FTC To Investigate 'Viral Marketing' Practices

mcflaherty writes "The Federal Trade Commission has stated that it is going to investigate the use of 'Viral Marketing' by corporations. This is the type of advertising that seeks to start a word of mouth campaign for the product via consumers themselves. Previously, consumers themselves set the buzz. But lately advertisement firms are stepping up to the plate themselves, seeding the market with buzz that looks independent of the company, but is in fact funded by them. The crew at Penny Arcade contend that corporate generated buzz is not Viral Marketing, and perhaps Guerrilla Marketing would be a more apt term. Either way, it appears to be a profitable advertising model."

Comments

How low can they go?

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Either way, it appears to be a profitable advertising model.

Of course it is, it exploits people's inherent trust for their friends' judgement: "if X says this and X is a nice guy, then X must be true". Only if X is paid by a corporation to spew out nice stuff about some product, it basically wrecks that basic principle of human communication.

Re:How low can they go?

[Possibly Malignant]

"if X says this and X is a nice guy, then X must be true"

There's a syntax error in your formula.

Re:How low can they go?

[IgLou]

Free speech should be for people, anything that is "said" by a business should be regulated. Consider this, disclosure prevents leaking information out about anything that could affect your stock price ahead of your official financial statements. That's regulated for a reason. If a corporation is trying to generate hype and calling it "viral marketing" is a lie in my books. The corporation is advertising through viral marketing and I as a consumer deserve to know when I'm looking at a fictionalized account for the purpose of advertising or if I'm looking at the real deal. I deserve to know if a company is trying to sell me something but disguising it as something else.

Re:How low can they go?

[Nasarius]

You're pretty much correct. So-called commercial speech is just barely above obscenity in terms of categories of protected speech. The First Amendment doesn't give you the right to deceptively advertise your product...or bribe politicians, or buy up all the media outlets in the country, etc. That's what makes the "money is speech" assertion so absurd.

Re:How low can they go?

[troll -1]

Free speech is free speech. Just be happy they aren't transmitting commercials into your dreams (yet).

This is considered commercia speech and doesn't have the same First Amendment protections as other speech.

Re:How low can they go?

[packeteer]

The Government is allowed to regulate all kinds of speech. You are not allowed to lie about your stocks and spread rumors and deception so that you pump up your own stocks. This is illegal and I think very few people think that commiting fraud through deception is a type of protected speech.

Re:How low can they go?

[SatanicPuppy]

Type conversion error: Can't convert type Person to type Opinion in statement (-11273).

Re:How low can they go?

[UbuntuDupe]

Please. If you really believe in free speech, you shouldn't distinguish "Clinton is a moron" from "Buying my products is a good idea." Whenever a "business" says something, it requires a person to say it. You can't deny the right to the "business" while claiming to respect the rights of the person who voiced it.

If it's a fraudulent claim, sure, that should be illegal, but it shouldn't matter if it's a person or a "business".

Re:How low can they go?

[N3Roaster]

In some cases, the government regulates business speech to the point that even telling the truth is not allowed. For example, suppose I buy an organic food product (say, tea) in a large quantity and repackage it to sell in the smaller quantities someone might buy. If I'm not certified for organic processing (yes, moving something from one bag to another is processing), that tea can no longer be called organic in the United States, even though nothing has been done to it that could possibly cause it to not be organic. Saying that it is organic is not allowed. Even the weaker and 100% true claim that it was certified as organically grown is not allowed. (see USDA National Organic Program)

Re:How low can they go?

[dgatwood]

Precisely. The word you're looking for is "dramatizations". And you are required by law to disclose when this occurs.

I cite 45 FR 3872, section 255.2:

(b) Advertisements presenting endorsements by what are represented, directly or by implication, to be ``actual consumers'' should utilize actual consumers, in both the audio and video or clearly and conspicuously disclose that the persons in such advertisements are not actual consumers of the advertised product.

And section 255.5

When there exists a connection between the endorser and the seller of the advertised product which might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement (i.e., the connection is not reasonably expected by the audience) such connection must be fully disclosed.

Now, admittedly, this is from an FTC guide and not directly from the relevant body of law. You'd have to ask somebody more familiar with the details of advertising law to tell you which specific sections of code and/or relevant case law that these opinions are derived from. That said, the FTC is well within their rights to investigate this and prosecute any ad agency proven to use guerilla marketing tactics. They are clearly examples of false advertising, and are thus NOT ethical and NOT legal.

