Q: Is Regulation Needed In Grassroots Marketing?
Introduction
Upon constructing this blog, we set out to explore the impact of new forms of advertising on society, particularly the effects of grassroots advertising. Through our research, we discovered that in addition to providing a venue for individuals to communicate recommendations on an amateur level online, grassroots marketing has also allowed companies to pose as amateur advertisers or regular consumers. As a result, the online user relates to the other supposed amateur user, establishing a level of trust and influencing the behaviors of consumers.
Research
In conducting our research, we provided arguments that addressed the potential implications of regulation in grassroots advertising as well as the effect of a lack of regulation. We structured our analysis in a debate format, which allowed us to engage with the discourse surrounding this topic. We used the comments section as a forum to support and critique evidence found on the subject .
Conclusion
Through case studies, readings, and historical precedents, we realized that with the prevalence of guerrilla marketing, the amateur user is subject to online scams. Confusion arises as the line between the “amateur” blogger and the paid advertiser is skewed. In such an environment, we reasoned that grassroots marketing should be monitored by legislation aimed to protect the consumer from deception and manipulation. However, we believe that it is also important to assure that regulation does not harp on the First Amendment rights. We think that this can be done with legislation that explicitly outlines transparency and accountability within the grassroots media environment. It is with such accountability that amateur users will be expressly aware of the potential agendas impacting the advertisements that are being marketed to them.
Besides legislations, marketers or advertisers may be encouraged to follow guidelines created by associations that promote good grassroot marketing, or word-of-mouth marketing. It is important to inform marketers about good practices of grassroot marketing and provide a strong community to support each other. Word of Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA) is the official trade association for the word of mouth marketing industry with many supporting firms that promotes good relationship between companies and consumers by following strong ethical guidelines. WOMMA is a good resource for small businesses or start-up companies to be smart about their choices of advertising and maintain its success through honesty. Associations or communities that recognize the importance of good practices of advertising for effective results can influence or impact other businesses.
Anti-Regulation:Grassroots Advertising On The Internet
With the proliferation of outlets of interaction and discussion on the Internet, corporations and mainstream media have recognized the potential advantages to the openness and freedom that exists among these outlets. According to an article in The Economist on October 6, 2007, “$24 billion is spent on internet advertising.”1 Paralleling buzz advertising and word-of-mouth advertising in a traditional face-to-face realm, advertisers have brought grassroots or amateur, advertising to the web (see “Grassroots Marketing: An Overview” for a complete definition of the term). With the transition, some legal questions arise.
Moreover, a professional advertising company, the DCI Group Inc., recently was hired by Exxon Mobil to create a cartoon video that bashed Al Gore and his environmental sustainability incentive in an attempt to hinder his efforts and beliefs while engaging users with an amateur appeal .2 The video was posted on YouTube, the video networking site, and posed as work created by an individual who was a 29-year-old amateur producer from California. 2 This type of marketing has, in some cases, been interpreted as deception, and a call for regulation has been proposed. I plan to discuss how democracy comes into the picture of this type of regulation, what a regulation on grassroots marketing could impose, and also some benefits to this type of advertising.
Grassroots advertising dates far back to traditional, face-to-face interaction between corporations and consumers. In an article from the Columbia Law Review dated in 1968, ‘grassroots’ lobbying (or marketing) was discussed as a convention: “This technique of influencing the legislature by molding a favorable body of public opinion, which has come to be known as ‘grassroots’ or ‘indirect’ lobbying to distinguish it from traditional direct lobbying activities, is not new.”3
This well-established marketing tactic may, in some areas, crossover some of the boundaries set by the ICC, however, my argument is that this does not mean that all grassroots advertising online should be eliminated only better understanding of its existence should be applied. And, online sites already do understand some of the tactics employed by websites, and do already regulate grassroots marketing to some degree. For example, even on WordPress, blog posting spam in the form of ‘comment advertising’ is picked up electronically and it is distinguished from the rest of one’s blog comments. Ultimately, the user has the ability to chose if they would like to view the posting or not, in turn, exposing themselves to the advertisement. So, maybe it is up to the websites to pick-up on computer generated advertising, which often acts like spam because of its repetition of content and abundance. Distinguishing this spam from other posting is necessary and website should present the opportunity to the viewers to delete it if they would like. However, this form of computer generated, unspecific, grassroots attempts, aren’t necessarily what most people find deceiving about grassroots ads because most people can recognize spam when they see it probably because they have seen it elsewhere, or recognize the format of spam. Therefore, the effectiveness of this type of grassroots attempt may be diminished. The deception comes in forms like the DCI Group Inc.’s ad mentioned above.
