If you "click to open" this image
of two dogs, you will see a "dog eat dog" animation. The big grey dog represents the seller-advertisers with their traditional "corporate speak", paid media, and the smaller red dog represents the buyer-consumer-users with their new found "open mouth" power of CGM based on the principles of WOMMA.
Hopefully, CGM is the answer to Gary Ruskin's (of Commercial Alert) question: "If the Consumer is Really King, Why Do Marketers Keep Bombarding Him?." But, I have seen others in business that believe in "The end justifies the means", and "All is fair in love, war, and business". Both, of which, are false in my opinion. However, when "Fear of Loss" kicks in, that is when improper rationalization can happen to some sellers and even buyers. The facts in this post (via The Blog Herald) on the Blog Relations Blog entitled "PR Blog Relations Survey, the threat posed by blogs" could instill a "Fear of Loss" in the hearts of a few unethical sellers, rather than them looking at "The Opportunity".
My title "NO 'Corporate Speak' Generated Media, Please" means that I am cynical enough to believe that there will be those sellers who may not engage in "disinformation" about competitors through blogs, but do hire workers, their families and friends to blog positively about the company's products and services. They will do this to counter negative blogging or engage in self-promotion. Of course their will be "confidentiality clauses" in the terms of the blogger independent contractor contracts with penalties for breaking that confidentiality. But, I hope they realize that anything they put in writing could come back to haunt them in a big way later. Plus, these "corporate speak" bloggers could turn on their temporary benefactors for any number of reasons.
Matt Galloway shows us a "WOM Boundary" drawing in his "WOMM (Word Of Mouth Marketing) ain't WOM" post of 9/6/05. He says: "If a message crosses The WOM Boundary then it is not WOM. In other words, any message that travels from company to consumer is marketing." and therefore NOT consumer generated! However, boundaries on paper drawings are not enforceable, as I'm sure Matt knows, and in a tough economy, or due to greed, there may be those that improperly justify unethical behavior.
In the world of online search marketing, a good example of improperly justifying unethical behavior is the "Traffic Power" situation. In a recent post entitled "Traffic Power Law Suit, Blogging, and the SMA-NA" by Ian McAnerin (Founder of the SMA-NA), he says: "Powers (a Traffic Power business developer) said Google's bylaws are in a constant state of flux because companies like Traffic Power figure out ways to beat them at their own game. Besides, he said Google can't dictate how he operates:
'Google can kiss my ass,' Powers said. 'This is the wild wild west. As they [Google] get hip to a trick, they change their rule. Google cannot control my business.' " I'm optimistic that CGM will positively influence (not "dictate" or "control") ethical behavior in all sellers that need it. How optimistic are you about CGM?
5/3/06 Postscript: "Traffic-Power Case Against SEO Book Dismissed"
Image courtesy of www.artie.com.
Comments