How Honest Marketers Should Behave
As the leading voice for ethical and effective word-of-mouth marketing, WOMMA has always taken a strong stance against SHILLING. Paying cash to people to talk about, blog about, tweet about a product without disclosing they are being paid to do such is SHILLING. And WOMMA stands against this unethical practice.
The first WOMMA Ethics Code was established in 2005. Since then, it has become a standard guide for companies of all sizes to use to help them design and deliver more ethical (and effective) WOM programs.
The WOMMA Ethics Code has evolved since 2005 through an annual review process. In the last formal review, WOMMA included this language: “We stand against marketing practices whereby the consumer is paid cash by the manufacturer, supplier or one of their representatives to make recommendations, reviews or endorsements.”
Three WOMMA members have requested this language in the ethics code be revisited.
Through the practice of Sponsored Conversations, we are seeing more brands and agencies compensating bloggers with cash, in-kind gifts, and special access privileges in exchange for writing a post about the product/service a business provided them.
Sponsored Conversations are a cost-effective marketing activity and thus, its likely more businesses will be doing more Sponsored Conversations with bloggers.
But is it ethical? Does full disclosure from a blogger telling us they’ve been compensated in exchange for posting their opinion make Sponsored Conversations an acceptable marketing practice? Should WOMMA alter its ethics code to support marketing activity where a consumer is paid cash to make recommendations, reviews or endorsements?
WOMMA wants to hear your opinion because your opinion will help WOMMA make a stronger ethics code that is reflective of how honest marketers should behave.
Consider adding your voice to this issue on the WOMMA Living Ethics blog. The conversation is already lively.
As long as a blogger discloses the fact money was exchanged for the review, then I don’t have a problem with it. In my view, transparency is key. The blogger could say I’ve “used the product and I think it’s great” and then qualify the review with “I was paid for this blog post by XYZ Corp., but I did use the product and I really think it’s a great product.”
To me, transparency is the key - tell me if you’re paid, unpaid, or an affiliate. Then I can assess the review itself. To set up a strict ethical code ties too many hands too tightly. Instead, promote full transparency in marketing so the customer/reader can assess the sincerity of a review.
A blogger could create a great relationship with readers hawking products/services for money, but also disclosing the payment. If the blogger continually recommends great stuff and it’s legitimate, the fact the blogger is paid becomes irrelevant.