Aside from the power of the First Amendment, and the lack of serious regulation online as supporting claims for a deregulated environment when it comes to grassroots marketing, it is a substantial claim that the approach to grassroots marketing caters to a specific type of person. Renee Dee wrote in the article, “The Buzz on Buzz,” from the Harvard Business Review, that the concept of grassroots marketing is a “strategy that relies on earlier adopters who attempt to convert other people—to turn them into users too.”4 So, if we have a more specific person within the targeted online community, grassroots marketing’s attempt is to cater to one types of individual, who may be susceptible to the advertisement prior to the add because of previous interest, or their type of personality—is this not what the basis of advertising is anyway?
A second claim is because grassroots tactics cater to communities online, it goes further in representing successful psychographics of that community5—something that most advertising outside the new media realm falls short of (generally, it caters to demographics with assumed psychographic distinctions). In short, I would say that grassroots marketing actively pursues specific audiences and helps to represent those audiences in the mainstream. According to Jenkins (2006), “[Online] participation is more open-minded, less under control of media producers and more under the control of media consumers” (p. 137.”).6 This means that as consumers chose which ads to give attention, despite whether the ad is deceptive or not, they are ultimately choosing their interest, in turn, deciding which type of products, politicians, etc. should be represented in the mainstream.
Ultimately, it can be argued that grassroots marketing brings a dichotomy of benefits, both to the consumer and to the producer. Because they can cater more specifically to a psychographic audience and spam, which universally posts in random, often untargeted communities is already regulated and recognized; advertisers find the community that will be most susceptible in liking their product before the ad was in place, in turn, eliminating the reasoning for a regulated environment on the basis of deception. By finding this psychographic, consumers also benefit because their likes and interests, which may have not been exploited previous to this type of marketing, may now be heard.
References:
1.The Economist. London: Oct. 6, 2007. Vol. 385, Iss. 8549; p.86
2.Lim, Joon S. & Ki, Eyun-Jung.(2007). Resistance to ethically suspicious video spoof on YouTube: a test of inoculation theory. [Electronic Version] Public Relations Conference. 283-293.
3.Cooper, George. (1968). The tax treatment of business grassroots lobbying: Defining and attaining the public policy objectives. Columbia Law Review [Electronic Version]. 68 (5).
4. Dye, Renee. (Nov/Dec 2000). The buzz on buzz. Harvard Business Review. [Electronic version] 78 (6).
5.Gilmor, Dan.(2006). We the Media: Grassroots Journalism by the People. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media Inc.
6.Jenkins, H. (2006). Quentin Tarintino’s Star Wars? Grassroots creativity meets the media industry. New York, New York: New York University Press, pp. 131-169.
Pro-Regulation: Relation To Regulation Of Traditional Advertising
Marketers’ ruthless efforts to advertise their messages are not new. The popularity of the traditional media such as television and radio drove advertisers to exploit it to get their messages across the viewers by any means. To draw attention from people consciously or even unconsciously, some advertisers would exaggerate and make big claims about their products, deceive people, subliminally plant messages during the movies etc. Famously, in 1957, people in the movie theater were exposed to subliminal messages of flashed on the screen every 5 seconds, and according to James Vicary, a market researcher, the sales of Popcorn and Coca-Cola shot up during a six week period.
Thus, advertising has been regulated by the government to give viewers decision rights to become involved in it. Since big broadcast companies are in control of when and where the information would be shown to people, it is easy to govern the transmission of information to the public through traditional media.
Article 12 in the International Code of Advertising from the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and The World Business Organization declares that advertising shall be clearly distinguishable from other media content and that it shall be easy to be identified and recognized as such:
“Advertisements should be clearly distinguishable as such, whatever their form and whatever the medium used; when an advertisement appears in a medium which contains news or editorial matter, it should be so presented that it will be readily recognized as an advertisement.”
In the USA, the federal government has enacted a number of “consumer protection” laws and regulations which are enforced by the Federal Trade Commision whose mission is to eliminate acts or practices that are unfair or deceptive. Under Section 5 of the FTC Actdeclares an act or practice deceptive if (1) there is a “representation or omission or practice that is likely to mislead the consumer” who is “acting reasonably under the circumstances;” and (2) that the representation or omission is “material”-defined as an act or practice “likely to affect the consumer’s conduct or decision with regard to a product or service.”
Then, even for grassroot marketing online, the existing advertisement ethics should be applied since its context is advertising and it targets consumers. Bad Grassroot marketing is not much different to deceiving consumers. It uses surreptitious practices that fail to disclose or reveal the true relationship with the company producing or sponsoring the marketing message. It can also involve intrusion and exploitation of social relationships as means of achieving effectiveness.
An example of a bad grassroot marketing is the Edelman/Wal-mart astroturfing incident. A blog called Wal-Marting Across America was created by a couple known as Jim and Laura as they drove cross country and it included regular interviews with Wal-mart workers, reporting about their satisfaction with their working conditions. It turns out that Walmart’s PR firm Edelman paid the couple who had different identities to write for the blog and support them.
