DM Weekly - mad.co.uk, 17 January 2005

The debate over ethics is beginning to dominate the word-of-mouth marketing field writes DMC’s MD Justin Kirby.

Word-of-mouth (WOM), buzz and viral marketing can be generally described as exposing your marketing message to people in such a way that they will want to pass it on themselves. However you can’t talk about this kind of marketing these days without stating where you stand in the current heated ethics debate.

It all started with a few high-profile WOM marketing campaigns that backfired. The first big case that springs to mind is Dr Pepper’s ‘Raging Cow’ blog fiasco. The brand incentivised a handful of influential online bloggers to ‘talk up’ a new drink. The problem being that blog visitors believed the editorial was genuinely independent opinion, not that the bloggers were being paid for their endorsements. One blogger ‘fessed up to selling out (even though he really did like the drink!) and the ensuing barrage of negative publicity for the hapless brand showed that WOM can also work against you if you get it wrong.

More recently, American company BzzAgent hit the headlines with its controversial practice of giving volunteers free product samples in return for generating buzz about the client’s products by mentioning them positively during social conversations having been directed by BzzAgents about what to say. Stories in the New York Times and on the likes of Fox News suggested that BzzAgent-style marketing techniques were deceptive, and simply added to the advertising clutter rather than helping to cut through it.

Sadly, stories like these can bring the whole field into disrepute - or at least into the current semi-hysterical debate about deception, disclosure and transparency. There is even a call for a WOM marketing code of ethics to be set up.

First, let’s get this straight. There is an extremely diverse range of approaches used by an extremely diverse set of practitioners in the viral, buzz and WOM marketing arena - the majority of whom operate perfectly ethically.

Basically the ethical spectrum ranges from total deception to full transparency. Sneaking into online forums to big up the latest movie or video game is clearly deceptive, whereas branded ‘advertainment’ such as viral videos or games are obviously more transparent as no one is being fooled about who is behind the activities.

However, a big issue with this kind of marketing is that the more transparent you are, potentially the less effective you are. For example, would the viral marketing of The Blair Witch Project have worked if the film company behind the campaign disclosed their involvement with the marketing at the outset? Some argue that even those April Fool-type campaigns where it’s intended that the hoaxes are found out are also pose ethical questions. Others see the ethics here more in terms of degrees. So it’s the how and when a brand’s involvement should be disclosed which is at the hub of the debate.

Already, undercover marketing and the use of deceptive practices such as the use of chatroom infiltration have been widely debated within the viral, buzz and WOM arena.

The international Viral + Buzz Marketing Association (VBMA) acknowledged the need for ethical practices when it released its first mission statement for its 50+ members in October 2004. However it also acknowledged that the amount of undesirable activity going on is no way near as epidemic as spam or cookie use; there just aren’t that many companies active in this area - a similar association set up in the US (WOMMA.com) has around 20 members.

Importantly, WOM marketing is also self-regulating: those acting unethically are invariably ‘outed’ and get WOM working against them.

So creating a cast-iron code of ethics would appear to be not only an impossible task in terms of being able to cover and police all the diverse approaches in use; but also overkill given the negligible amount of bad practice taking place. Yet some industry players are determined to try (possibly not least to avoid having some half-baked US government standards foisted upon them instead).

The bit which seems to be missing however, is the really difficult job of creating industry definitions that cover the various kinds of practitioners in this field and the parameters within which they operate. Otherwise how will anyone know to what and whom the proposed ethics guidelines refer? Perhaps an umbrella group of industry players should be formed to tackle these broad issues, so that all stakeholders can participate freely in developing a way ahead.

Justin Kirby is managing director of online viral and buzz marketing experts Digital Media Communications and co-founder of the Viral + Buzz Marketing Association.