I'm at a bit of a loss in this thread, I don't feel like the title and the original post really fit well together. What I kind of get is....
1.) Does viral marketing exist?
2.) Viral marketing is bad.
2.) Let's beat on SOE (and rightfully so) for a very bad viral marketing plan that misrepresented to the public some indvidiuals' enthusiasm for SOE products as genuine.
So, coming away from that, in reference to 1, viral marketing very much indeed exists. Conceptually, the marketing for a product or service is done largely by consumers and enthusiasts in a grassroots kind of movement. Companies kill for it and you can't get much better reaction from a paid/structured campaign. I don't think anyone disagrees with that.
Is viral marketing bad? No, I don't think so. I also don't think that companies planting the seeds for viral marketing are bad or wrong for doing it. For example, leading up to the Dark Knight, plenty of Joker-related internet-based websites were set up with clues in order to generate interest. One fan was then "kidnapped" by the Joker and allegedly found dead as part of the ploy. In another example (and frankly, I don't think I would fault Nintendo if it did have a hand in it) is the Wii Fit youtube video (you know the one, the girl shaking her undie-clad bum while hula-hooping). As if the Wii Fit wasn't pouplar enough already, that video got ridiculous numbers of hits generating further interest in it. In those two cases, something objective was put out there (not necessarily by the company though!) and people latched onto it, making a decision if they liked it or not. Which leads into number 3....
In SOE's case, as ArcAngel pointed out though, SOE crossed that line of objectivity by effectively hiring plants to promote the game as genuine user opinions. I think we would all agree that this effectively is the same as paying off professional reviewers or passing off press releases with favorably leading statements to the media outlets. I think we all agree here that that is not kosher and SOE has rightly been spanked for it.
Also of note, I'm not really surprised that a law was passed against it -- I likened it to paying professional reviewers but it really is more akin to the Payola scandals of the 50's/60's when record companies would pay dj's to play their songs. That was made illegal if broadcasters did not disclose to listeners that they were receiving some sort of compensation for doing it. EDIT: this was like the precedent that made it a criminal offense.
he didn't mean grassroots viral marketing, as was obvious from his post, the link he referenced, and the entire discussion.
We are discussing whether SOE uses paid viral marketers; NOT grassroots word-of-mouth. That's always a problem when words have multiple meanings. When such is the case, one must carefully check out the context and usage.
Or, better yet, the original poster can be specific and make clear what he or she is talking about. Especially with the way the term "viral marketer" is thrown about around here.
No need. When the word "viral marketer" is thrown about around here, people always use it to mean paid viral marketer...otherwise there is no need to throw it about.
there would be no reason for anyone to start a thread that effectively meant: do people talk about what they like? which is what it would mean if someone was meaning the other meaning of viral marketer.
It is not up to every poster to qualify and define every term he or she uses. Ome has reason to expect a minimum of effort on the part of the reader to discern meaning from usage and not play semantic games with the words used.
TRANSLATION: It's not up to the OP to be specific about what they mean, as long as it slams SOE and SWG.
Typical.
Nope.
Translation: It is up to people to have facility with the language being used, and how humans generally communicate with one another on earth to comprehend what they are reading.
Who or what one "slams" is irrelevant.
Waitaminnit. Going back a bit ...
Did you actually say "It is not up to every poster to qualify and define every term he or she uses. Ome has reason to expect a minimum of effort on the part of the reader to discern meaning from usage and not play semantic games with the words used." This is coming from YOU, the king of playing semantic games!
Holy shit. The world has officially flipped on its axis.
I never play semantic games, although I do sometimes seek qualification and clarification when I am not sure what someone means. I do so in the interest of communication and truth, not for the sake of any games.
Thank you for pronouncing me King of something, however.
You ALWAYS play semantic games. It's your M.O.
Prove it.
I could just post a link to your profile on the o-boards. Come on Fish, seriously.
In other words, you can't. Thank you for your time.
There's not enough internet for me to repost every single example of you playing semantics games, or egging people on and then giving the "who, me?" routine when they get pissed.
But enough. You're not worth getting moderated over.
Plus. Costanza, must you turn every thread you post in into another phase of some odd persona vendetta you have against me? How about sticking to a subject? It's getting boring.
I don't even know you, yet you sure act as if you know me -- although obviously I am beyond your ken, in that you don't seem to understand me in the least.
Look at how you STARTED in this conversation. Rather than talk about viral marketing and how it affects the forums, YOU CHOSE to bring up how some posters overly accuse other posters of being viral marketers.
Maybe because it's true, and you deny it?
It is true ,But is no catalyst of any one group here..Which was the point of the post he is commenting on. The opposite is also true , Viral marketers paid or not, exist . And do damage the industry , The extent of that damage is debatable however imo . Legally it isn't legit ,I'll add it's ethically bankrupt for a company to practice these acts .
The damage done by corps employing these methods however is questionable due to another form of Viral marketing IMO , It is perfectly legal as well .You can find it on any page in this entire site.We're taking part in it right now to be precise. Anything we say here related to a given game be it a recomendation or a critique is essentially a method used by the viral marketer. Which would explain the overuse of the term . If we're all doing it , Again IMO we are . Where does the damage leave our hands and become a responsibility of the corporations ?
Well the viral marketting I'm talking about is only done by corporations. What do I mean by this? It's when people working for companies pretend to be something they are not in order to win the trust of consumers and then endorse a product or service. In the context of MMO's, these people would pretend to be player/consumers of a particular game, and pretend not to be what they in fact are--company representatives. They would then recommend the game to actual player/consumers. The recommendation comes across as credible because it is allegedly made by a fellow consumer that does not have a vested interest in the promotion.
That article I've quoted presents the same context. People working for Sony were pretending to be happy Sony customers. In fact, they weren't. They were desperate and deceitful Sony sales reps.
I was commenting on the impact those methods have on the industry . Due to the existence of a far easier , cheaper and overall dominating delivery method. Like I said if we're all doing it every day , How much more damage could they(not just SOE) create by doing it themselves ?
Your OP did enlighten as always , TBH it actually made me question a few posters I observed on the AOC boards today. Making plugs for LOTOR while completely ripping apart a game they admit they don't even play.I got curious and checked the LOTOR board , Fate would have it LOTOR had a huge problem recently with book 14 , Completely dead servers for days ( as in offline) , What do you know the exact same posters , on complete damage control for Turbine while making comparisons chastizing funcom ( this is a regular thing for these posters , as in everyday btw ). HMMMM
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Look at how you STARTED in this conversation. Rather than talk about viral marketing and how it affects the forums, YOU CHOSE to bring up how some posters overly accuse other posters of being viral marketers.
Maybe because it's true, and you deny it?
It is true ,But is no catalyst of any one group here..Which was the point of the post he is commenting on. The opposite is also true , Viral marketers paid or not, exist . And do damage the industry , The extent of that damage is debatable however imo . Legally it isn't legit ,I'll add it's ethically bankrupt for a company to practice these acts .
The damage done by corps employing these methods however is questionable due to another form of Viral marketing IMO , It is perfectly legal as well .You can find it on any page in this entire site.We're taking part in it right now to be precise. Anything we say here related to a given game be it a recomendation or a critique is essentially a method used by the viral marketer. Which would explain the overuse of the term . If we're all doing it , Again IMO we are . Where does the damage leave our hands and become a responsibility of the corporations ?
Well the viral marketting I'm talking about is only done by corporations. What do I mean by this? It's when people working for companies pretend to be something they are not in order to win the trust of consumers and then endorse a product or service. In the context of MMO's, these people would pretend to be player/consumers of a particular game, and pretend not to be what they in fact are--company representatives. They would then recommend the game to actual player/consumers. The recommendation comes across as credible because it is allegedly made by a fellow consumer that does not have a vested interest in the promotion.
