WOMMA Home / WOMMA's The Word Home / Links / WOM Ethics
As part of an organization's basic arsenal of WOMM tactics, WOMMA has often promoted the use of Tell-A-Friend links on websites, blogs, newsletters, etc. It's an easy way to remind people to pass the information they like along to friends who might also find it valuable. On Monday, the FTC approved a new rule under the CAN-SPAM Act that affects what the FTC terms "forward-to-a-'friend'" messages. It is WOMMA's preliminary understanding that the rule only creates higher compliance burdens for people who incentivize their TAF features and pay people for the messages they forward. Simply forwarding a message using a TAF form constitutes "routine conveyance" and isn't being either questioned or ruled upon.
WOMMA members: If you have any questions or special interest, send an email to editor@womma.org and we'll reply to you personally with any additional updates.
Facebook has been working to come up with a strategy that would protect its younger users, while still allowing adult Facebookers the ability to use and navigate the social site without any impediments. The company has reached an agreement with 49 state attorneys to implement a broad strategy for safety which includes: requiring users under 18 to confirm they have read the site's safety tips and a large "report abuse" icon prominently display on the site. The site is currently working on ways to verify the age of its users -- which is one of the big challenges currently tripping it up.
A blog-based anti-counterfeit campaign created by a PR class at Hunter College in New York used a fake blog and a fictional student to spread its message. The blog was seeded via "missing" posters, which led students to a blog supposedly created by a fellow student who had lost her Coach bag. According to the fictitious story line, the bag had been a gift from her boyfriend -- now stationed in Iraq. The campaign, which is sponsored by a grant from Coach, is catching a lot of heat for its lack of disclosure and transparency -- offenses which fly in the face of ethical marketing.
To brush up on your word of mouth marketing ethics, visit:
http://www.womma.org/ethics/
On his blog, Web Strategy by Jeremiah, Jeremiah Owyang discusses the wealth of information available about social media users via the sites they populate -- especially teens, the majority of whom are active social media users. According to the post, these sites house everything from demographic data to information and likes, dislikes, and tastes, their technology uses and preferences, and their social networks. At the same time that this creates an enticing wealth of data, it also raises questions about privacy and what parents and teens should do to keep their private information private.
This article from The Christian Science Monitor makes a good case -- and serves as a timely reminder -- for why each and every company's WOM efforts should be ethical. Unethical word of mouth marketing taints the industry for everyone involved. The article focuses on astroturfing and highlights a couple of WOM ethics missteps.
For a WOM ethics refresher, visit WOMMA's ethics toolkit page at http://www.womma.org/ethics/.
In a ruling that has implications for all companies that publish consumer-generated content, a federal appeals court found Craigslist not responsible for discriminatory ads that were placed by users of the online classifieds site, and stated that the federal Communications Decency Act doesn't allow people to "sue the messenger just because the message reveals a third party's plan to engage in unlawful discrimination."
A Colorado company sued social complaint site, Ripoff Report, after some consumers labeled posts about the company with tags that read, "con artists" and "corrupt companies." The defamation lawsuit brought against Ripoff Report was dismissed, and the court ruled that the federal Communications Decency Act protects site operators from liability for user comments -- even if the company creates the specific tags commenters can choose to label their posts.
Sandwich rivals Subway and Quiznos are butting heads over a CGM video contest that Quiznos held in which customers were asked to depict how Quiznos is "superior" to Subway. Subway claims that some of the videos were slanderous, which begs the question: Should companies be legally responsible for the content their CGM contestants produce?
Folks aligned with Target Corp.'s "Target Rounders" evangelist group were discouraged from disclosing their affiliation with the company to people they spoke with, turning a potentially positive word of mouth effort into an example of bad WOM ethics.
There has been a bit of a backlash from some of Facebook's users, who were unhappy to find out that their online purchases were generating notifications to their friends. Facebook claims to have fixed the problem and made opting out easier, but some are still steamed.
Earlier this year, Whole Foods CEO John Mackey didn't disclose his identity or connection to the company when posting about Whole Foods on a message board. In response, the company was accused of botching their ethics, and has responded by banning its executives from posting on third party sites altogether. On his blog today, former WOMMA CEO Andy Sernovitz questions this action, and suggests training employees on how to do it right instead.
If you need another reason to keep your word of mouth marketing ethical, here it is: 57% of influencers are less likely to buy a product if they suspect the company selling it has faked or paid for a positive review, according to a recent study from WOMMA member company Burson-Marsteller.
The WOMMA Word