Re:How low can they go?

[Talez]

Vodafone in Australia have been doing this for at least a year maybe more. They've had an employee using the alias "Kelly20" on certain messageboards who just slags off the competition constantly.

Eventually they've been outed and banned but in the mean time it does cause quite a bit of chaos and people start touting information thats misleading and taken out of context as fact.

Re:How low can they go?

[Sj0]

How do we even know you're a person? Maybe you're just another astro-turfer, an actor paid by these marketing companies to try to present a devils advocate to move the window of acceptable behaviour towards something this terrible!

Thanks a lot, asshole. First marketing ruined radio; then TV; then movies; then video games; then the internet; Now they're trying to ruin REALITY. Thought police indeed.

Re:How low can they go?

[IgLou]

Nonsense. I'm just as entitled to say whatever I want whether I'm speaking for myself or my employer. If I lie, and it causes you some harm, then there's a whole body of tort law to deal with it. You missed what I'm trying to say. I'm not talking about what you may or may not say in a public blog about how things are going in your company or about what you say at a private party. I'm not saying I want people to always tell the truth. DUH, what you do privately of your own will is your business and I don't give a crap. But, if your company pays you do that by going into non-business situations and engage in some activity that promotes the company's, it's products or services then it's an advertisement. We can come up with all types of things to blur lines to work around the semantics (oh but what about the sales guy!). I'll still maintain that any person paid directly or indirectly or contractually held to say certain things for or about a company for the purpose of promoting that company in a context or medium that is not designated for the purpose of advertisement or sales. You could tell everyone "research it" or "file a lawsuit" but these things simply aren't practical. Once something is posted on the net it gets reposted, copy-pasted, forwarded, ad infinitum. To this day I still have people forwarding me that stupid Hoaxes that have been debunked long ago and take a look at the number of duplicate videos on youtube.

Let's recap. You a person, feel free to speak, write, blog as you will; I will defend that right to free speech. A company on the other hand, when it communicates is commercial speech and should be identified as such when it could be misconstruted as something that's not commercial speech or a press release, like a viral video. A persons rights are sacrement and businesses rights are whatever the public feels is appropriate for what the public needs at that time. If we (the public) say we need to regulate how a company conducts it's outgoing communications then it should get regulated by law. No changes to or amendments to presonal rights necessary.

Re:How low can they go?

[bogado]

Well, the government can simply abolish this so called bill of rights and regulate those anyway. Govern, by definition, has the power to do what it wants, if it does over do it people will be unsatisfied and may (or may not) revolt and overthrow it, replacing it with another govern with different goals and directives.

What I don't see is why people don't trust the govern to cut corporation power. Every time anyone says that corporations should be regulated there are a lot of people that complains and say that "the market" will regulate them, too bad they already control it to an extent where they don't need to worry about this power of controlling. Sure I can boycott Sony for their, many, blunders and attacks to their customers, but even if I could (and I can't) convince all my friends to do the same do you think I done even a dent on it's reputation? No, people don't even know that there was a root-kit, much less what a root-kit is, they don't know that they are using this disgusting "pseudo viral marketing" campaigns, and people will still buy PSPs, CDs, playstations and whatever Sony throw in the market.

The worst part is that those same enterprises are already exerting power over many governments around the world, just count how many copyrights acts are being passed all over the places and yet many people defend the corporation and say that they should continue their power escalation. I am not sure that it is even possible to revert this picture now, but I will not defend them, I believe that corporations, specially large ones, are a type of government that have a growing area of influence and as such they must have the same social obligations that governs have.

Astroturfing

[duerra]

It already has a name. It's called Astroturfing.

Now we need to come up with a term for what will eventually prove to be its opposite. Corporate sabotage that seeks to inspire negative propoganda for another company. If Sony hadn't been repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot with a sawed-off 12 gauge lately and inspiring all their own negative publicity, I'd almost suspect that of their vomit-inducing attempt at creating buzz for the PSP.

Re:Astroturfing

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Speaking of that sorry psp astroturfing site, did you see the last entry?


Busted. Nailed. Snagged. As many of you have figured out (maybe our speech was a little too funky fresh???), Peter isn't a real hip-hop maven and this site was actually developed by Sony. Guess we were trying to be just a little too clever. From this point forward, we will just stick to making cool products, and use this site to give you nothing but the facts on the PSP.