That article I've quoted presents the same context. People working for Sony were pretending to be happy Sony customers. In fact, they weren't. They were desperate and deceitful Sony sales reps.
I was commenting on the impact those methods have on the industry . Due to the existence of a far easier , cheaper and overall dominating delivery method. Like I said if we're all doing it every day , How much more damage could they(not just SOE) create by doing it themselves ?
Your OP did enlighten as always , TBH it actually made me question a few posters I observed on the AOC boards today. Making plugs for LOTOR while completely ripping apart a game they admit they don't even play.I got curious and checked the LOTOR board , Fate would have it LOTOR had a huge problem recently with book 14 , Completely dead servers for days ( as in offline) , What do you know the exact same posters , on complete damage control for Turbine while making comparisons chastizing funcom ( this is a regular thing for these posters , as in everyday btw ). HMMMM
Yes that seems to be the kind of thing I'm talking about. The question that comes to my mind though is this: Are they paid by Turbine to do damage control, or are they players who are desperately trying to protect their online happy place from going belly up?
It's the posters who go from game to game saying things like "this is the greatest game I've ever played!"--and then rip apart a competitor that hasn't paid for their marketting services--that are the slimiest and most obvious examples of the problem I'm trying to highlight. These aren't desperate players, they're desperate sales-people working for desperate companies.
What I'd say to these companies is, "you'd do yourselves a favour if you invested your resources in the pursuit of excellence in terms of the product and customer service. Paying for deceptive marketting is a loser's gambit in my mind. Do you really feel that you can't compete with other companies in terms of quality? Maybe you can if you develop the same customer-centered philosophy and allocate your resources accordingly. I guess that's a challenge to realilze your potential and stop playing a game where everyone loses in the end, you and the customer.
Look at how you STARTED in this conversation. Rather than talk about viral marketing and how it affects the forums, YOU CHOSE to bring up how some posters overly accuse other posters of being viral marketers.
Maybe because it's true, and you deny it?
It is true ,But is no catalyst of any one group here..Which was the point of the post he is commenting on. The opposite is also true , Viral marketers paid or not, exist . And do damage the industry , The extent of that damage is debatable however imo . Legally it isn't legit ,I'll add it's ethically bankrupt for a company to practice these acts .
The damage done by corps employing these methods however is questionable due to another form of Viral marketing IMO , It is perfectly legal as well .You can find it on any page in this entire site.We're taking part in it right now to be precise. Anything we say here related to a given game be it a recomendation or a critique is essentially a method used by the viral marketer. Which would explain the overuse of the term . If we're all doing it , Again IMO we are . Where does the damage leave our hands and become a responsibility of the corporations ?
Well the viral marketting I'm talking about is only done by corporations. What do I mean by this? It's when people working for companies pretend to be something they are not in order to win the trust of consumers and then endorse a product or service. In the context of MMO's, these people would pretend to be player/consumers of a particular game, and pretend not to be what they in fact are--company representatives. They would then recommend the game to actual player/consumers. The recommendation comes across as credible because it is allegedly made by a fellow consumer that does not have a vested interest in the promotion.
That article I've quoted presents the same context. People working for Sony were pretending to be happy Sony customers. In fact, they weren't. They were desperate and deceitful Sony sales reps.
I was commenting on the impact those methods have on the industry . Due to the existence of a far easier , cheaper and overall dominating delivery method. Like I said if we're all doing it every day , How much more damage could they(not just SOE) create by doing it themselves ?
Your OP did enlighten as always , TBH it actually made me question a few posters I observed on the AOC boards today. Making plugs for LOTOR while completely ripping apart a game they admit they don't even play.I got curious and checked the LOTOR board , Fate would have it LOTOR had a huge problem recently with book 14 , Completely dead servers for days ( as in offline) , What do you know the exact same posters , on complete damage control for Turbine while making comparisons chastizing funcom ( this is a regular thing for these posters , as in everyday btw ). HMMMM
Yes that seems to be the kind of thing I'm talking about. The question that comes to my mind though is this: Are they paid by Turbine to do damage control, or are they players who are desperately trying to protect their online happy place from going belly up?
It's the posters who go from game to game saying things like "this is the greatest game I've ever played!"--and then rip apart a competitor that hasn't paid for their marketting services--that are the slimiest and most obvious examples of the problem I'm trying to highlight. These aren't desperate players, they're desperate sales-people working for desperate companies.
What I'd say to these companies is, "you'd do yourselves a favour if you invested your resources in the pursuit of excellence in terms of the product and customer service. Paying for deceptive marketting is a loser's gambit in my mind. Do you really feel that you can't compete with other companies in terms of quality? Maybe you can if you reorganize some things.
I don't know if you do man but you should check out multiple games forums here like I do , You will see many a post by the same poster doing exactly what you hate the most , And I agree it disgusts me.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Look at how you STARTED in this conversation. Rather than talk about viral marketing and how it affects the forums, YOU CHOSE to bring up how some posters overly accuse other posters of being viral marketers.
Maybe because it's true, and you deny it?
It is true ,But is no catalyst of any one group here..Which was the point of the post he is commenting on. The opposite is also true , Viral marketers paid or not, exist . And do damage the industry , The extent of that damage is debatable however imo . Legally it isn't legit ,I'll add it's ethically bankrupt for a company to practice these acts .
The damage done by corps employing these methods however is questionable due to another form of Viral marketing IMO , It is perfectly legal as well .You can find it on any page in this entire site.We're taking part in it right now to be precise. Anything we say here related to a given game be it a recomendation or a critique is essentially a method used by the viral marketer. Which would explain the overuse of the term . If we're all doing it , Again IMO we are . Where does the damage leave our hands and become a responsibility of the corporations ?
Well the viral marketting I'm talking about is only done by corporations. What do I mean by this? It's when people working for companies pretend to be something they are not in order to win the trust of consumers and then endorse a product or service. In the context of MMO's, these people would pretend to be player/consumers of a particular game, and pretend not to be what they in fact are--company representatives. They would then recommend the game to actual player/consumers. The recommendation comes across as credible because it is allegedly made by a fellow consumer that does not have a vested interest in the promotion.
That article I've quoted presents the same context. People working for Sony were pretending to be happy Sony customers. In fact, they weren't. They were desperate and deceitful Sony sales reps.
I was commenting on the impact those methods have on the industry . Due to the existence of a far easier , cheaper and overall dominating delivery method. Like I said if we're all doing it every day , How much more damage could they(not just SOE) create by doing it themselves ?
Your OP did enlighten as always , TBH it actually made me question a few posters I observed on the AOC boards today. Making plugs for LOTOR while completely ripping apart a game they admit they don't even play.I got curious and checked the LOTOR board , Fate would have it LOTOR had a huge problem recently with book 14 , Completely dead servers for days ( as in offline) , What do you know the exact same posters , on complete damage control for Turbine while making comparisons chastizing funcom ( this is a regular thing for these posters , as in everyday btw ). HMMMM
Yes that seems to be the kind of thing I'm talking about. The question that comes to my mind though is this: Are they paid by Turbine to do damage control, or are they players who are desperately trying to protect their online happy place from going belly up?
It's the posters who go from game to game saying things like "this is the greatest game I've ever played!"--and then rip apart a competitor that hasn't paid for their marketting services--that are the slimiest and most obvious examples of the problem I'm trying to highlight. These aren't desperate players, they're desperate sales-people working for desperate companies.
What I'd say to these companies is, "you'd do yourselves a favour if you invested your resources in the pursuit of excellence in terms of the product and customer service. Paying for deceptive marketting is a loser's gambit in my mind. Do you really feel that you can't compete with other companies in terms of quality? Maybe you can if you reorganize some things.
