Marketing and the freedom of choice

The article from the Kellogg School of Management about marketing ethics could not have been timelier. Just last week in my media relations class, we watched a video about Rick Berman, a Washington, D.C.-based lobbyist whose practices and client roster may seem, well, unethical.

According to the CBS News article, Berman is “against Mothers Against Drunk Driving, animal rights activists, food watchdog groups and unions of every kind.” He also “blasts MADD for no longer being run by mothers, and PETA, who he accused of killing animals in its care. And he questions the danger of mercury in tuna.”

The causes that Berman promotes brings us to the questions that Philip Kotler, author of the marketing ethics article, asks about marketers and their duties in serving the public interest. What happens when a customer wants something that is not good for him/her or something that is bad for other groups in society? Do marketers have a responsibility to not promote a product that is potentially harmful?

If the answer to both of Kotler’s questions is “yes”, then you could argue that Berman is one of the most unethical marketers around. But here’s the thing: Berman isn’t fabricating information. He’s presenting facts. They might not be the facts that the food watchdog groups or the animal rights activists want to hear, but who is to say that only products considered to be “good” by society deserve marketing strategies?

America is a democratic society and, for the most part, we are allowed to do as we please. The same goes for our lifestyle choices: ultimately, the consumer will decide whether or not he or she thinks eating tuna fish is safe. My point is that marketers can present both sides of an argument but, when all is said and done, it is the consumer who weighs the information and makes the choice to purchase or not purchase a product.

Although both sides should be able to tell their story, companies who sell potentially harmful products do have some social responsibility to, as Kotler put it, reduce the side effects of their products. And most corporations do. Beer manufacturers provide warnings about drinking responsibly. Fast food restaurants offer healthier alternatives to the cheeseburger and fries combo, and some (like Wendy’s) even post the nutritional information for each product on the wall next to the counter.

I think “marketing ethics” are more about being honest and transparent than only promoting products that are in the public interest. Every company has a right to present information about their product as long as the information is truthful and accurate. No corporation or marketer is forcing a consumer to buy their product. Good marketing is certainly important but, in the end, it’s really all about consumer choice.

Talk is cheap (but can be very valuable)

I was pretty excited to see Robert Scoble and Shel Israel’s Naked Conversations on the reading list for this class.  I read the book several semesters ago for another course at Johns Hopkins and, even the second time around, I think Scoble and Israel have some great (and very honest) advice for corporations that are considering stepping into the blogosphere.

I’ve found that many people – including authors who write books on subjects similar to that of Naked Conversations – tend to imply that blogging is right for everyone and is a one-size-fits-all approach to building and keeping a customer base.  Jackie Huba, author of Citizen Marketers: Where People are the Message, said “I see no reason for any company not to blog – unless they’re sleazy.  Every company needs a feedback system.”   

And while Huba is correct about corporations needing feedback from their customers, is a blog always the best medium to use to obtain that feedback?  I don’t think blogging is right for every company.  But if a corporation is going to start a blog, it’s critical that their bloggers engrain Scoble and Israel’s five success tips in their heads:

• Talk, don’t sell.  “If you talk to them, they get to know you.  If you sell to them, they’ll just leave—if you’re lucky.” 

• Post often and be interesting.  “…being interesting is what motivates others to link to you.”

• Write on issues you know and care about.  “A good blog is passionate and shows authority.” 

• Blogging saves money but costs time.  “Being a good blogger takes time.”

• You get smarter by listening to what people tell you.  “As Dan Gillmor emphasized in We the Media, ‘My readers are collectively smarter than me.’” 

These five bullet points sum up the qualities that make a good corporate blogger.  Robert Scoble was a great candidate to blog for Microsoft; he was passionate and honest about what he wrote and he talked to his audience as he would a friend instead of being a marketing mouthpiece for Microsoft.  But does every company have someone who is willing to invest their time in blogging?  Can that blogger be conversational instead of sounding mechanical when they blog?  Is that company’s blogger truly going to listen to what others are saying, not just the week the blog launches but six months or a year from now? 

