cgm

More on "Pay to Say" Advertising

My work colleague Max Kalehoff just penned an excellent column for MediaPost that continues the critical conversation on the "Pay to Say" marketing movement.  Good fodder in anticipation of next week's WOMMA conference, where WOM/CGM ethics will be discussed along with a host of other topics. Writes Max:

With consumer-generated media and ensuing consumer empowerment one of the most disruptive trends and opportunities in marketing and media today, it’s time for these pay-to-post services, as well as bloggers, advertisers and others, to step up to the plate and tackle this hazy territory of disclosure. It’s confusing. It’s messy. It’s a liability. And, yes, there will always be scum and fraud on the Internet. In its current state, however, this quasi-legitimate space threatens the greater good and integrity of our online community.

Importantly, among the action items he recommends, he encourages trade groups beyond just WOMMA to step up to the plate to address these difficult (and obvious) questions. I could not agree more.  From IAB and the BBB to the ANA and the AAA, everyone has been unsettlingly quite on these critical (and quite obvious) issues.  These issues are now way bigger that WOMMA. Who will step up to the plate?

"Pay-To-Say" Marketing: Emerging Story to Watch for 2007

This just in from Kate Kaye, a fellow ClickZ writer and author of the highly provocative (and dissonance-generating)  Sales Pitch Society II: a thoughtful article/survey of the emerging (time for a new name) "Pay to Say" marketing industry (Paid Blogging Hits a Nerve, Spurs Competition).   It's a highly troubling development (see earlier post when PayPerPost entered the scene), and raises very tough questions about the integrity of marketing.  Importantly, marketers at some point need to make a choice about the type of environment we want to shape.  Just about every CMO today is waxing poetic about the power and importance of "authentic" and "original" voices emanating from "empowered" consumer, and the VC community is reinforcing this loud chorus in their positioning around "Web 2.0" and "social media."  Is this what we really want?  Maybe not?  Again, it's all about choices.   Data is certainly not the issue here: to be sure, there's ampler research and analysis reinforcing the backlash factor of consumers feeling duped or betrayed if ostensibly trustworthy recommendation are in fact the product of "outside" forced; and even in an environment of "qualified" comments or recos, magic astericks, and other forms of real or sly disclosure, we're creating a mess of a confusing environment for consumers.  Again, it's all about choices.  What environment do we want?  Again, here's Kate's article.  Read it a couple times.

A Starting Point for Responsibly Managing Relations With Bloggers

Today the Word-of-Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA) released draft guidelines to help companies and brands more responsibly manage relations with bloggers.  Hardly perfect, and probably a lightning rod for feedback in key areas that merit deeper conversation, but an important start. Importantly, the very diverse team of WOMMA members that put this together (brands, PR firms, agencies, consultants....many of whom blog themselves and are very passionate about keeping the space trusted and transparent) are encouraging feedback on this set of guidelines.  This is a very challenging subject, but it's long overdue for discussion and debate.  As with the work on disclosure around viral video and the WOM ethics assessment tool kit, WOMMA (full disclosure: I'm a member and board member and a co-chair of the ethics committee along with Dupont's Gary Spangler and Cymfony's Jim Nail) is working hard to proactive address many of these important issues. Says David Binkowski, director of online research of Hass MS&L and co-chair of this project:

"It's an easy way to teach your team and to avoid mistakes that will be harmful to your reputation. Prevention is a powerful protection." 

Please provide feedback.  The timing is right to engage.  Click here for more information.

Advertising Age Op-Ed: Spam, Pop-Ups, CGM Abuse?

Are we messing everything up in the CGM space?  Are we compromising the integrity of CGM and trouncing (once again) on the fragile "trust" covenant with consumers?  That's a big fear I articulate in an op-ed published today in Advertising Age's Digital Edition. 

CGM... brings to the table several coveted building blocks that advertisers let slip a long time ago: trust, credibility, authenticity and, often, restraint. CGM thrives because consumers trust other consumers more than advertisers, period.

But jumping on the CGM bandwagon in this environment of consumer control presents real risks and liabilities -- and could needlessly alienate consumers. It's unfamiliar terrain and credibility is at stake if marketers and agencies jump into the space recklessly.

Do We Need "Organic Labeling" For Consumer-Generated Media (CGM)?