I don't know if you do man but you should check out multiple games forums here like I do , You will see many a post by the same poster doing exactly what you hate the most , And I agree it disgusts me.
I've noticed some things that have made me wonder, but I really didn't pay a lot of attention to this until recently. The article that I read and then copied here to start the thread put the things I did notice in the past into a sharper focus.
I've noticed some things that have made me wonder, but I really didn't pay a lot of attention to this until recently. The article that I read and then copied here to start the thread put the things I did notice in the past into a sharper focus.
Same here didn't really think about it until this thread myself , But it has put a lot from the past into perspective.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
This is, by the way, now a criminal offence thanks to the Federal Trade Commission.
I'd be very interested in knowing what exactly was the catalyst(s) for making this a criminal offense.
I have a copy of the article that discussed this when it became legislation...somewhere lol Let me try to recall: There was research done regarding viral marketting with regard to certain products. The research findings indicated that marketters intentionally misrepresented themselves for the purpose of gaining consumers' trust. Having gained this trust by deceptive means, they would then recommend a particular product or service. People felt duped by this and thought it should be illegal (akin to fraud), and the FTC agreed. This lead to legislative action ^_^. Go FTC, I love those people.
I'd love to read this article if you can find it. If you do find it would you mind sending it to me?
Here ya go brother
The Federal Trade Commission yesterday said that companies engaging in word-of-mouth marketing, in which people are compensated to promote products to their peers, must disclose those relationships.
In a staff opinion issued yesterday, the consumer protection agency weighed in for the first time on the practice. Though no accurate figures exist on how much money advertisers spend on such marketing, it is quickly becoming a preferred method for reaching consumers who are skeptical of other forms of advertising.
Word-of-mouth marketing can take any form of peer-to-peer communication, such as a post on a Web blog, a MySpace.com page for a movie character, or the comments of a stranger on a bus.
As the practice has taken hold over the past several years, however, some advocacy groups have questioned whether marketers are using such tactics to dupe consumers into believing they are getting unbiased information.
In October 2005, Commercial Alert, an advertising and marketing watchdog group in Portland, Ore., petitioned the FTC to consider taking action against word-of-mouth marketers. The group called for the FTC to issue guidelines requiring paid agents to disclose their relationship to the company whose product they are promoting, including any compensation.
The group cited a 2002 Wall Street Journal article on a marketing campaign by Sony Ericsson Mobile for its T68i mobile phone and digital camera. The initiative, called "Fake Tourist," involved placing 60 actors posing as tourists at attractions in New York and Seattle to demonstrate the camera phone. The actors asked passersby to take their photo, which demonstrated the camera phone's capabilities, but the actors did not identify themselves as representatives for Sony Ericsson.
Commercial Alert also singled out Tremor, a marketing division of Procter & Gamble, which has assembled a volunteer force of 250,000 teenagers to promote the company's products to friends and relatives.
Procter & Gamble spokesman Terry Loftus said participants in its word-of-mouth campaigns are free to talk negatively or positively about a product or service and do not receive compensation. Volunteers are not required to disclose their relationship with the company, he said. Some participants receive sample products, he said, so they can offer an opinion on a product.
Word-of-mouth advertising is already covered under existing FTC regulations that govern commercial endorsements. What the FTC sought to do yesterday in its staff opinion was to note that such marketing could be deceptive if consumers were more likely to trust the product's endorser "based on their assumed independence from the marketer."
"The petition to us did raise a question about compliance with the FTC act," said Mary K. Engle, FTC associate director for advertising practices. "We wanted to make clear . . . if you're being paid, you should disclose that."
The FTC said it would investigate cases where there is a relationship between the endorser of a product and the seller that is not disclosed and could affect the endorsement. The FTC staff said it would go after violators on a case-by-case basis. Consequences could include a cease-and-desist order, fines and civil penalties ranging from thousands of dollars to millions of dollars. Engle said the agency had not brought any cases against word-of-mouth marketers.
Though the staff's opinion fell short of Commercial Alert's original request, the group's executive director, Gary Ruskin, said he was pleased the staff agreed that word-of-mouth marketing could be deceptive.
"This letter tells marketers like Procter & Gamble that their 'sponsored consumers' must disclose that they are shilling, or they are probably in violation of the prohibition against deceptive advertising. That's big," he said. "It will change practices in the word-of-mouth marketing industry."
Andy Sernovitz, chief executive of the Word of Mouth Marketing Association, said the FTC's decision was an endorsement of the industry's efforts to police itself. The Chicago-based association, which has more than 300 members, last year issued a code of ethics stating that marketers should disclose ties to sponsors.
The group has also tried to hold members accountable. Sernovitz said the group is reviewing the membership status of the Edelman public relations firm after Wal-Mart, one of the firm's clients, reportedly gave positive comments to bloggers who then posted the comments without mentioning the source. Edelman later admitted that some of its employees had written the blogs.
Procter & Gamble, which is not a member of the association, recruits volunteer marketers online, Loftus said. The company chooses volunteers based on their answers to a survey on the Tremor Web site, which tells participants if they join the Tremor Crew they could "name the next big movie" or "help design a video game."
Peter Blackshaw, chief marketing officer for Nielsen BuzzMetrics, which tracks the effectiveness of word-of-mouth marketing, said brands have more than a moral incentive to be upfront with consumers. "There's a high turn-off factor if consumers learn that the person making a recommendation is actually on contract," with an incentive to push a product, he said.
A 2005 survey of 800 consumers by market research firm Intelliseek found that 29 percent of participants age 20 to 34 and 41 percent of those age 35 to 49 said they would be unlikely to trust a recommendation again from a friend whom they later learned was compensated for making the suggestion.
Omg is Sony in the list of culprits in this article too? LOL! I didn't notice that until just now. Incredible.
Do employees of software companies really pose as fans in an attempt to deceptively market their products? Well a link from a friend in another thread led me to this interesting and illuminating article: "UPDATE 14/12/06: Sony of America have admitted that the ploy was indeed their idea and have released this statement:
Busted. Nailed. Snagged. As many of you have figured out (maybe our speech was a little too funky fresh???), Peter isn't a real hip-hop maven and this site was actually developed by Sony. Guess we were trying to be just a little too clever. From this point forward, we will just stick to making cool products, and use this site to give you nothing but the facts on the PSP. Sony Computer Entertainment America
They've also removed comments from the site. And the video from YouTube. The least they could do is leave it up there so others could learn from their mistakes.
Gamers across Web 2.0 are shaking angry fists at the latest alleged viral marketing campaign orchestrated by Sony. Piggybacking the YouTube bonanza, the company has hired "consumer activation" firm Zipatoni to create a false video-and-blogging approach to generate interest in their flagging PlayStation Portable handheld machine. The video/blog/ads featured people portending to be authentic PSP fans creating messages of love/want for the console, but were quickly uncovered by SomethingAwful.com's dedicated base as superficial facades shielding mouthpieces for the corporation.
In the past, Sony's award-winning PlayStation brand ads were celebrated for their creativity and innovation. Their recent campaigns, including an ill-advised series of graffiti art, suggests that they are having difficulty getting a handle on the bottom-up, community driven opportunities made possible with social software.
As I (and othersmore qualified than I) have commented before (under a different guise), big business must tread carefully if it wishes to employ "yoof" tactics to generate interest in its brands. Blogs and other social software rely upon the trust of the reader, which is why links, references and disclaimers feature on many (not all) posts. Transparency is key in the modern advertising-savvy marketplace. Bad fakes can be spotted a mile away, and good fakes often get found out with a fanfare of negativity. As an aside, I'm very curious how the YouTube-viewing public will respond to lonelygirl_15 when she makes her first above-the-board debut.
