Call me naive but I’m staggered by some practices agencies and brands are still applying to get Social Media coverage or links.
A couple of people who’d interned for agencies mentioned to me that they were mainly paid to write fake reviews or post fake comments on behalf of brands. I was asked if I thought that was bad practice. Others in the industry have mistakenly asked me if I thought it was OK to pay bloggers to write reviews.
This isn’t an ethics question, there are real laws with serious penalties which have been in place for years. Get your Social Media legit.
What is astroturfing?
AstroTurf® is a brand of artificial grass. The name was adopted in relation to businesses trying to get ‘grassroots’ support from non genuine comments or recommendations.
Who says you can’t astroturf and what’s the penalty?
Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 states “falsely representing oneself as a consumer” (in the context of promoting a product to consumers) is deemed to be an unfair commercial practice.
Astroturfing effectively amounts to a criminal offence, the maximum penalty of which is 2 years imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine. The Regulations are policed by the Office of Fair Trading and Trading Standards.
If you are the victim of or discover what you believe is astroturfing your first option is to report them to the Office of Fair Trading.
Does paying Bloggers, Tweeters, and forum administrators count?
A precedent was set when the OFT investigated Handpicked Media in 2010. Following their investigation into ‘inadequate disclosures in respect of commercial blogging activity’ the OFT clarified that online promotional activity, just like any other promotional activity, must clearly identify when promotions and editorial comment have been paid for, so that consumers are not misled. This includes comments about services and products on website blogs and microblogs such as Twitter.
What commercial activity can you undertake?
Anything that clearly identifies the commercial relationship e.g. a disclaimer within a blog or forum comment ”I currently work at X Company and am proud of our track record in ….” or content clearly signposted as advertorial, commercial sponsorship, promotions or other should keep both the payee and publisher compliant.
What about the Bribery Act 2010?
The UK Bribery Act came into force July 2010. Many observers predicted it would reshape the future of PR. Why? Because bribery is defined as encouraging a person to perform their functions or activities improperly or to reward that person for having already done so.
Sounds like a press jolly or giving bloggers a laptop, right?
Possibly. Sources have said that the Act covers excessive corporate hospitality [N.B. I'm struggling to find detail on this].
The US media & PR industry has long operated within more stringent guidelines along the PR/Writer relationship. But then again, with the majority of bloggers saying they are non-commercial, are bloggers even covered by something like this as they don’t constitute a business or organisation? [I really don't know, please weigh in here]
Conclusion
There are a lot of things that we think are still ethical debates which need to stop now. But aside from that isn’t reputation more important than anything else? Losing customers or respect may cost more than any court could impose. An investigation alone would be a nightmare to manage.
I think there’s a simple rule of thumb you can follow if uncertain. If all your online strategy consists of is paying people to upload comments from mulitple fake profiles and IP addressses then your brand has bigger problems than their marketing.
[Image: ]
Recommended Reading:
- Astroturf Wars by Timothy Pinto from Taylor Wessing
- Q&A: UK Bribery Act from the BBC
Want to learn more about Social Media management or managing a community of your own? Please join the group on LinkedIn.
Tempero on Google+
Nice one Darika. Re US legislation – The revised FTC Guides (2009) also add new examples to illustrate the long standing principle that “material connections” (sometimes payments or free products) between advertisers and endorsers – connections that consumers would not expect – must be disclosed. These examples address what constitutes an endorsement when the message is conveyed by bloggers or other “word-of-mouth” marketers. The revised Guides specify that while decisions will be reached on a case-by-case basis, the post of a blogger who receives cash or in-kind payment to review a product is considered an endorsement. Thus, bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service. Likewise, if a company refers in an advertisement to the findings of a research organization that conducted research sponsored by the company, the advertisement must disclose the connection between the advertiser and the research organization. And a paid endorsement – like any other advertisement – is deceptive if it makes false or misleading claims.
The practice of endorsing brands on micro-blogging service Twitter is common in the US, where celebrities including rapper Snoop Dogg, actress Lindsey Lohan and Kim Kardashian earn thousands of dollars for posting tweets featuring endorsements. However, now the US Federal Trade Commission insists such tweets include the wards ‘ad’ or ‘spon’ to indicate the endorsement has been paid for, even if only in exchange for product.
Does that detail help? You could also add something to your piece about the UK ASA CAP codes being applied to UK UGC now too?