Tag Archives: Federal Trade Commission

Turf Burns

I read an article about a fine imposed by the FTC on an ad agency. Apparently what the agency did was to ask employees to promote Sony‘s PlayStation Vita on Twitter as if they were “regular” consumers. Agency employees then used their personal Twitter accounts to make positive posts about the gaming device. Obviously there was no disclaimer in each tweet that the person posting was an agency employee or had a financial relationship with the product.

Seal of the United States Federal Trade Commis...

 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This sort of thing is known as “astroturfing.”  It goes on in politics all the time and is “the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g. political, advertising, religious or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by grassroots participant(s).”  Fake reviews are a form of this when they’re written by marketing or PR people on behalf of a company.

I’m not sure what genius thought that this could in any way be considered smart marketing but it’s an expensive lesson.  Especially when you put it in this context:

Almost 8 in 10 American adults read online consumer reviews for product and services before making a purchase, with this figure relatively constant across generations, according to a survey from YouGov. The study analyzes the use of online reviews from a variety of angles, finding that a bare majority (51%) of those who read consumer reviews generally read at least 4 before feeling that they have enough information to purchase a product or service…the YouGov survey also finds that among the 44% who post online reviews themselves, 49% (including 58% of 18-34-year-olds) admit to having at some point written reviews for products and services they haven’t actually purchased or tried.

So reviews are important to consumers yet consumers themselves sabotage the reviews’ value.  Add that to the astroturfing that goes on and you might say “oh, everyone does it.”  As the expression goes, it’s all fun and games until someone loses an eye.  Get caught, as happened in this case, and you pay financially (the cost to defend a complaint even if there isn’t a fine) and with your reputation (it doesn’t matter if “everyone” does it – you got caught).

There is very little upside to posting fake reviews and a lot of downside.  That spells bad idea in my book.  Yours?

Leave a comment

Filed under Consulting, digital media, Helpful Hints, Huh?

A Peek Over The Native Horizon

Sometimes you can get a glimpse of what’s coming over the horizon and I think I got one of those this morning.  I was catching up on some reading and came across a letter that the FTC sent out.  It was directed to search engines but I think it’s a harbinger of things to come as the digital ad business gets more deeply into content marketing and so-called “native” advertising.  You can read the letter here but in summary it says that ads in search results must be clearly identified as such:

Advertising

Advertising (Photo credit: Wrote)

Search engines provide invaluable benefits to consumers. By using search engines, consumers can find relevant and useful information, typically at no charge. At the same time, consumers should be able to easily distinguish natural search results from advertising that search engines deliver. Accordingly, we encourage you to review your websites or other methods of displaying search results, including your use of specialized search, and make any necessary adjustments to ensure you clearly and prominently disclose any advertising. In addition, as your business may change in response to consumers’ search demands, the disclosure techniques you use for advertising should keep pace with innovations in how and where you deliver information to consumers.

That’s why you see the yellow background, for example, on Google search results along with it saying “ads related to (whatever the search term is)”.  The point is for consumers to be able to distinguish results that someone paid to make prominent vs those that would otherwise rise to the top.  Makes sense.  The tail end of the letter begins to talk about this same principle as it manifests itself in social and mobile (and voice search as well!).   Which got me thinking.

Content marketing done well is a beautiful thing.  Hopefully you all consider this blog a good example of someone putting our content that’s informative and engaging.  My hope is that this will lead you to email or call me about working with you, so I think in part that makes this an ad.  If I ever write anything that I’m paid to put in here, I’ll disclose it (although I probably won’t do that in the first place).  That’s content marketing – using content to sell.

Native ads are a bit more insidious.  It’s about the creation of content that’s supposed to be useful and interactive like content marketing.  Someone defined it as any type of advertising where the placement appeared to be appropriate except it’s much harder to identify as an ad.  When an article is about cats and is really an ad for a retailer, that’s a problem.

I think it won’t be long before rules are put in place to crack down on this.  How will the FTC stop fake reviews, articles such as the one above, and other forms that don’t disclose they’re really ads (which might call into question the validity of what’s in the article)?  I’m not sure but I know it won’t be as thoughtful as if marketers figure it out for themselves.

What do you think?

Enhanced by Zemanta

3 Comments

Filed under Consulting

Full Disclosure

Seal of the United States Federal Trade Commis...

I’m not sure if this goes into the “well DUH” file or if it’s actually a good reminder. You’ll have to tell me. I’m talking about the FTC‘s publication of some new guides for bloggers with respect to disclosing relationships they may have with those companies or products they review. In a nutshell, bloggers are advised (they’re not actually rules or pay a fine) to say if they’re being given free product or paid somehow for their review by the reviewed entity. Those same standards don’t apply to “traditional” media such as newspapers. There is a good explanation of the arguments here and of course the blogosphere is buzzing but to me it’s a whole lot of “so what.” Continue reading

1 Comment

Filed under digital media, Huh?, Reality checks, Thinking Aloud, What's Going On