Grassroots Best Practice or Astroturf Bad Practice? You Decide
When it comes to grassroots (or astroturf *) campaigns, some see grey where others see black and white. There are certainly good grassroots campaigns and there are bad efforts, posing as grassroots, which are actually called astroturfing. What do you think of this example?
I watch several newsgroups where discussions cover public relations, marketing and other professional practices. They are actually quite good as they allow you to see how practitioners view current issues and deal with their consequences.
Recently, in one group, the discussion of online marketing and grassroots campaigns versus astroturfing campaigns came up in the discussions.
I’ve extracted some excerpts from the discussion while removing references to people and companies. The poster to the newsgroup wrote:
Allow me to highlight a “real” astro-turf campaign; this for a (product’s) website, (name redacted). To get the word out, I hired a group of students at (a university) – to spread the word on Usenet groups and listservs and bulletin boards. These students had to first believe in “(the product type)” – no convicted (contrary opinions) needed to apply. Then they had to use their own student email accounts. Finally, they had to write the messages themselves, based on what they believed and felt. I gave them some bullet-points I wanted covered, but then I stepped away and let them work their magic.
Without the incentive of $$$, I doubt if many of them would have spent much time advocating the site, even though they all believed in and used natural/alternative healthcare (many were very knowledgeable, and their posts reflected it). However, once motivate (sic) ($$$) they took it on themselves and spoke in their own voices. Their comments were honest and accurate – motivated, to be sure, by what I paid them, but uncontrolled and unregulated. (Please note that the items in italics above were redacted from the conversation.)
It seems that this poster believes that there are some acceptable practices, absent disclosure, that PR/marketing practitioners may participate in and not be in violation of industry standards for best practices.
I posted to the group and asked the individual the following:
…in that (name redacted) campaign, did you require the students to identify that they were paid to post their comments?
They responded with this:
Hell no! That would have been a firing offense – totally self-defeating (for them and for my campaign).
I required them to be honest in expressing their opinions – I did not require them to commit credibility suicide.
Well, I feel that after reading what was posted about the campaign, the practices are contrary to the guidelines and codes I’ll share below. And, based upon those rules for best practices, the main mistake in the campaign (the “firing offense”) may well have been “not” requiring the students to make the disclosure and following up to assure that it was done in the campaign. Not disclosing the paid relationship may have placed the students, the client and the practitioner in peril re: the FTC guidelines (see below), alone. You see, to not disclose the relationship is what actually causes “credibility suicide.”
Here are the guidelines I’m referring to:
WOMMA requires the following in their WOMMA Ethics Code:
The essence of the WOMMA Ethics 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
In particular, regarding that “Honesty of Relationship,” WOMMA stands “against shill and undercover marketing, whereby people are paid to make recommendations without disclosing their relationship with the marketer.” (Source)
This also reminds me of the controversy revolving around PayPerPost, and many other corporations, which was addressed in a FTC announcement reported in December. (Source: Washington Post)
The Federal Trade Commission (on Dec. 10, 2006) said that companies engaging in word-of-mouth marketing, in which people are compensated to promote products to their peers, must disclose those relationships. (Source)
And, the PRSA states (pdf), “the PRSA Member Code of Ethics, which requires that public relations professionals engage in open, honest communications and fully disclose sponsors or financial interests involved in any paid communications activities. We encourage all public relations professionals to follow the responsible and ethical practice of public relations as outlined by our Code of Ethics.” (Source – Kami Huyse: Quote from Public Relations Society of America Advocacy Committee statement.)
Further, PRSA identifies these examples as improper practices:
Examples of Improper Conduct Under this Provision:
- Front groups: A member implements “grass roots” campaigns or letter-writing campaigns to legislators on behalf of undisclosed interest groups.
- A member deceives the public by employing people to pose as volunteers to speak at public hearings and participate in “grass roots” campaigns
So, I think I’ve made the case, but I’d like to hear what you think. This will make an excellent classroom discussion for the students this semester. Thanks.