Sony Computer Entertainment America


Well, I must say, as much as I despite Sony these days, it takes balls to come clean and coldly admit to trying to con people, instead of simply pulling the plug on the site. Hats off Sony, for once you did the right thing.

Re:Astroturfing

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

It was no accident that site was 'discovered' as fake. How easy would it be for someone to use a privacy service on their registration? Personally, I think it worked very well - that site got more traffic than it ever would have if it had been legit.

Re:Astroturfing

[pimpimpim]

Well, at least viral marketing can be killed instantly by the negative karma that comes about when the blatant lies of this being an 'enthusiast's user opinion' are uncovered. I really like that aspect of viral marketing, the message will be accepted if the cooperation is fair about it, and just couldn't use original channels for an advertisment (for example a car advertizement that would be too shocking to show on TV, but is artistically interesting anyway.).

However, if the cooperation is trying to screw us, and someone finds out (as will eventually happen anyway), the viral marketing works just as viral against the cooperation that started it. Therefore, viral marketing is playing with fire!

All in all this must be the most fair form of advertizing, we the users can directly respons to it and decide if we like it or not.

Re:Astroturfing

[ShieldW0lf]

If I followed you around all day long whispering that you'd be sexy if you had that car, but you don't, so you're not, and that you'd be rich if you went with that accounting firm, but you don't, so you're not...

If I followed you around telling you that you suck because you don't own this stuff, that you suck because you don't look like this...

If I did it for days and months and years...

Would it have an effect on you?

Advertisers use invasive propaganda tactics to try to make you unhappy with your life for no good reason at all, and present themselves as the only ones who can make it better, but they never make it better even if you buy their product.

Advertising is an assault. And it uses scientific methodology to become ever more effective at making you and everyone else do stupid wasteful things for irrational reasons.

The answer is really simple.

Advertising is evil, and shouldn't be permitted.

It doesn't generate any raw materials, it doesn't generate any finished products, it doesn't generate any new ideas for how to do things, it doesn't have any redeeming merit whatsoever.

In making the public aware of what is available to them, it doesn't serve any higher societal good than a global registrar of products and distributers aka the yellow pages would accomplish, and it does a good deal more harm.

Just say no to advertising and advertised goods and services.

Re:Astroturfing

[ShieldW0lf]

If we all stop trusting each other, and keep it in the back of our minds that everyone we talk to might be trying to decieve and manipulate us for some third parties benefit, then we'll be ok.

Seriously, this sort of thing should be punished by summary execution. It's a huge assault on the very fabric of our society, trying to create a world where we're afraid to participate with our neighbour with trust.

It's not the little thing you're trying to make it out to be. People that perpetuate this sort of thign should be shot in the head and buried in a shallow unmarked grave.

Re:Astroturfing

[HTH NE1]

Just say no to advertising and advertised goods and services.

OK, so I'll just go by word of mouth then.

Wait a minute....

Re:Astroturfing

[EzraSj]

In advertising, any press is good press. It's about name recognition -- at least that's what friends in the business have told me.

Sony already has name recognition. Name recognition is not what they're trying to get here, what they're trying to get is positive association - and they've gotten the exact opposite.

Re:Astroturfing

[nomadic]

If we all stop trusting each other, and keep it in the back of our minds that everyone we talk to might be trying to decieve and manipulate us for some third parties benefit, then we'll be ok.

Hey, I'm from New York, I already do that.

Re:Astroturfing

[boyko.at.netqos]

The Sistine Chapel is an advertisement for the Roman Catholic Church.

I agree with many of your points; but calling for the abolishment of any type of speech (even commercial speech) is a road we dare not walk down.

The problem is that of transparency and honesty; I have no problem with an advertisement that honestly states what the solution to a problem you have is (although there's a grey area - see Freakonomics of how Listerine "invented" halitosis in America.)

In the end, my big concern is that advertising works because it appeals to the "reptilian hind-brain" of people. If you want to stop advertising's ill effects, start producing smarter people!

Re:Astroturfing

[cptgrudge]

I'd be willing to bet that most people in the demographic they were aiming this for know what a PSP is already. I was halfway thinking of getting a PS3, but all these little things continue to turn me off to it. The chances of me purchasing a PS3 are closing in on the chances of me buying a PSP - that is to say, No Chance.

In the end, this isn't just some "bad press" I'm hearing about; I've been insulted. Sony seems to think that the demographic of people that will buy their PSP product, of which I'm a part, is both illiterate and unable to spell properly. Granted, Sony hasn't insulted me personally, but doing this has nonetheless lowered my view of them even further.