Pro-Regulation: A Political Case Study
In thinking about the implications of grassroots marketing, questions of ethics and trust arise. As corporations are becoming more Internet-savvy their paid advertisers are becoming better equipped at posing as amateurs. From a political perspective, misrepresentation in advertisements may have a negative effect on a candidate’s campaign. Thus, in such an environment issues of trust, ethics, and accuracy are unavoidable. I believe that in light of the potential for deception, it is important that grassroots marketing is regulated through legislative policies and initiatives.
With the presentation of misleading information, citizens are not being adequately informed. As a result of the prevalence of such advertising, they may fall victim to the agendas of corporations masking as amateur users. A prime example can be found in the famous “Harry and Louise” advertisement, sponsored by the Health Insurance Association of America (HIAA). In 1994, President Bill Clinton proposed a health care initiative generated a stream of issue ads as interest groups voiced their opposition. HIAA served as one group that opposed Clinton’s plan. Thus, the organization disguised their corporate endorsement by featuring actors posing as a middle-class couple in their home. In a series of print and TV ads, “Harry and Louise” voiced their questions and concerns about Clinton’s plan, which had a significant impact on Clinton’s political campaign. Commenting on the pervasive effects of the ads, Mark Crispin Miller, a professor of communications at New York University, and issue ad watcher, said “[the]campaign was really instrumental in shooting down Clinton’s plan. The ads seemed to have come from the grassroots but were really bogus grassroots organizations.”
The media response to the issue ads was also very telling. In a study conducted regarding the issue ad, it was found that “reporters did a poor job of contextualizing ads, assessing their fairness and accuracy and identifying their sponsors. One such example of media manipulation was that most broadcast reports on the ads aired on a full-screen. As a result, theirpower was magnified “and increased the likelihood that viewers would confuse them with news”. I think that this instance demonstrates the importance of securing such legislative regulation. Through the “Harry and Louise” advertisements, public opinion was swayed in a manner that hindered Clinton’s health initiatives. The ethical and trust issue in this instance pertained to the actions of HIAA. They consciously made the executive decision to mask their corporate sponsorship of the ads, in lieu of perpetrating as amateurs. Thus, individuals may have viewed the advertisements in a different light if they had knowledge regarding HIAA’s direct involvement. I think that if this was the case, that HIAA’s political agenda would have weighed in more into the discussion. However, because of the deceptive practices of HIAA, such was no afforded to the public.
Source: Untruth In Advertising: Misrepresentation in Ads Washington Monthly, April, 2000, by Howard Isenstein
NYLON video ad for YouTube
This video is interesting to consider because it promotes:
1. Cory Kennedy (who made herself via internet self-promotion)
2. Fashion brand Ksubi
3. Nylon magazine
4. A t-shirt, only available online in limited edition
And also:
1. Is only shown on, and was made for, YouTube-cheap commercial alternative
2. Targets an online-savvy population, in particular a younger population who seek exclusivity in an over saturated culture
The Foolishness of Crowds
Importing the wiki model of policymaking will mean less democracy, not more. A response to Beth Simone Noveck.
Progressive Re-Generation
|
At times in American political history, young generations have formed lasting ties to parties and ideologies. Is 2008 one of those times?
|
 |
|
February 25, 2008 at Politico
|
New Media, the New Economy and New Spaces
“This paper counters proponents of the ‘weightless economy’ who have suggested the ‘death of distance’ in relation to economic and social activities that use the worldwide web (WWW). An analysis of new media developers in New York’s ‘Silicon Alley’ demonstrates that place and distance are still important. The most important aspect of this co-location is the possibility of social interaction. This paper points to the value of analysis of the material practice of the social (and the economic and cultural). The notion of ‘untraded dependencies’ is developed through looking at its manifestation and constitution in the specificity of space, time and economic activity. “
Pratt, A. C. (2000). New media, the new economy and new spaces. Geoforum, 31(4), 425-436.
Future Trends in Advertising
Trends Predictions Report, by Ben Hourahine, Futures Editor at Leo Burnett (London).
Preparing for the New Economy: Advertising Strategies and Change in Destination Marketing Organizations
The Internet and new media industry has had an impact on the tourism industry over the past few years. According to this article, research concerning effective strategies for new media advertising have “indicated that information technology has led to a number of profound changes in the assumptions underlying communications strategies.” This article argues that it isn’t as much about the new technology in the industry rather it is the approach of the industry–conventional way advertising is reconstructed.
Gretzel, U., Yuan, Y., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2000). Preparing for the new economy: Advertising strategies and change in destination marketing organizations. Journal of Travel Research, 39(2), 146-156.