Do we need the equivalent of "Organic Labeling" for consumer generated media (CGM)?  I really think it's time to have that debate, and I'm more convinced than ever after reading today's Advertising Age blog entry by Bob Garfield, who asks hard questions about whether advertisers are overstepping the line with pseudo online videos.  While we don't know FOR SURE whether LonelyGirl15 is advertiser-supported (as Garfield suggests), the core issues Garfield raises (and which is the subject of an excellent NPR OntheMedia segment) merit fresh and focused attention by the advertising community.  What's clear is that marketers are now flooding the online video space, and some of this involves the deliberate (sometimes unwitting) co-optation of consumer generated media.  Is some respects, this debate represents a multi-media resurrection of the early "buzz marketing" disclosure debate.   What is truly authentic, and do consumers deserve a heads-up when characters like LonelyGirl15 turn out to be the product of an advertising campaign.  Again, if the term "organic" is so valuable when we shop, why not when we surf? 

Chatterbacking Revisited

The various comments and reactions I received on my "Chatterbacking" blog post compelled me write a more complete think-piece on the matter for ClickZ.  And so here you have it: The Pocket Guide to Chatterbacking.   Importantly, I list a host of key question CMOs and marketers should be asking about this advertising-meets-CGM trend. They include:

• Should we disclose to the consumer whether a piece of video or ostensibly organic chatter is advertiser- or consumer-generated?
  
• Should industry groups like the Interactive Advertising Bureau start thinking about labeling requirements or even a trust mark of some sort?
  
• What's more valuable to the market community: proactively preserving trust or reactively defending what's left of it?
  
• How do we get media planners and marketers to incubate favorable brand chatter outside of the paid media zone? If good or bad customer service most affects brand conversation, should media dollars shift to that arena

Again, here's the full article. 

Chatterbacking:The Next Big Advertising Wave

A new form of advertising is taking shape, and it's time to give it a name so we can better internalize its consequences, and manage it more responsibly.  The name is “Chatterbacking.” Without fluff or hyperbole, it describes what’s happening in advertising today: advertisers, for better or worse, are piggybacking on the consumer "chatter."

Don’t confuse this with word-of-mouth, viral, or buzz marketing - it's related, but not the same. Chatterbacking has as much to do with “paid” advertising as free WOM. It assumes much of the buzz and "conversation" already exists, and continues to grow. The opportunity for advertisers in this environment is to wedge themselves in-front, between, behind, and all-around the chatter. And in some (less savory) cases, the objective is to co-opt and blend-in with the chatter. 

Chatter, after all, is the new epicenter of both attention and engagement. By and large, it's a trusted space. It's also the new epicenter of reach, thanks to the explosion of consumer-generated media (CGM), which, for the purpose of this blog entry, we'll use to also encompass social media, user-generated content, citizens journalisms, or citizen marketers.  With over 50 million blogs, and the explosive growth of sites like MySpace and YouTube, the "reach" factor is undeniable. Last week, Nielsen NetRatings released data suggesting that CGM sites represent five of the top ten sites on the web.  Who wouldn't want to buy lots of eyeballs where consumers are already attentive and engaged?

The Chatterbacking Parade of Ad Formats:  And so the practice of "Chatterbacking" is taking off, with new variations and forms emerging almost daily.  Traditional agencies in search of incremental impressions are now playing a bigger role in the overall strategy and tactics behind chatterbacking.  We see it in pre-roll video buys.  We see it in buttons, banners, and sponsorships in social-media sites.  We see it in targeted ad buys on blogs. It's clearly assumed in $900 million deal with Google and MySpace.  We see it in regular search buys against "conversational" keywords.  We see it in the dozens of agencies who have suddenly shifted their language and vernacular sharply in the direction of the consumer. We see it in the ads that now pop-up on Technorati in the blog search results.

Mark my word, by year end, we'll have no fewer than a dozen popular forms or formats of piggybacking advertising on top of chatter and CGM.   And the forms will continue to evolve because the nature of CGM continues to change.  Just think about how quickly we migrated in one year from CGM to what I call CGM2, or consumer-generated multi-media. Indeed, the chatter space is fluid and evolving.

Simple Metaphors and The Questions They Raise
I particularly like the metaphor of an advertiser or advertisement riding the back of the consumer because it immediate raises a host of obvious, if not intuitive, questions:

• Load Factor: How much weight can the consumer realistically carry?
• Drag Factor: Will the load slow down the consumer from normal activity?
• Rub Factor: How will the overall experience rub-off on the consumer's attitudes?
• Buzz Factor: Will the experience impel the consumer to speak out positively or negatively.

Interestingly, these are not new questions, but against a backdrop of consumer-control (which every marketer, I'll remind you, insists in the "new" reality), they beg extra levels of sensitivity, a point my colleague Max Kalehoff drives home in a recent MediaPost column.  In the end, the long term interests of advertisers are always served by keeping consumers open and accepting of advertising, and to ensure we don't create yet another ad backlash or "tragedy of the commons". The challenge for all of us is to find the right balance between effective ad models and consumer acceptance.