Unfortunately this latest attempt to integrate with the MySpace generation on their own terms marks another instance in Sony's recent PSP campaigns which consumers claim is undermining their trust. The most important currency online is trust. rhino86, a SomethingAwful commenter, sums it up succinctly:
and today class we are going to learn about how viral marketing can fail miserably and create distrust and hatred in our user base.
Interactive advertising is so much more than throwing a few irritating pop us in front of content or putting placeholders in the latest software du jour. It needs to start from the community, perhaps - if needs must - sparked by a few good ideas.
So, it would seem that people working for Sony really have posed as consumers in attempts to sway other (actual) consumers to buy their stuff. It also seems that third party companies are contracted to do this. I've noticed on rare occasions the same name posting what might be described by some as viral marketting material both for SOE and Funcom games. At the time, I jokingly asked if these companies were outsourcing their marketting these days. Maybe this wasn't far from the truth 0_o.
This is, by the way, now a criminal offence thanks to the Federal Trade Commission.
Originally posted by ArcAngel3 Originally posted by Suvroc Originally posted by ArcAngel3 Originally posted by Suvroc Originally posted by ArcAngel3 This is, by the way, now a criminal offence thanks to the Federal Trade Commission.
I'd be very interested in knowing what exactly was the catalyst(s) for making this a criminal offense.
I have a copy of the article that discussed this when it became legislation...somewhere lol Let me try to recall: There was research done regarding viral marketting with regard to certain products. The research findings indicated that marketters intentionally misrepresented themselves for the purpose of gaining consumers' trust. Having gained this trust by deceptive means, they would then recommend a particular product or service. People felt duped by this and thought it should be illegal (akin to fraud), and the FTC agreed. This lead to legislative action ^_^. Go FTC, I love those people.
I'd love to read this article if you can find it. If you do find it would you mind sending it to me?
Here ya go brother
The Federal Trade Commission yesterday said that companies engaging in word-of-mouth marketing, in which people are compensated to promote products to their peers, must disclose those relationships. In a staff opinion issued yesterday, the consumer protection agency weighed in for the first time on the practice. Though no accurate figures exist on how much money advertisers spend on such marketing, it is quickly becoming a preferred method for reaching consumers who are skeptical of other forms of advertising. Word-of-mouth marketing can take any form of peer-to-peer communication, such as a post on a Web blog, a MySpace.com page for a movie character, or the comments of a stranger on a bus. As the practice has taken hold over the past several years, however, some advocacy groups have questioned whether marketers are using such tactics to dupe consumers into believing they are getting unbiased information. In October 2005, Commercial Alert, an advertising and marketing watchdog group in Portland, Ore., petitioned the FTC to consider taking action against word-of-mouth marketers. The group called for the FTC to issue guidelines requiring paid agents to disclose their relationship to the company whose product they are promoting, including any compensation. The group cited a 2002 Wall Street Journal article on a marketing campaign by Sony Ericsson Mobile for its T68i mobile phone and digital camera. The initiative, called "Fake Tourist," involved placing 60 actors posing as tourists at attractions in New York and Seattle to demonstrate the camera phone. The actors asked passersby to take their photo, which demonstrated the camera phone's capabilities, but the actors did not identify themselves as representatives for Sony Ericsson. Commercial Alert also singled out Tremor, a marketing division of Procter & Gamble, which has assembled a volunteer force of 250,000 teenagers to promote the company's products to friends and relatives. Procter & Gamble spokesman Terry Loftus said participants in its word-of-mouth campaigns are free to talk negatively or positively about a product or service and do not receive compensation. Volunteers are not required to disclose their relationship with the company, he said. Some participants receive sample products, he said, so they can offer an opinion on a product. Word-of-mouth advertising is already covered under existing FTC regulations that govern commercial endorsements. What the FTC sought to do yesterday in its staff opinion was to note that such marketing could be deceptive if consumers were more likely to trust the product's endorser "based on their assumed independence from the marketer." "The petition to us did raise a question about compliance with the FTC act," said Mary K. Engle, FTC associate director for advertising practices. "We wanted to make clear . . . if you're being paid, you should disclose that." The FTC said it would investigate cases where there is a relationship between the endorser of a product and the seller that is not disclosed and could affect the endorsement. The FTC staff said it would go after violators on a case-by-case basis. Consequences could include a cease-and-desist order, fines and civil penalties ranging from thousands of dollars to millions of dollars. Engle said the agency had not brought any cases against word-of-mouth marketers. Though the staff's opinion fell short of Commercial Alert's original request, the group's executive director, Gary Ruskin, said he was pleased the staff agreed that word-of-mouth marketing could be deceptive. "This letter tells marketers like Procter & Gamble that their 'sponsored consumers' must disclose that they are shilling, or they are probably in violation of the prohibition against deceptive advertising. That's big," he said. "It will change practices in the word-of-mouth marketing industry." Andy Sernovitz, chief executive of the Word of Mouth Marketing Association, said the FTC's decision was an endorsement of the industry's efforts to police itself. The Chicago-based association, which has more than 300 members, last year issued a code of ethics stating that marketers should disclose ties to sponsors. The group has also tried to hold members accountable. Sernovitz said the group is reviewing the membership status of the Edelman public relations firm after Wal-Mart, one of the firm's clients, reportedly gave positive comments to bloggers who then posted the comments without mentioning the source. Edelman later admitted that some of its employees had written the blogs. Procter & Gamble, which is not a member of the association, recruits volunteer marketers online, Loftus said. The company chooses volunteers based on their answers to a survey on the Tremor Web site, which tells participants if they join the Tremor Crew they could "name the next big movie" or "help design a video game." Peter Blackshaw, chief marketing officer for Nielsen BuzzMetrics, which tracks the effectiveness of word-of-mouth marketing, said brands have more than a moral incentive to be upfront with consumers. "There's a high turn-off factor if consumers learn that the person making a recommendation is actually on contract," with an incentive to push a product, he said. A 2005 survey of 800 consumers by market research firm Intelliseek found that 29 percent of participants age 20 to 34 and 41 percent of those age 35 to 49 said they would be unlikely to trust a recommendation again from a friend whom they later learned was compensated for making the suggestion.
Omg is Sony in the list of culprits in this article too? LOL! I didn't notice that until just now. Incredible.
Yup, that's why i said above that I thought SONY was one of the reasons they made it illegal
been awhile since I read the article but I still got the ol' memory.
Originally posted by Costanza420 Originally posted by Fishermage
Originally posted by Costanza420
Originally posted by Fishermage
Originally posted by Costanza420 Originally posted by Fishermage
Originally posted by Costanza420
Originally posted by Fishermage
Originally posted by Costanza420
Originally posted by Fishermage
Originally posted by Costanza420
Originally posted by Fishermage
Originally posted by therain93 I'm at a bit of a loss in this thread, I don't feel like the title and the original post really fit well together. What I kind of get is.... 1.) Does viral marketing exist? 2.) Viral marketing is bad. 2.) Let's beat on SOE (and rightfully so) for a very bad viral marketing plan that misrepresented to the public some indvidiuals' enthusiasm for SOE products as genuine. So, coming away from that, in reference to 1, viral marketing very much indeed exists. Conceptually, the marketing for a product or service is done largely by consumers and enthusiasts in a grassroots kind of movement. Companies kill for it and you can't get much better reaction from a paid/structured campaign. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. Is viral marketing bad? No, I don't think so. I also don't think that companies planting the seeds for viral marketing are bad or wrong for doing it. For example, leading up to the Dark Knight, plenty of Joker-related internet-based websites were set up with clues in order to generate interest. One fan was then "kidnapped" by the Joker and allegedly found dead as part of the ploy. In another example (and frankly, I don't think I would fault Nintendo if it did have a hand in it) is the Wii Fit youtube video (you know the one, the girl shaking her undie-clad bum while hula-hooping). As if the Wii Fit wasn't pouplar enough already, that video got ridiculous numbers of hits generating further interest in it. In those two cases, something objective was put out there (not necessarily by the company though!) and people latched onto it, making a decision if they liked it or not. Which leads into number 3.... In SOE's case, as ArcAngel pointed out though, SOE crossed that line of objectivity by effectively hiring plants to promote the game as genuine user opinions. I think we would all agree that this effectively is the same as paying off professional reviewers or passing off press releases with favorably leading statements to the media outlets. I think we all agree here that that is not kosher and SOE has rightly been spanked for it. Also of note, I'm not really surprised that a law was passed against it -- I likened it to paying professional reviewers but it really is more akin to the Payola scandals of the 50's/60's when record companies would pay dj's to play their songs. That was made illegal if broadcasters did not disclose to listeners that they were receiving some sort of compensation for doing it. EDIT: this was like the precedent that made it a criminal offense.
he didn't mean grassroots viral marketing, as was obvious from his post, the link he referenced, and the entire discussion.