Robert, great case, regrettably- we ran into a astroturfing issue last year. Our incedent came from lack of education and common sense. Our brand advocates at Pierce Mattie have now been trained to error on over emphasizing the honesty of relationships, of opinion and identity. I’ll be watching this posts comments.
Thank you, Steve. I am not familiar with your firm’s example. I now know that the one I’ve referenced above took place in the mid-90s.
Suffice to say, the poster is quite adamant that this is not, in any way, a campaign that violates any regulations. I’d post their response here, but it is quite long.
It seems that these types of campaigns are, at some point, going to have to be either (a) reviewed by a gov’t regulatory group or (b) be adjudicated individually before there is an accepted resolution. These online activities are relatively new, despite the example above taking place 11 years ago.
I’m guessing we’ll see many more mistakes, or perceived mis-steps, along the way. But, your point as to education of those participating in the campaigns is the key point.
Edelman, for instance, began education sessions for their employees worldwide after their incident. So, I’d say that Pierce Mattie and Edelman are the firms leading the way in how to do this type of activity and get it right down the road. I wonder if other firms are engaging in education of their employees, too?
A case of astroturfing Robert. Clear cut I think, the FTC rules are very clear on these matters. If you have been following the discussion on FIR about the Microsoft Vista/Dell laptops. You will recall there was some discussion about the value of the payment, the FTC rules state material value. I raise that issue because a number of people have told me that if the amount is small it does not matter. The FTC rules appear to indicate any amount however small is too much.
Here are a few articles on the issues that might interest your students:
Where’s the Fire? Commercial Alert Sees Smoke Where None Exists
http://pr.typepad.com/pr_communications/2006/12/wheres_the_fire.html
Microsoft Vista Blogger Relations Program
http://pr.typepad.com/pr_communications/2007/01/microsoft_vista.html
Robert –
This is a great point and definitely a good topic to teach the students. It is sometimes hard to deferentiate between what is really grassroots and what is not. I think it would be good policy for these people attempting grassroots to make the safe choice and tell the public everything. It is not worth trying these simple methods and having them back fire in a big way.
I think grassroots is a great way to get things to an audience, but let’s remember what happens either way – When someone is happy with a product or service they tell a few people, when someone has had a bad experience they tell everyone they know!
I had a great time in your class Robert and I wish I was back at Auburn!
Hey Lindsey! Great to hear from you. I hope all is well and you’re having fun out there in the big ‘ol world. Please write and tell me what you’re up to these days.
Your point about word of mouth is spot on. And, I love grassroots campaigns. They are the lifeblood of so many nonprofits.
We just need to make sure we follow the rules. The guy I wrote about up there has his rules. Responsible practitioners, like you, have theirs. It will work out over time, I hope. But, it will take time, and sometimes be quite ugly and messy.
Take care, Lindsey. Always great to hear from you.
Hey John,
Thanks for those examples. Sorry for the delay in posting it and responding. For some reason, Akismet and Spam Karma are tagging all “Typepad” URLs as spam. I don’t understand it.
But, your point is well made. I think it is astroturfing, too. We can all try to put lipstick on the farm animal, but it is still a pig or a cow.
Forgive me for the ageist remark, but the fellow I write about above is someone that could be termed “old school” when it comes to PR practice. I don’t mean that to be a universal characterization of older practitioners, but I think that (in some instances) the old rules are a part of the problem.
Thanks for the comment. I’ll try to fix the Akismet/Karma plugins, if I can.
no problem Robert, do you know about the list of astroturfing case studies on the new pr wiki? That might also be interesting to your students.
Hey John. Yes, I’m familiar with the links. I’m sure it is easy to miss, but the word “astroturf” (above) is linked to the site. No biggie. We’ll be using that page in class when we discuss this. Good links there.
I did miss the link, you are way ahead of me!
Featured Video
Theme Switcher
Categories
Archives
Most Commented
AuburnMedia Sites Search
Most Viewed
Feedburner