They have sacrificed their target demographic's goodwill for gaining a token amount of mindshare outside of the demographic. And the thoughts associated with that mindshare may be: "Golly, those gamers sure are pissed at Sony. Maybe I'll get little Timmy a DS instead of a PSP."

Re:Astroturfing

[spun]

You know, I say the same thing about my industry, the baby torturing industry. Sure, there may be some evil people in the baby torturing industry but most of us are decent hard working Americans just like you.

Seriously, advertising as an industry has no redeeming qualities. It consumes resources and produces nothing of value. It convinces people to do or buy things they wouldn't have if they thought about it rationally, and it does this through deceit and making people feel insecure. It's not quite as bad as baby torturing, but it certainly isn't something any decent, moral human being would ever want to do.

Let me guess, you're in advertising? If so, why don't you take some advice from comedian Bill Hicks?

"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself. No, no, no it's just a little thought. I'm just trying to plant seeds. Maybe one day, they'll take root - I don't know. You try, you do what you can. Kill yourself. Seriously though, if you are, do. Aaah, no really, there's no rationalisation for what you do and you are Satan's little helpers, Okay - kill yourself - seriously. You are the ruiner of all things good, seriously.

No this is not a joke, you're going, "there's going to be a joke coming," there's no fucking joke coming. You are Satan's spawn filling the world with bile and garbage. You are fucked and you are fucking us. Kill yourself. It's the only way to save your fucking soul, kill yourself. Planting seeds. I know all the marketing people are going, "he's doing a joke"... there's no joke here whatsoever. Suck a tail-pipe, fucking hang yourself, borrow a gun from a friend - I don't care how you do it. Rid the world of your evil fucking machinations. I know what all the marketing people are thinking right now too, "Oh, you know what Bill's doing, he's going for that anti-marketing dollar. That's a good market, he's very smart." Oh man, I am not doing that. You fucking evil scumbags! "Ooh, you know what Bill's doing now, he's going for the righteous indignation dollar. That's a big dollar. A lot of people are feeling that indignation. We've done research - huge market. He's doing a good thing." Godammit, I'm not doing that, you scum-bags! Quit putting a godamm dollar sign on every fucking thing on this planet!

"Ooh, the anger dollar. Huge. Huge in times of recession. Giant market, Bill's very bright to do that." God, I'm just caught in a fucking web! "Ooh the trapped dollar, big dollar, huge dollar. Good market - look at our research. We see that many people feel trapped. If we play to that and then separate them into the trapped dollar..." How do you live like that? And I bet you sleep like fucking babies at night, don't you?"

And to that let me add: anyone in the business of mind control, I hope you get some horrible disease and die a painful death. As Bill said, there is no excuse for what you do.

Re:Astroturfing

[Sj0]

As opposed to advertising companies who think that exposing you to their work every second from the moment you wake up in the morning to the moment you go to sleep at night isn't enough, so they've got to lie their way into conversations and websites?

Neither government nor corporations are the ultimate power, neither should be given free reign at the expense of the other. What we need is some fucking sanity, and a good start would be getting rid of this practice. Fake testimonials need to be told about in print and on the radio and on TV, why are they acceptable in real life?

Re:Astroturfing

[ShieldW0lf]

Given the choice between moving to the US or to Cuba, I would most certainly choose Cuba. In a heartbeat.

As it stands, I think I'll stay where I am and work towards propagating better economic structures that empower people and render those who think the way you do as ostracised and powerless as I can manage until you get your head out of your ass and decide to play ball with the rest of us or die poor and powerless first.

Personally, I'm the kind of insensitive son of a bitch that could give a flying fuck which way that goes for you, but I'm still going to work towards a system that has a place for you and yours in it anyways.

Investiage

[HTH NE1]

Investiage: an investigation employing the triage method.

About Time

[Slipgrid]

60 Minutes covered this about two years ago. It's a good segment if you can find the video.

Fitting story

[wile_e_wonka]

IS slashdot trying to redeam itself after being conned into an instance of viral marketing?!

See particularly this portion of the comments/story...

When did it become illegal?

[Intron]

Why are they investigating? Is it illegal, or is the FTC overfunded?

If they want to investigate deceptive advertising that has cost Americans billions of dollars, then I would prefer that they investigate the Iraq war.

Re:When did it become illegal?