We are discussing whether SOE uses paid viral marketers; NOT grassroots word-of-mouth. That's always a problem when words have multiple meanings. When such is the case, one must carefully check out the context and usage.
Or, better yet, the original poster can be specific and make clear what he or she is talking about. Especially with the way the term "viral marketer" is thrown about around here.
No need. When the word "viral marketer" is thrown about around here, people always use it to mean paid viral marketer...otherwise there is no need to throw it about.
there would be no reason for anyone to start a thread that effectively meant: do people talk about what they like? which is what it would mean if someone was meaning the other meaning of viral marketer. It is not up to every poster to qualify and define every term he or she uses. Ome has reason to expect a minimum of effort on the part of the reader to discern meaning from usage and not play semantic games with the words used.
TRANSLATION: It's not up to the OP to be specific about what they mean, as long as it slams SOE and SWG. Typical.
Nope.
Translation: It is up to people to have facility with the language being used, and how humans generally communicate with one another on earth to comprehend what they are reading. Who or what one "slams" is irrelevant.
Waitaminnit. Going back a bit ... Did you actually say "It is not up to every poster to qualify and define every term he or she uses. Ome has reason to expect a minimum of effort on the part of the reader to discern meaning from usage and not play semantic games with the words used." This is coming from YOU, the king of playing semantic games! Holy shit. The world has officially flipped on its axis.
I never play semantic games, although I do sometimes seek qualification and clarification when I am not sure what someone means. I do so in the interest of communication and truth, not for the sake of any games. Thank you for pronouncing me King of something, however.
You ALWAYS play semantic games. It's your M.O.
Prove it. I could just post a link to your profile on the o-boards. Come on Fish, seriously.
In other words, you can't. Thank you for your time.
There's not enough internet for me to repost every single example of you playing semantics games, or egging people on and then giving the "who, me?" routine when they get pissed. But enough. You're not worth getting moderated over.
In other words, you either don't know what a semantics game is, or you could not find one.
The fact is, I feel semantics and linguistic clarity are far too important to play games. I have too much respect for the truth and the language to do that.
I still wonder what person is hiding behind this name and why you have such a personal vendetta against me. You obviously "know" me, yet are hiding who you are for whatever reason.
Comments
We are discussing whether SOE uses paid viral marketers; NOT grassroots word-of-mouth. That's always a problem when words have multiple meanings. When such is the case, one must carefully check out the context and usage.
Or, better yet, the original poster can be specific and make clear what he or she is talking about. Especially with the way the term "viral marketer" is thrown about around here.
No need. When the word "viral marketer" is thrown about around here, people always use it to mean paid viral marketer...otherwise there is no need to throw it about.
there would be no reason for anyone to start a thread that effectively meant: do people talk about what they like? which is what it would mean if someone was meaning the other meaning of viral marketer.
It is not up to every poster to qualify and define every term he or she uses. Ome has reason to expect a minimum of effort on the part of the reader to discern meaning from usage and not play semantic games with the words used.
TRANSLATION: It's not up to the OP to be specific about what they mean, as long as it slams SOE and SWG.
Typical.
Nope.
Translation: It is up to people to have facility with the language being used, and how humans generally communicate with one another on earth to comprehend what they are reading.
Who or what one "slams" is irrelevant.
Waitaminnit. Going back a bit ...
Did you actually say "It is not up to every poster to qualify and define every term he or she uses. Ome has reason to expect a minimum of effort on the part of the reader to discern meaning from usage and not play semantic games with the words used." This is coming from YOU, the king of playing semantic games!
Holy shit. The world has officially flipped on its axis.
I never play semantic games, although I do sometimes seek qualification and clarification when I am not sure what someone means. I do so in the interest of communication and truth, not for the sake of any games.
Thank you for pronouncing me King of something, however.
You ALWAYS play semantic games. It's your M.O.
Prove it.
I could just post a link to your profile on the o-boards. Come on Fish, seriously.
In other words, you can't. Thank you for your time.
There's not enough internet for me to repost every single example of you playing semantics games, or egging people on and then giving the "who, me?" routine when they get pissed.
But enough. You're not worth getting moderated over.
Plus. Costanza, must you turn every thread you post in into another phase of some odd persona vendetta you have against me? How about sticking to a subject? It's getting boring.
I don't even know you, yet you sure act as if you know me -- although obviously I am beyond your ken, in that you don't seem to understand me in the least.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Maybe because it's true, and you deny it?
It is true ,But is no catalyst of any one group here..Which was the point of the post he is commenting on. The opposite is also true , Viral marketers paid or not, exist . And do damage the industry , The extent of that damage is debatable however imo . Legally it isn't legit ,I'll add it's ethically bankrupt for a company to practice these acts .
The damage done by corps employing these methods however is questionable due to another form of Viral marketing IMO , It is perfectly legal as well .You can find it on any page in this entire site.We're taking part in it right now to be precise. Anything we say here related to a given game be it a recomendation or a critique is essentially a method used by the viral marketer. Which would explain the overuse of the term . If we're all doing it , Again IMO we are . Where does the damage leave our hands and become a responsibility of the corporations ?
Well the viral marketting I'm talking about is only done by corporations. What do I mean by this? It's when people working for companies pretend to be something they are not in order to win the trust of consumers and then endorse a product or service. In the context of MMO's, these people would pretend to be player/consumers of a particular game, and pretend not to be what they in fact are--company representatives. They would then recommend the game to actual player/consumers. The recommendation comes across as credible because it is allegedly made by a fellow consumer that does not have a vested interest in the promotion.
That article I've quoted presents the same context. People working for Sony were pretending to be happy Sony customers. In fact, they weren't. They were desperate and deceitful Sony sales reps.
I was commenting on the impact those methods have on the industry . Due to the existence of a far easier , cheaper and overall dominating delivery method. Like I said if we're all doing it every day , How much more damage could they(not just SOE) create by doing it themselves ?
Your OP did enlighten as always , TBH it actually made me question a few posters I observed on the AOC boards today. Making plugs for LOTOR while completely ripping apart a game they admit they don't even play.I got curious and checked the LOTOR board , Fate would have it LOTOR had a huge problem recently with book 14 , Completely dead servers for days ( as in offline) , What do you know the exact same posters , on complete damage control for Turbine while making comparisons chastizing funcom ( this is a regular thing for these posters , as in everyday btw ). HMMMM
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Maybe because it's true, and you deny it?
It is true ,But is no catalyst of any one group here..Which was the point of the post he is commenting on. The opposite is also true , Viral marketers paid or not, exist . And do damage the industry , The extent of that damage is debatable however imo . Legally it isn't legit ,I'll add it's ethically bankrupt for a company to practice these acts .
