It seems like failure to disclose financial compensation on blogs represents yet another form of "undercover," "stealth," or "shill" marketing. Further, non-disclosure seems to violate the Word-of-Mouth Marketing Code of Ethics, which supports honest disclosure of identity and relationship with a marketing company.
The situation is complicated by the following example: a software marketing company mentioned in Abelson's article -- Marqui of Portland, Oregon -- discloses that they pay bloggers to have their clients' names mentioned on blogs. However, the blogger mentioned in the article didn't consistently disclose that she received compensation. Thus, Marqui would seem to be abiding by the WOMMA* Code because they disclose they pay bloggers. But should the blogger receiving compensation also abide by such a code? How much can, and/or should, a marketing company control the actions of the people they compensate for their participation in marketing campaigns?
To me, this issue of the most effective and ethical way to manage institutional identity and affiliation is of paramount importance to longevity of word-of-mouth, buzz, viral, and blog marketing. I am especially interested in this identity management in more interactive settings, especially interpersonal contexts. Stay tuned for upcoming reports from research projects on this and related topics.
* Disclosure: As mentioned in previous posts and in my bio, I am an Advisory Board member of the Word-of-Mouth Marketing Association which has developed a code of ethics surrounding the online and offline word-of-mouth marketing industry.
---
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.