The challenge around the “load” factor is that the venues in which chatterbacking is considered most effective have often been commercial free, or even anti-commercial in nature. Now ads are penetrating all aspects of the “conversational” space, and this raises real questions about how much consumers will tolerate.  Consumers are already asking tough questions about marketer sponsored pages that look suspiciously like original CGM content. 

Looking ahead, we'll be taking a close look at this emerging trend in advertising, attempting, wherever possible, to provide responsible frameworks for chatterbacking.

CGM & Media Planning - Slow Down and Listen Harder

My work colleague, Max Kalehoff, just penned an excellent piece in MediaPost entitled "Media Specialists Must Grasp Consumer Generated Media."  Quite to the point, he writes:

"...I fear that too many advertising and media specialists are jumping in head-first with little appreciation or respect for this new world.... Unlike most other media, CGM is generally for, by and all about the consumer. Media departments, both traditional and interactive, should slow down and better understand the world of CGM before applying traditional conventions, which are often rooted in oversimplified constructs of controlled impressions, reach and frequency."

Max then provides a few frameworks for agencies to get it right on the CGM front, including the notion that "CGM Niches Requirer Greater Contextual Acumen."  I could not agree more, and I think the message is extremely timely.  Traditional ad agencies and media planners generally sat on the sidelines during what we might dub WOM/CGM 1.0 era, a period marked by the growth of WOMMA (up to over 300 members, including most of the top PR agencies like Edelman, Ketchum, and Fleishman but very few ad agencies and traditional media planners) and an exploration of largely text-based, offline watercooler, or person-to-person online buzz and conversation.  Now, with the explosion of consumer opinion, creativity, and word-of-mouth in the online video space (arguably the stickiest and most entertaining content on the web today), new players are jumping in the game -- some quite aggressively. The challenge for all of us -- old and new entrants alike -- is that we not screw things up and compromise what's so special about consumer-generated-media (CGM). and fuel consumer cynicism in the process.
As Max notes so well at the end of his piece: "Whether in the context of media planning or active participation, media specialists must respect the consumer like never before."

PayPerPost and "The Tragedy of the (Blogosphere) Commons"

The blogosphere is all abuzz right now over a controversial pay-bloggers-to-post  model by a company named (appropriately) PayPerPost. Before I add a fresh refrain to the growing chorus of opposition, let's first take a quick detour to Garrett Hardin's famous treatise, "The Tragedy of the Commons." Hardin, required reading while an undergraduate studying political theory, teaches us about the fundamental conflict between individual interests and the common good. He talks of a plot of land used by all livestock farmers in a village. Each farmer keeps adding more livestock to the common, lured by the fact it costs him nothing to do so. Meanwhile, he's blinded to the painful reality of overgrazing and depletion.

We're on the cusp of a tragedy of the marketing commons, and trust and credibility in the "oh so promising" consumer-generated media (CGM) space -- particularly the blogosphere -- are the rapidly depleting resources.  PayPerPost.com, which basically pays consumers to write reviews on blogs about brands, products, or companies, is far from the first or only online abuser of the "commons," but it's clearly the most audacious and outrageous.  It's also the most unrepentant -- what with the CEO seemingly relishing in every blog byte of negative publicity or criticism about his model.  Even a highly critical article entitled "Polluting the Blogosphere" by BusinessWeek's Jon Fine (who coincidentally tipped me off about this issue over a "meet and greet" breakfast last week) is proudly highlighted in "as seen on TV" style on the PayPerPost.com web-page. 

How it Works?  Here's how it works.  Consumers are invited to sign-up, submit PayPal information, and then review so-called "opportunities" established by advertisers.  Here's the specific language to the "advertiser."

Think of an Opportunity as a posting on a bulletin board specifically for bloggers who are willing to be paid for posting content. The Opportunity you create tells the blogger what you want him/her to post about. You can require the blogger to add photos to their post, write about experiences with your product; the possibilities are up to your imagination.

The short list of participating advertisers (so far) includes fast loan offers, credit score (DebtU), trading spouses (say what?), Bubble Wrap, Easy Image software, and of course..drumroll please... "Pay Per Post" of which the bounty is double ($10) and the shill requirements (link, photo) most aggressive. So much for subtlety.

Disclosure: Like others, I have many concerns about this model, but my biggest one revolves around the obvious: disclosure, or lack thereof.  There's nothing in this "pay to say" business model that requires even a modest courtesy "heads up" to the readers of this ostensibly credibly blog commentary that their comments are part of a paid advertising program.  There's nothing that says the comment, link, or photo included as part of the post (advertisers can set the requirements) needs to be "labeled" as advertising.  The lack of "disclosure" guidelines in programs this like as well as other word-of-mouth marketing programs is not only eroding trust in the so-called "conversation" but laying foundation for next-generation spam.