The damage done by corps employing these methods however is questionable due to another form of Viral marketing IMO , It is perfectly legal as well .You can find it on any page in this entire site.We're taking part in it right now to be precise. Anything we say here related to a given game be it a recomendation or a critique is essentially a method used by the viral marketer. Which would explain the overuse of the term . If we're all doing it , Again IMO we are . Where does the damage leave our hands and become a responsibility of the corporations ?
Well the viral marketting I'm talking about is only done by corporations. What do I mean by this? It's when people working for companies pretend to be something they are not in order to win the trust of consumers and then endorse a product or service. In the context of MMO's, these people would pretend to be player/consumers of a particular game, and pretend not to be what they in fact are--company representatives. They would then recommend the game to actual player/consumers. The recommendation comes across as credible because it is allegedly made by a fellow consumer that does not have a vested interest in the promotion.
That article I've quoted presents the same context. People working for Sony were pretending to be happy Sony customers. In fact, they weren't. They were desperate and deceitful Sony sales reps.
I was commenting on the impact those methods have on the industry . Due to the existence of a far easier , cheaper and overall dominating delivery method. Like I said if we're all doing it every day , How much more damage could they(not just SOE) create by doing it themselves ?
Your OP did enlighten as always , TBH it actually made me question a few posters I observed on the AOC boards today. Making plugs for LOTOR while completely ripping apart a game they admit they don't even play.I got curious and checked the LOTOR board , Fate would have it LOTOR had a huge problem recently with book 14 , Completely dead servers for days ( as in offline) , What do you know the exact same posters , on complete damage control for Turbine while making comparisons chastizing funcom ( this is a regular thing for these posters , as in everyday btw ). HMMMM
Yes that seems to be the kind of thing I'm talking about. The question that comes to my mind though is this: Are they paid by Turbine to do damage control, or are they players who are desperately trying to protect their online happy place from going belly up?
It's the posters who go from game to game saying things like "this is the greatest game I've ever played!"--and then rip apart a competitor that hasn't paid for their marketting services--that are the slimiest and most obvious examples of the problem I'm trying to highlight. These aren't desperate players, they're desperate sales-people working for desperate companies.
What I'd say to these companies is, "you'd do yourselves a favour if you invested your resources in the pursuit of excellence in terms of the product and customer service. Paying for deceptive marketting is a loser's gambit in my mind. Do you really feel that you can't compete with other companies in terms of quality? Maybe you can if you develop the same customer-centered philosophy and allocate your resources accordingly. I guess that's a challenge to realilze your potential and stop playing a game where everyone loses in the end, you and the customer.
Maybe because it's true, and you deny it?
It is true ,But is no catalyst of any one group here..Which was the point of the post he is commenting on. The opposite is also true , Viral marketers paid or not, exist . And do damage the industry , The extent of that damage is debatable however imo . Legally it isn't legit ,I'll add it's ethically bankrupt for a company to practice these acts .
The damage done by corps employing these methods however is questionable due to another form of Viral marketing IMO , It is perfectly legal as well .You can find it on any page in this entire site.We're taking part in it right now to be precise. Anything we say here related to a given game be it a recomendation or a critique is essentially a method used by the viral marketer. Which would explain the overuse of the term . If we're all doing it , Again IMO we are . Where does the damage leave our hands and become a responsibility of the corporations ?
Well the viral marketting I'm talking about is only done by corporations. What do I mean by this? It's when people working for companies pretend to be something they are not in order to win the trust of consumers and then endorse a product or service. In the context of MMO's, these people would pretend to be player/consumers of a particular game, and pretend not to be what they in fact are--company representatives. They would then recommend the game to actual player/consumers. The recommendation comes across as credible because it is allegedly made by a fellow consumer that does not have a vested interest in the promotion.
That article I've quoted presents the same context. People working for Sony were pretending to be happy Sony customers. In fact, they weren't. They were desperate and deceitful Sony sales reps.
I was commenting on the impact those methods have on the industry . Due to the existence of a far easier , cheaper and overall dominating delivery method. Like I said if we're all doing it every day , How much more damage could they(not just SOE) create by doing it themselves ?
Your OP did enlighten as always , TBH it actually made me question a few posters I observed on the AOC boards today. Making plugs for LOTOR while completely ripping apart a game they admit they don't even play.I got curious and checked the LOTOR board , Fate would have it LOTOR had a huge problem recently with book 14 , Completely dead servers for days ( as in offline) , What do you know the exact same posters , on complete damage control for Turbine while making comparisons chastizing funcom ( this is a regular thing for these posters , as in everyday btw ). HMMMM
Yes that seems to be the kind of thing I'm talking about. The question that comes to my mind though is this: Are they paid by Turbine to do damage control, or are they players who are desperately trying to protect their online happy place from going belly up?
It's the posters who go from game to game saying things like "this is the greatest game I've ever played!"--and then rip apart a competitor that hasn't paid for their marketting services--that are the slimiest and most obvious examples of the problem I'm trying to highlight. These aren't desperate players, they're desperate sales-people working for desperate companies.
What I'd say to these companies is, "you'd do yourselves a favour if you invested your resources in the pursuit of excellence in terms of the product and customer service. Paying for deceptive marketting is a loser's gambit in my mind. Do you really feel that you can't compete with other companies in terms of quality? Maybe you can if you reorganize some things.
I don't know if you do man but you should check out multiple games forums here like I do , You will see many a post by the same poster doing exactly what you hate the most , And I agree it disgusts me.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Maybe because it's true, and you deny it?
It is true ,But is no catalyst of any one group here..Which was the point of the post he is commenting on. The opposite is also true , Viral marketers paid or not, exist . And do damage the industry , The extent of that damage is debatable however imo . Legally it isn't legit ,I'll add it's ethically bankrupt for a company to practice these acts .
The damage done by corps employing these methods however is questionable due to another form of Viral marketing IMO , It is perfectly legal as well .You can find it on any page in this entire site.We're taking part in it right now to be precise. Anything we say here related to a given game be it a recomendation or a critique is essentially a method used by the viral marketer. Which would explain the overuse of the term . If we're all doing it , Again IMO we are . Where does the damage leave our hands and become a responsibility of the corporations ?
Well the viral marketting I'm talking about is only done by corporations. What do I mean by this? It's when people working for companies pretend to be something they are not in order to win the trust of consumers and then endorse a product or service. In the context of MMO's, these people would pretend to be player/consumers of a particular game, and pretend not to be what they in fact are--company representatives. They would then recommend the game to actual player/consumers. The recommendation comes across as credible because it is allegedly made by a fellow consumer that does not have a vested interest in the promotion.
That article I've quoted presents the same context. People working for Sony were pretending to be happy Sony customers. In fact, they weren't. They were desperate and deceitful Sony sales reps.
I was commenting on the impact those methods have on the industry . Due to the existence of a far easier , cheaper and overall dominating delivery method. Like I said if we're all doing it every day , How much more damage could they(not just SOE) create by doing it themselves ?
Your OP did enlighten as always , TBH it actually made me question a few posters I observed on the AOC boards today. Making plugs for LOTOR while completely ripping apart a game they admit they don't even play.I got curious and checked the LOTOR board , Fate would have it LOTOR had a huge problem recently with book 14 , Completely dead servers for days ( as in offline) , What do you know the exact same posters , on complete damage control for Turbine while making comparisons chastizing funcom ( this is a regular thing for these posters , as in everyday btw ). HMMMM
Yes that seems to be the kind of thing I'm talking about. The question that comes to my mind though is this: Are they paid by Turbine to do damage control, or are they players who are desperately trying to protect their online happy place from going belly up?
It's the posters who go from game to game saying things like "this is the greatest game I've ever played!"--and then rip apart a competitor that hasn't paid for their marketting services--that are the slimiest and most obvious examples of the problem I'm trying to highlight. These aren't desperate players, they're desperate sales-people working for desperate companies.
