The "runners up the hill" in this cartoon don't need to disclose the motives of their obvious marketing efforts to consumers when advertising on Google, unless, of course, the runners are really resellers using a trademarked logo that misleads consumers
into PPC clickthroughs. But, in my opinion, unethical stealth (or "undercover marketers") do!
On 10/18/05, Gary Ruskin of Ralph Nader's Commercial Alert sent a letter to the FTC that was written up in USA Today. That newspaper article said: "P&G's 4-year-old Tremor division has a panel of 250,000 teens ages 13 to 19 who are asked to talk with friends about new products or concepts P&G sends them. About 75% of members are female." It goes on to say: "Panelists are not paid cash, he (the CEO of Tremor) says, but get product samples or other materials." Compensation, in my opinion, can be free samples and even supposedly "cool inside information".
The Adland blog has a post on that FTC letter with the first comment coming from a self-described Tremor member. She says: "Ok, as a member of Tremor, I say "DUH!! Do they think we are stupid enough not to think that somebody is paying these people?" The fact is that these companies want our feedback so they can turn around and sell the product to us better. I personally like giving my feedback, and I like getting free samples of stuff in the mail, although so far I haven't actually bought anything from one of the Tremor programs (mostly because they seem to be stuck on Vanilla Coke and deodorant promotions). So, does she think that Tremor doesn't care if she promotes these products to friends & family, or not? Does she also think that Tremor only wants to sell the Tremor members, and nobody else?
In that Commercial Alert post on the USA Today Article, comment #13 (Christine) says: "At least I understand now why my 13 yr old son came home from school asking for some noxious smelly deodorant product that 'all' the kids are using. He doesn't even have body odor yet and he already thinks he needs to use this product." I don't think that the teenagers promoting that deodorant at the school disclosed anything, or even cared about the appropriateness of their recommendations. (5/3/06 Postscript: I posted comment #21 there, and Kate Kaye posted an interesting comment at #26)
Therefore, when the CEO of Tremor says in that USA Today article that "We're an incredibly ethical company.", and later the article says that "Tremor doesn't tell members to say they are part of Tremor, he says, 'because you never tell a (panelist) what to say'.", I agree with Gary Ruskin that "that's bogus". I also agree that "the FTC should "issue subpoenas" to P&G executives at Tremor — and other buzz marketers — to determine whether their endorsers are disclosing that they are paid marketers." What's your opinion on this?
Cartoon courtesy of Google Blogoscoped.
Comments