and then pretending like it was their marketing program all along
  • Vespa – Steve Rubel’s old agency set up a blog for Vespa enthusiasts but then abandoned the blog and the last several posts were about how the marketing people wouldn’t return emails to the bloggers
  • Agency.com – The classic video about pitching Subway (they lost), although it was agreed that this was more embarrassing than actually unethical
  • Target – Their Facebook stealth campaign that told Facebook users not to tell anyone they’re working for Target
  • Guiliani – His closed MySpace page that preventing anyone from friending him or commenting on their support
  • Sony – The PSP fake blog that told the story of two fake boys who wanted PSPs for Christmas, which was particularly dumb due to the amount of real teen boys who probably could’ve provided better content.

No big surprises but an interesting overview of a year that this industry will probably look back on as a learning experience.

More SXSW updates later.

Gizmodo Drops the Ball

Dropping the BallIf your job in PR involves getting clients to take bloggers more seriously and give them a greater level of access, then the boys at Gizmodo just made your job a little harder.  What appears to be an ill-conceived little prank, actually may have serious repercussions for bloggers in the immediate future.

I realize a lot of people who Gizmodo’s video of the prank will say it’s no big deal but there are a few problems with it:

  1. It makes bloggers look like stupid children.  Where is the real humor in making televisions go off?  It’s not like Gizmodo hates companies like Motorola or that there was any kind of statement in doing it.  It’s pure Beavis and Butthead.
  2. It makes conference organizers and big brands not want to allow bloggers to attend their events.  Why would you invite a group that you associate with trouble makers?  There is generally limited space for press so you’re generally going to invite the media that has the most value to you.
  3. It hurts the years of work that has been put into getting bloggers press credentials.  All the people who say “why would we give the bloggers their own press room?” will now have another reason to fight against providing resources for bloggers.
  4. It diminishes the value of the excellent coverage that Gizmodo provided for the event.  CES organizers would no doubt be impressed by the level of coverage that blogs like Gizmodo and Engadget provide for their show and the brands that participate but it’s hard to believe that all that great coverage wasn’t overshadowed by the very same members of the media sabotaging major press conferences.

Of course, there is one good thing that has come out of this.  It’s added another item to the press conference checklist: electric tape.

Sorry Gizmodo, you dropped the ball on this one.

PayPerGhost

PayPerPost

PayPerPost, everyone’s favorite unethical blog monetization strategy, was dealt another blow recently as Google took it upon themselves to reset all PayPerPost bloggers’ page rank to zero. That’s right, all that credibility you’ve been trying to build up with your paid reviews of products will now be devalued to nothing in the channel where between 75-85% of all Internet users turn first when looking for information. Oopsie!

I love that Google is tuned in to this but I think this is just the first step in the elimination of PayPerPosts, link farms and other useless online mousetraps.  It will be interesting to see how disingenuous marketers are weeded out by the consumers that power these algorithms before being ultimately delegated to oblivion by pure user engines, like Mahalo.  While I suppose there is a chance of spam penetrating user generated directories like Mahalo, it will probably be less prevalent than Wikipedia, which is hardly riddled with spam.

While the argument that human nature is responsible for much that is wrong with the world has become commonplace, humans still seem to be the best bullshit detectors we’ve got.  Long live the humans and the engines they power!

Does PR belong in Search Marketing?

SearchWith search driving higher than 75% of online brand awareness in several verticals, brands are becoming more and more used to the idea that, whether they like it or not, their search page is really the front page of their Web site.

Since search is a communications channel where consumers voluntarily come for information, I think this falls distinctly into the realm of PR, as opposed to advertising’s monopoly on interruptive and paid media (including paid inclusion search marketing). Not only is the channel itself, by its nature, important to PR practitioners but it is also the single most vital channel in regards to their traditional role in media relations. Put simply, if you’re generating coverage that isn’t indexing well with search, you’re not really generating high profile coverage.

Kevin Dugan explored the subject in his recent post “PR Opportunity in SEO is Short-Sighted.” He stresses how a well-crafted message is search-friendly by nature and that brands can’t forget to engage in all forms of social media, including microblogging and commenting in the blogosphere, since most also index high in search.

The problem with the industry’s approach to search is that they’re trying to find the easiest way to deal with the channel while changing the way their system works as little as possible. If you look at the various social media press releases floating around, they are generally trimmed down for bloggers to cut and paste and then loaded up with social media bookmarks and embeddable press assets. That’s all well and good but when was the last time you actually saw a social media press release in the first page of your search or on a Digg page?

So, to build on Kevin’s point, search is a big piece of the pie and brands need to see how everything they do online is being amplified, or buried, in the single most important channel for building awareness. Sure, there are plenty of ways to affect search rankings, most of which are outside the ethics of good PR, but, if you’re not participating in social media on a regular basis, you’re missing a great opportunity to tell the world your story.

1 2  Scroll to top