What I'd say to these companies is, "you'd do yourselves a favour if you invested your resources in the pursuit of excellence in terms of the product and customer service. Paying for deceptive marketting is a loser's gambit in my mind. Do you really feel that you can't compete with other companies in terms of quality? Maybe you can if you reorganize some things.
I don't know if you do man but you should check out multiple games forums here like I do , You will see many a post by the same poster doing exactly what you hate the most , And I agree it disgusts me.
I've noticed some things that have made me wonder, but I really didn't pay a lot of attention to this until recently. The article that I read and then copied here to start the thread put the things I did notice in the past into a sharper focus.
Same here didn't really think about it until this thread myself , But it has put a lot from the past into perspective.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I'd be very interested in knowing what exactly was the catalyst(s) for making this a criminal offense.
I have a copy of the article that discussed this when it became legislation...somewhere lol
Let me try to recall: There was research done regarding viral marketting with regard to certain products. The research findings indicated that marketters intentionally misrepresented themselves for the purpose of gaining consumers' trust. Having gained this trust by deceptive means, they would then recommend a particular product or service. People felt duped by this and thought it should be illegal (akin to fraud), and the FTC agreed. This lead to legislative action ^_^. Go FTC, I love those people.
I'd love to read this article if you can find it. If you do find it would you mind sending it to me?
Here ya go brother
The Federal Trade Commission yesterday said that companies engaging in word-of-mouth marketing, in which people are compensated to promote products to their peers, must disclose those relationships.
In a staff opinion issued yesterday, the consumer protection agency weighed in for the first time on the practice. Though no accurate figures exist on how much money advertisers spend on such marketing, it is quickly becoming a preferred method for reaching consumers who are skeptical of other forms of advertising.
Word-of-mouth marketing can take any form of peer-to-peer communication, such as a post on a Web blog, a MySpace.com page for a movie character, or the comments of a stranger on a bus.
As the practice has taken hold over the past several years, however, some advocacy groups have questioned whether marketers are using such tactics to dupe consumers into believing they are getting unbiased information.
In October 2005, Commercial Alert, an advertising and marketing watchdog group in Portland, Ore., petitioned the FTC to consider taking action against word-of-mouth marketers. The group called for the FTC to issue guidelines requiring paid agents to disclose their relationship to the company whose product they are promoting, including any compensation.
The group cited a 2002 Wall Street Journal article on a marketing campaign by Sony Ericsson Mobile for its T68i mobile phone and digital camera. The initiative, called "Fake Tourist," involved placing 60 actors posing as tourists at attractions in New York and Seattle to demonstrate the camera phone. The actors asked passersby to take their photo, which demonstrated the camera phone's capabilities, but the actors did not identify themselves as representatives for Sony Ericsson.
Commercial Alert also singled out Tremor, a marketing division of Procter & Gamble, which has assembled a volunteer force of 250,000 teenagers to promote the company's products to friends and relatives.
Procter & Gamble spokesman Terry Loftus said participants in its word-of-mouth campaigns are free to talk negatively or positively about a product or service and do not receive compensation. Volunteers are not required to disclose their relationship with the company, he said. Some participants receive sample products, he said, so they can offer an opinion on a product.
Word-of-mouth advertising is already covered under existing FTC regulations that govern commercial endorsements. What the FTC sought to do yesterday in its staff opinion was to note that such marketing could be deceptive if consumers were more likely to trust the product's endorser "based on their assumed independence from the marketer."
"The petition to us did raise a question about compliance with the FTC act," said Mary K. Engle, FTC associate director for advertising practices. "We wanted to make clear . . . if you're being paid, you should disclose that."
The FTC said it would investigate cases where there is a relationship between the endorser of a product and the seller that is not disclosed and could affect the endorsement. The FTC staff said it would go after violators on a case-by-case basis. Consequences could include a cease-and-desist order, fines and civil penalties ranging from thousands of dollars to millions of dollars. Engle said the agency had not brought any cases against word-of-mouth marketers.
Though the staff's opinion fell short of Commercial Alert's original request, the group's executive director, Gary Ruskin, said he was pleased the staff agreed that word-of-mouth marketing could be deceptive.
"This letter tells marketers like Procter & Gamble that their 'sponsored consumers' must disclose that they are shilling, or they are probably in violation of the prohibition against deceptive advertising. That's big," he said. "It will change practices in the word-of-mouth marketing industry."
Andy Sernovitz, chief executive of the Word of Mouth Marketing Association, said the FTC's decision was an endorsement of the industry's efforts to police itself. The Chicago-based association, which has more than 300 members, last year issued a code of ethics stating that marketers should disclose ties to sponsors.
The group has also tried to hold members accountable. Sernovitz said the group is reviewing the membership status of the Edelman public relations firm after Wal-Mart, one of the firm's clients, reportedly gave positive comments to bloggers who then posted the comments without mentioning the source. Edelman later admitted that some of its employees had written the blogs.
Procter & Gamble, which is not a member of the association, recruits volunteer marketers online, Loftus said. The company chooses volunteers based on their answers to a survey on the Tremor Web site, which tells participants if they join the Tremor Crew they could "name the next big movie" or "help design a video game."
Peter Blackshaw, chief marketing officer for Nielsen BuzzMetrics, which tracks the effectiveness of word-of-mouth marketing, said brands have more than a moral incentive to be upfront with consumers. "There's a high turn-off factor if consumers learn that the person making a recommendation is actually on contract," with an incentive to push a product, he said.
A 2005 survey of 800 consumers by market research firm Intelliseek found that 29 percent of participants age 20 to 34 and 41 percent of those age 35 to 49 said they would be unlikely to trust a recommendation again from a friend whom they later learned was compensated for making the suggestion.
Omg is Sony in the list of culprits in this article too? LOL! I didn't notice that until just now. Incredible.
A very interesting read, thanks Arc!
Was there a date on that article?
They've also removed comments from the site. And the video from YouTube. The least they could do is leave it up there so others could learn from their mistakes.
Gamers across Web 2.0 are shaking angry fists at the latest alleged viral marketing campaign orchestrated by Sony. Piggybacking the YouTube bonanza, the company has hired "consumer activation" firm Zipatoni to create a false video-and-blogging approach to generate interest in their flagging PlayStation Portable handheld machine. The video/blog/ads featured people portending to be authentic PSP fans creating messages of love/want for the console, but were quickly uncovered by SomethingAwful.com's dedicated base as superficial facades shielding mouthpieces for the corporation.
In the past, Sony's award-winning PlayStation brand ads were celebrated for their creativity and innovation. Their recent campaigns, including an ill-advised series of graffiti art, suggests that they are having difficulty getting a handle on the bottom-up, community driven opportunities made possible with social software.
As I (and others more qualified than I) have commented before (under a different guise), big business must tread carefully if it wishes to employ "yoof" tactics to generate interest in its brands. Blogs and other social software rely upon the trust of the reader, which is why links, references and disclaimers feature on many (not all) posts. Transparency is key in the modern advertising-savvy marketplace. Bad fakes can be spotted a mile away, and good fakes often get found out with a fanfare of negativity. As an aside, I'm very curious how the YouTube-viewing public will respond to lonelygirl_15 when she makes her first above-the-board debut.
Unfortunately this latest attempt to integrate with the MySpace generation on their own terms marks another instance in Sony's recent PSP campaigns which consumers claim is undermining their trust. The most important currency online is trust. rhino86, a SomethingAwful commenter, sums it up succinctly:
Interactive advertising is so much more than throwing a few irritating pop us in front of content or putting placeholders in the latest software du jour. It needs to start from the community, perhaps - if needs must - sparked by a few good ideas.