Like Scoble and Israel said, blogging definitely is cheap in terms of monetary cost, but it’s a big time commitment.  The positive value in having a corporate blog can be huge.  On the flip side, though, poorly executed blogs can sometimes damage a company’s reputation. 

There are a number of great corporate blogs that exist, some which are mentioned in Scoble and Israel’s book such as the GM FastLane Blog and Jonathan’s Blog, written by the CEO of Sun Microsystems.  But speaking of poorly executed blogs, have you ever visited Google’s blog?  Why don’t users have the option to leave a comment?  Where are the author’s bios?  And maybe it’s just me but this post – while it’s a bit conversational – seems like a press release in disguise.  Of course, this blog certainly hasn’t hurt Google’s bottom line or the company’s popularity, but it’s disappointing that a corporation that’s so innovative and creative has a blog that’s just the opposite.

The bottom line is that if a company is thinking of creating a blog, they need to have someone blogging who is passionate, conversational, a good listener, and is willing to invest their time.  Every corporation can potentially have a blog…they’d just better have the right blogger.

Why citizen marketing (and social media) works

Marketing and public relations are no longer just about blasting out a press release or buying advertising space. In the Web 2.0 world, citizen marketers – a term used by Ben McConnell and Jackie Huba in their book “Citizen Marketers: Where the People are the Message” – are playing an increasing role in shaping how brands are portrayed by the public. Steve makes a great point in his blog post: corporations are not in control of the message anymore, and are being held accountable for their actions by their various publics, often through these citizen marketers.

McConnell and Huba mentioned four types of citizen marketers in the first chapter of the book:

1. Filters: the “human wire services” who collect blog posts, podcasts, and other types of media
2. Fanatics: those who love to analyze brands, organizations, and the like
3. Facilitators: creators of Web-based communities
4. Firecrackers: the “one-hit wonders of citizen marketers” who create videos, songs, or other media that quickly generate interest

The most important aspect of citizen marketing, in my mind – and the thing that all four types of citizen marketers have in common – is the fact that what they say and do is both authentic and transparent. This is why citizen marketing is credible and influential. Like McConnell and Huba said, “The world of citizen content creators is largely governed by a universal law of authenticity . . . Faking authenticity is a difficult art.” Those citizen marketers whose actions aren’t genuine will, through the wisdom of the crowds, be exposed.

That’s the great thing about citizen marketing (and social media, for that matter): if something is incorrect or not authentic, the public will make it known. Robert Scoble touts this fact on his blog when he talks about social media:

“A newspaper can’t magically change its stories, even if society decides something in them is incorrect. My blog can be updated for all readers nearly instantly if someone demonstrates that I was wrong on a post.”

Of course, there will always be some who doubt the credibility of citizen marketing. Douglas Adams wrote that people can’t trust what they find on the Internet “any more than you can trust what people tell you on megaphones, postcards, or in restaurants.” Although the concept of Web 2.0 is still evolving, the fact that new media is changeable and is also shaped by the collective knowledge of the crowds increases the credibility of those publishing and interacting via the Web.

The authenticity of citizen marketing efforts, though, is hurt by things like Jason Calacanis’s experiment to pay the top 12 social bookmarkers for contributing to sites like Digg, Reddit, and Newsvine. Like McConnell and Huba wrote, “the 1 percenters contribute” to social networking sites because they enjoy it. When someone is under pressure to contribute or post a comment, it becomes work. One of Digg’s contributors said it best in the e-mail he wrote to decline Calacanis’s offer:

“I don’t need to be paid [for] what I do now. I will commit my time to Digg whenever possible, that’s how much I enjoy Digg. It’s not about the money, it’s what you enjoy, and this is what I like.”

Again, the whole reason citizen marketing works is because it’s organic and genuine and generated by someone just like you and me. And for citizen marketing to remain credible, we have to ensure it stays that way.

Digital Musing…let the fun begin

Welcome to Digital Musing, home to all my random thoughts on the Web 2.0 world. This blog was created for a class called Public Relations in the Age of Digital Influence at the Johns Hopkins University. The course is taught by John Bell of Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide.

Let the blogging begin…and happy reading.