Church of the Customer Blog
« Word of mouth and ethics | Main | Top selling business books of 2004 »
February 09, 2005
Word of mouth and ethics
The Word of Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA) today published the first draft of its ethics guidelines for members.
From the organization's website:
This is a first step in the complicated process of building an industry based on consumer respect and fundamental ethical principles.
The essence of the WOMMA CODE comes down to the Honesty ROI:
- Honesty of Relationship: You say who you're speaking for
- Honesty of Opinion: You say what you believe
- Honesty of Identity: You never obscure your identity
Relevant links:
- Ethics code
- Fundamental principles
- Frequently asked questions about the code
- Word of mouth definitions
Andy Sernovitz, WOMMA's president, says the code is the first stake in the ground for word-of-mouth marketers to follow. Feedback on the code can be found here.
[Disclosure statement: Ben and I are members of WOMMA. We reviewed early drafts and provided a number of comments during its formation.)
You may also be interested in checking out the code of conduct for a similar organization, the Viral & Buzz Marketing Association. [We're members of this non-profit group, too.]
Other blogs that reference Word of mouth and ethics:
» In full disclosure from E-Bitz - SBS MVP the Official Blog of the SBS
[Read More]
» WOMMA Ethics from CCUCEO
Andy Sernovitz is taking the charge as CEO over at WOMMA, Word-Of-Mouth-Marketing-Association. He's building a strong foundation by first articulating a CODE of ETHICS. I've read through this code. I agree. It's clear, to the point, simple and concise.... [Read More]
» Marketing Ethics from VA Journal
From the Church of the Customer:The Word of Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA) today published the first draft of its ethics guidelines for members. [Read More]
Hi Jackie and Ben
As you are no doubt aware I and others have had issue with the process of WOMMA’s Code of practice because it was far from inclusive. My take for what it’s worth is that Ethics is too big an issue for an association with such small number and local reach to be attempting to set the agenda. Instead I’ve suggested that a broader platform be set up so that all relevant stake holders can participate as equal partners by setting the agenda of the debate together rather than having to work within the parameters set by another group.
You’ll be interested to hear that the inspiration for this proposal was the 5th idea in your six ideas to BzzAgents,
5. Give up control. Go open source.
Turn over ownership of concepts, strategies and execution to the community. That's been the principle of success for eBay, where the community is responsible for the success of the concept. An open source culture will create community-minded watchdogs who, based on the intrinsic human nature for survival, will spot and eradicate free-radical cells, if you will, who threaten the success and future of the community.
Seeing that you are a member of both associations it’s deeply disappointing that you have not done more to support your fellow practitioners in ensuring that there is a more collaborative discussion of ethics in our industry particularly given what you preach above.
I also want to remind you of another Idea you offered BzzAgents:
3. Drop the Bzz guides.
As the Times article describes, the "Bzz guide" agents receive have talking points and suggestions for specific tactics. While feature guides are certainly helpful for anyone, "talking points" is top-down message control. Tactic suggestion is a close second. True word of mouth has nothing to do with top-down command. Make BzzAgents responsible for brainstorming tactics and sharing them with others.
The reason for mentioning this is that BzzAgents CEO Dave Balter is the Co-Chair of the WOMMA Ethics Committee that is responsible for the Code of Conduct you are promoting and I notice that the fourth of their 5 Fundamental Principles states the following:
2. Honest, genuine opinion is our medium.
We don't tell people what to say or how to say it. We fundamentally believe that people should be free to form their own opinions and share them in their own words. While supporting the natural conversation, we take great care to ensure that we do not distort it.
Now I have no idea whether Dave Balter has taken on your advice or whether BzzAgent actually issue their Agents with Bzz Guides, but don’t you think that any code of ethics would be more credible if one member of an association wasn’t having to tell the co-chair of the committee behind it’s Code of Conduct the above and the following:
2. Get medieval about trickery.
The most disturbing aspect of Bzzagentry described in the Times article: trickery. Agents call up bookstores and pretend not to know the name of the book or the author they're "buzzing," but still ask if it's in stock. Or they disguise their affiliation or motivations. BzzAgent should establish crystal clear and uncompromising principles against any deceptive practices. Tolerating deception will only position you for continued criticism. It will put you on the radar of people like Eliot Spitzer and only invite the FTC's attention.
Anyway, food for thought and as ever I look forward to hearing your response.
Best
Justin Kirby
Co-founder the VBMA
PS – I really much prefer to be having this conversation in an open forum developed by all relevant stakeholders rather than feeling I have no choice but to engage in the debate in your blog’s comments.
Yo Justin, what's the name of your blog? I'd like to add it to my blog log.
Blog away cuz you gots lots to say.
Justin,
We joined WOMMA and VBMA to help, as best our brains and time allow, to further word-of-mouth marketing as a strategic business practice.
We would love to see both groups work together on creating a unified front on the things that matter the most. That will probably take time, but it doesn't seem impossible. We're not equipped to mediate differences between the two groups, nor do we think it's our role. That seems like something for the leaders of the two groups to iron out.
That said, we hope the strong passion demonstrated thus far in the debates is directed more toward the companies blatantly and egregiously ruining word-of-mouth marketing for marketers around the world. An endless series of fine-toothed (and shrill) debates disparaging the differences between WOMMA and VBMA, and their members' companies, is counter-productive.
Plus, it's not very interesting.
Well, Jackie and Ben if you think sitting on the fence is a defensible position then so be it. However, it was you who started talking about “Give up control. Go open source”, I was simply hoping that you would practice what you preach.
To be honest I don’t buy the argument that there’s some pandemic of “companies blatantly and egregiously ruining word-of-mouth marketing for marketers around the world”. I think that’s Reds Under The Beds type hysteria. I’m not saying that there aren’t people using deceptive practices but that cuts across all marketing techniques and if your argument is going to be credible then I think the least you should do offer more than offer anecdotal evidence.
To be honest I’ve hadn’t been given a lot of choice with regard to where I discuss these issues, not least because you two haven’t actually been all that supportive, and therefore take great offence at the insinuation about shilling because I’ve been absolutely transparent with my criticism.
As for the counter productivity, we’ll I’m not the one going out into the market using the language of the clergy and the self help book to promote Word of Mouth Marketing … now that’s counter productive from where I’m standing.
Anyway, love comment about whether the discussion is interesting or not, nothing like a little bit of curt deflection, but at least you are clear about where you stand, even though I might be disappointed given your “Give up control. Go open source” recommendations.