Spoiling the Commons...By the Numbers: By the numbers, these types of programs not only anger consumers, but elicits dramatic reactions like the urge to complain to the Better Business Bureau, or even the government.  This is a big reason the Word of Mouth Marketing Association has been so proactive on putting together ethical guidelines for companies and brands.  In a major study on "trust in advertising" I conducted last year, we probed consumer attitudes toward incented or non-disclosed word-of-mouth programs, especially where here was no explicit disclosure. In one question we asked about reactions to shilling on Amazon reviews.  60% said they would be disappointed, and 25% said they would contact the Better Business Bureau.  We saw similar results about "trusted recommendations from a friend" where a prior business relationship wasn't disclosed.  While teens (who are most trusting of advertising in general) had higher levels of tolerance of such programs, virtually every age-group, cohort, or segment had negative reactions to non-disclosed recommendations.  Remember, it only takes one or two letters to the BBB to have an impact.  Source: CGM Engagement Study 2005.

Cost, Consequences, and Complications:   As marketers look to enter or embrace "conversations," preserving the trust and authenticity that has made CGM so special and credible is getting increasingly difficult, and certainly more complicated.  Message boards, forums, and blogs are loaded with faux opinion.  Brands and companies are already engaging with bloggers in ways that have sparked some controversy and critical media attention.  Seach engine optimization firms have taught us that spiking blog entries, and blog spam, help game both ad clicks (via Google Ad Words) and search engine results. And there are so many brands and firms jumping into the word-of-mouth marketing space that you sometimes wonder how consumers will ever be able to vet out what's a 100% pure recommendation versus a subtle or mild-grade of company advertising.  Many of us are more complicit in these new conditions that we realize, as we don't even have a sense of how many cows can sustainably graze in the first place, or whether a cow is a cow. Indeed, is the word "conversation" merely a euphemistic run-around the more polarizing term "advertising"?

Drawing the Line: Where do we draw the line, or do we?  So much of our  "Web 2.0" talk -- from "conversations" to "citizen marketers" to "world is flat" frameworks -- romantically envision a self-regulating, well-nurtured, consumer controlled commons. I'm definitely in that chorus -- loudly, and passionately -- but I also can identify with our tendency (as marketers) to mess things up; to erode trust and credibility; and of course to spoil the commons.   Marketing associations (well beyond WOMMA...where's ANA, AAAA, IAB?) and even the Better Business Bureau (which established one of the first privacy seal programs to engender trust and confidence in online business practices, but is way overdue of "upgrading" it's "trust tent.") can help set the right conditions for a prosperous "commons" with better guidelines, roadmaps, and even -- ok, I'm saying it -- rules.  And of course, self-regulation amongst ourselves is an obvious starting point, since "peer to peer" is the de facto operating system of today's web.  Steve Rubel, for example, nicely preserves his "trust factor" with me (a regular reader) by consistently disclosing whether he has a business relationship with a company or brand he's blogging about; this is particularly important now that he's with Edelman, which has twenty times as many clients as his former employer, CooperKatz.  I do likewise in both this blog and my ClickZ columns, and especially now that my new "merged" firm has an even bigger client roster. Such disclosure should not only become standard, but aggressively enforced by peer review.

Final Questions:  PayPerPost raises many more questions than answers, and we all need a meaningful "conversation" on these topics. The CGM and social media space is still unfolding, so it's unrealistic to think we're going to resolve any of this immediately. Among the key questions we need to tackle:

• Transparency & Disclosure: What does "disclosure" really mean?  Is it enough to simply "disclose" a prior relationship, or in a world where word-of-mouth is on steroids, do we have an obligation to encourage or require "pass along" of the disclosed information.
• Trust: How fragile is trust in this environment, and at what point will consumers simply write off all ostensibly "trusted" recommendations as spam?  How much abuse can the commons manage?  Is there a point of no return?
• Authenticity:  How do we know what's truly authentic or genuine, especially as more marketers look to "influence" or "incent" CGM?  If a marketer sponsors a contest to "create the best CGM" on behalf of the brand, is it truly authentic? Equally important, if the content is shared for marketing purposes, how should the nature of the program be disclosed?  Openly? In wee-small fine-print?
  