Why can't they stick to bus stops covered in bubble wrap?"
So, it would seem that people working for Sony really have posed as consumers in attempts to sway other (actual) consumers to buy their stuff. It also seems that third party companies are contracted to do this. I've noticed on rare occasions the same name posting what might be described by some as viral marketting material both for SOE and Funcom games. At the time, I jokingly asked if these companies were outsourcing their marketting these days. Maybe this wasn't far from the truth 0_o.
This is, by the way, now a criminal offence thanks to the Federal Trade Commission.
YES
I'd be very interested in knowing what exactly was the catalyst(s) for making this a criminal offense.
I have a copy of the article that discussed this when it became legislation...somewhere lol
I'd love to read this article if you can find it. If you do find it would you mind sending it to me?
Here ya go brother
The Federal Trade Commission yesterday said that companies engaging in word-of-mouth marketing, in which people are compensated to promote products to their peers, must disclose those relationships.
In a staff opinion issued yesterday, the consumer protection agency weighed in for the first time on the practice. Though no accurate figures exist on how much money advertisers spend on such marketing, it is quickly becoming a preferred method for reaching consumers who are skeptical of other forms of advertising.
Word-of-mouth marketing can take any form of peer-to-peer communication, such as a post on a Web blog, a MySpace.com page for a movie character, or the comments of a stranger on a bus.
As the practice has taken hold over the past several years, however, some advocacy groups have questioned whether marketers are using such tactics to dupe consumers into believing they are getting unbiased information.
In October 2005, Commercial Alert, an advertising and marketing watchdog group in Portland, Ore., petitioned the FTC to consider taking action against word-of-mouth marketers. The group called for the FTC to issue guidelines requiring paid agents to disclose their relationship to the company whose product they are promoting, including any compensation.
The group cited a 2002 Wall Street Journal article on a marketing campaign by Sony Ericsson Mobile for its T68i mobile phone and digital camera. The initiative, called "Fake Tourist," involved placing 60 actors posing as tourists at attractions in New York and Seattle to demonstrate the camera phone. The actors asked passersby to take their photo, which demonstrated the camera phone's capabilities, but the actors did not identify themselves as representatives for Sony Ericsson.
Commercial Alert also singled out Tremor, a marketing division of Procter & Gamble, which has assembled a volunteer force of 250,000 teenagers to promote the company's products to friends and relatives.
Procter & Gamble spokesman Terry Loftus said participants in its word-of-mouth campaigns are free to talk negatively or positively about a product or service and do not receive compensation. Volunteers are not required to disclose their relationship with the company, he said. Some participants receive sample products, he said, so they can offer an opinion on a product.
Word-of-mouth advertising is already covered under existing FTC regulations that govern commercial endorsements. What the FTC sought to do yesterday in its staff opinion was to note that such marketing could be deceptive if consumers were more likely to trust the product's endorser "based on their assumed independence from the marketer."
"The petition to us did raise a question about compliance with the FTC act," said Mary K. Engle, FTC associate director for advertising practices. "We wanted to make clear . . . if you're being paid, you should disclose that."
The FTC said it would investigate cases where there is a relationship between the endorser of a product and the seller that is not disclosed and could affect the endorsement. The FTC staff said it would go after violators on a case-by-case basis. Consequences could include a cease-and-desist order, fines and civil penalties ranging from thousands of dollars to millions of dollars. Engle said the agency had not brought any cases against word-of-mouth marketers.
Though the staff's opinion fell short of Commercial Alert's original request, the group's executive director, Gary Ruskin, said he was pleased the staff agreed that word-of-mouth marketing could be deceptive.
"This letter tells marketers like Procter & Gamble that their 'sponsored consumers' must disclose that they are shilling, or they are probably in violation of the prohibition against deceptive advertising. That's big," he said. "It will change practices in the word-of-mouth marketing industry."
Andy Sernovitz, chief executive of the Word of Mouth Marketing Association, said the FTC's decision was an endorsement of the industry's efforts to police itself. The Chicago-based association, which has more than 300 members, last year issued a code of ethics stating that marketers should disclose ties to sponsors.
The group has also tried to hold members accountable. Sernovitz said the group is reviewing the membership status of the Edelman public relations firm after Wal-Mart, one of the firm's clients, reportedly gave positive comments to bloggers who then posted the comments without mentioning the source. Edelman later admitted that some of its employees had written the blogs.
Procter & Gamble, which is not a member of the association, recruits volunteer marketers online, Loftus said. The company chooses volunteers based on their answers to a survey on the Tremor Web site, which tells participants if they join the Tremor Crew they could "name the next big movie" or "help design a video game."
Peter Blackshaw, chief marketing officer for Nielsen BuzzMetrics, which tracks the effectiveness of word-of-mouth marketing, said brands have more than a moral incentive to be upfront with consumers. "There's a high turn-off factor if consumers learn that the person making a recommendation is actually on contract," with an incentive to push a product, he said.
A 2005 survey of 800 consumers by market research firm Intelliseek found that 29 percent of participants age 20 to 34 and 41 percent of those age 35 to 49 said they would be unlikely to trust a recommendation again from a friend whom they later learned was compensated for making the suggestion.
Omg is Sony in the list of culprits in this article too? LOL! I didn't notice that until just now. Incredible.
Yup, that's why i said above that I thought SONY was one of the reasons they made it illegal
been awhile since I read the article but I still got the ol' memory.
fishermage.blogspot.com
We are discussing whether SOE uses paid viral marketers; NOT grassroots word-of-mouth. That's always a problem when words have multiple meanings. When such is the case, one must carefully check out the context and usage.
Or, better yet, the original poster can be specific and make clear what he or she is talking about. Especially with the way the term "viral marketer" is thrown about around here.
No need. When the word "viral marketer" is thrown about around here, people always use it to mean paid viral marketer...otherwise there is no need to throw it about.
there would be no reason for anyone to start a thread that effectively meant: do people talk about what they like? which is what it would mean if someone was meaning the other meaning of viral marketer.
It is not up to every poster to qualify and define every term he or she uses. Ome has reason to expect a minimum of effort on the part of the reader to discern meaning from usage and not play semantic games with the words used.
TRANSLATION: It's not up to the OP to be specific about what they mean, as long as it slams SOE and SWG.
Typical.
Nope.
Translation: It is up to people to have facility with the language being used, and how humans generally communicate with one another on earth to comprehend what they are reading.
Who or what one "slams" is irrelevant.
Waitaminnit. Going back a bit ...
Did you actually say "It is not up to every poster to qualify and define every term he or she uses. Ome has reason to expect a minimum of effort on the part of the reader to discern meaning from usage and not play semantic games with the words used." This is coming from YOU, the king of playing semantic games!
Holy shit. The world has officially flipped on its axis.
I never play semantic games, although I do sometimes seek qualification and clarification when I am not sure what someone means. I do so in the interest of communication and truth, not for the sake of any games.
Thank you for pronouncing me King of something, however.
You ALWAYS play semantic games. It's your M.O.
Prove it.
I could just post a link to your profile on the o-boards. Come on Fish, seriously.
In other words, you can't. Thank you for your time.
There's not enough internet for me to repost every single example of you playing semantics games, or egging people on and then giving the "who, me?" routine when they get pissed.
But enough. You're not worth getting moderated over.
In other words, you either don't know what a semantics game is, or you could not find one.
The fact is, I feel semantics and linguistic clarity are far too important to play games. I have too much respect for the truth and the language to do that.
I still wonder what person is hiding behind this name and why you have such a personal vendetta against me. You obviously "know" me, yet are hiding who you are for whatever reason.
fishermage.blogspot.com
A very interesting read, thanks Arc!
Was there a date on that article?
Tuesday, December 12, 2006; Page D01