• Compensation Versus Co-optation:   What's a legitimate "creative compensation" model for consumers who create content that other parties monetize (e.g. post original videos on video-sharing where advertising is sold), and how do differentiate this versus PayPerPost type-models where the marketer creates the mold and specs, and consumers are paid to meet the requirements. Revver provides compensation to consumers who "create" content?  That's OK, right?
• Credibility:  Lastly, how do we -- as brands or bloggers -- nurture credibility in an environment where trust and authenticity is constantly challenged?  What seeds can we plant to improve or replenish the "commons."  Better labels?  Trust-marks or the CGM equivalent of the "Good Housekeeping Seal?"

Relevant Reading: 

- WOMMA Ethics Code

- Wikipedia: Tragedy of the Commons

- WOM Marketing: Temper Your Enthusiasm

- Shel Israel on PayPerPost

- Seal Programs: BBB Online, TrustE, Good Housekeeping Seal

Extra Disclosure (for emphasis): The comments above are those mine (Pete Blackshaw). They do not reflect the formal position of organizations or businesses with which I am associated, including WOMMA.

WOMBAT Dispatch: Advancing the Ethics Conversation

“We respect and promote practices that abide by an understanding that the consumer – not the marketer – is fundamentally in charge, in control, and dictates the terms of the consumer-marketer relationships.”

This is a key statement from the WOMMA ethics code that just flashed on the screen. It’s not perfect, but it reflects a very important attempt to establish a set of voluntary parameters for marketer self-discipline and self-regulation around word-of-mouth ethics.  Ethics was a key motivating for  establishing WOMMA in the first place, and it remains a driving issue for those of us who care about the future of not only word-of-mouth marketing, but the broader integrity of marketing and business.  That said, this is a very difficult and complicated issue, laced with ambiguity, changing definitions, and an every evolving and changing “social media” landscape.  It’s difficult because it’s almost impossible to evaluate WOM ethics independent of other difficult questions like “disclosure” in product placement. It's complicated because it calls into question the practices of one the world's most respected and revered marketers, even though the company is a die-hard believer in the principles and tenets of quote above.  And to add yet anther twist, it's messy because even the consumers themselves are contributing to a confusing and potentially deceptive atmosphere, evident in today's Boston Herald story noting that BzzAgent is elimating 10,000 "pests" from their 190,000-strong panel for "gaming" the system with abuses like creating multiple accounts.

Companies Setting a High Standard: Fortune 500 company Dupont is one player that has not only been proactive on word-of-mouth ethics, but who has established itself as a highly visible “case study” in word of mouth ethics.  Gary Spangler, Dupont’s e-Business Leader and WOMMA board member, just delivered a powerful “follow our lead” presentation around WOM ethical guidelines.  Importantly, he explained how he managed to educate his entire organization on the importance of WOM ethics, and ultimately sell through a full endorsement of ethical guidelines that not only now permeate the entire company, but reinforce Dupont’s core values. Consumer respect is at the core of Dupont’s philosophy on this issue.  Spangler, borrowing from the literature of non-other than Spiderman, flashed the following quote on the screen:

“With great power comes great responsibility”
Uncle Ben to Peter Parker (Spiderman the Movie)

On one level, this is easy quote to brush off or mock, but coming from a large corporation, it's appropriate and resonates.  What’s clear here at this 400 person conference is that companies, brands, agencies, and consultants are looking for guidance and leadership and “best practices.” Large brands like Dupont, Intuit, and P&G clearly carry important “currency” in the eyes of others, and the standards they set can set the pace for the entire industry. 

In an effort to advance this discussion, Ann Moravick of Rowland Communications offered an excellent framework for helping brands understand what’s ethical and what’s not.  She offered seven scenarios that are all worthy of Harvard Business School “what’s the right thing to do” case studies.  This was so good I’m republishing some of the scenarios verbatim.

“Your company has hired vendors to monitor disease-related blogs and chat groups.  Now you are ready for he next step – to influence some of that discussion. The plan is to hire medical professionals to log on to sites where there is negativity about your products, and to steer the conversation in a more positive direction.  You are planning to have them identify themselves as healh-care professionals, but not mention that they are indirectly on the company payroll…is this appropriate? “

“In training a buzz advocate for your company’s product, you identify one advocate who is generally critical of the brand.  As a result, you decide not to include him in your campaign and tell him you’ve got too many advocates already?  Ethical or not?”

“You arm a series of evangelists with information to spread he word about your product.  You tell them that timing is important. A Consumer Reports article is about to publish.  You know it will be critical to your brand.  You don’t want to dampen the enthusiasm of your evangelists so you unleash them without pointing out the CR report to come. “

All these scenarios form the basis of an important discussion and debate?  The WOMMA code is relatively straightforward in calling for honesty of identity, opinion, and relationships.  Do these scenarious meet the "torture test."