[earnest murderer]

It is in fact in the FTC's domain and is already regulated. The fuss is that the FCC has, after years of appeals, roused itself enough to talk about the idea of doing something about it.

Don't they have anything better to do?

[needacoolnickname]

Whoopee! The advertisers found out what the kids like and decided to use that to try and get more eye balls.

How about just dealing with it when the compaines lie and that whole false advertising thing?

Do people really think places like youtube and myspace were created for the community to use? No, they were created so they could get bought out by the big corporations and those corporations could put advertisments up.

Oh, and having a link in your signature to something you are trying to hock and replying to this article that this should have been looked into a long time ago... yeah, kinda hypocritcal.

Wii

[Laz10]

I think that in the future the way we (slashdot/digg/bloggers) marketed the Wii will be a textbook sample of how viral marketing is done.

Won't someone think of the ad agencies?!

[TheWoozle]

I mean, how else are people going to be programmed to buy overpriced, useless crap? Won't you please help a hard-working advertising executive (who has enriched our culture with priceless works of art like this) afford his third Mercedes?

An even more sinister activity

[noidentity]

Some companies have taken this a step further and are attempting to manipulate the customers themselves into giving good reviews. They are using a technique of improving the quality of their product, causing any sane customer to be unable to respond negatively. These coercive practices must end!

The Sony Strain...

[__aaclcg7560]

Does this mean that Sony will get a marketing flu shot?

Sometimes it Backfires

[Toreo asesino]

One such example was when Virgin attempted to get Internet humour website B3ta.com to come up with something for their "say yes" campaign. Virgin got rather offended in fact over what was being produced and pulled out. It did however generate a storm of publicity (The Inq. wasn't the only site to report this cock-up), so it was successful in some respects.

Santa says "what about ethical? ho ho ho!"

[Toby The Economist]

> Either way, it appears to be a profitable advertising model.

So is putting crack cocaine in your cola drink.

Which brings us neatly onto cigarette sales.

Ha, I'm immune

[StikyPad]

since a) I don't talk to anybody, and b) even if I did, I wouldn't trust what they said.

Sigh.

You mean?

[BCW2]

I've been wrong when I thought all advertising was viral?

I was 15 hours short of a marketing degree when I realized i wasn't qualified, I have a conscience!

Were all Slashdotters born yesterday?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Were all Slashdotters born yesterday, or just the original poster?

Previously, consumers themselves set the buzz. But lately advertisement firms are stepping up to the plate themselves, seeding the market with buzz that looks independent of the company, but is in fact funded by them.

For Christ's sake, this has been the way the world has worked for thousands of years. (Remember the story about John the Baptist starting the buzz about the "one who comes after"?)

"Consumers" have NEVER "set the buzz." If you think otherwise, I'd like to meet you, because there's a good chance you'll be buying whatever I'm pitching in 3-6 months. (And you'll think it was your idea too.)

The age of the cynical bastard

[gosand]

My friends have long considered me to be a cynical bastard, because I always question the validity of everything. Nothing is ever what it seems, there is always some kind of not-so-well-hidden advertising, product pushing, and damn-near lying. It has turned me off of a lot of TV and music, and I generally get very irritated when I come across sneaky marketing and/or advertising. It makes it pretty hard to believe anything anymore, and really shows the power of how we present things. (not to mention the gullibility of most people) I don't shop and Wal*Mart because I think they are scumbags, I don't partake of anything Disney. But it seems that it is almost unavoidable these days.

Hell, I don't even know what my point is in posting... I guess I just wish that more people would question these things and take a stand against them, because that is the only way they'll go away. But most people just don't seem to care.

I heard about this...

[Clever7Devil]

...And let me tell you guys: This new program from the FTC is excellent. Don't listen to what those Capitalism(TM) and Free Speech(TM) fanboi's tell you.

OT: Community redemption.

[Spaceman40]

[Is] [Slashdot] trying to [redeem] itself after being conned into an instance of viral marketing?

No. Let me remind you how our system works:
1. Person finds something they think is cool.
2. Person submits link and story to Slashdot.
3. Slashdot editors do a quick read to see if it's not blatantly inaccurate or uninteresting.
4. Editors put the story up.
5. Readers check the story out.
5. a. At least one reader looks into (or already knows) the background of the article.
5. b. At least one reader looks into (or already knows about) the subject of the article.
5. c. At least one reader looks into (or has already speculated about) the ramifications of the article.
6. We discuss.

That's the point: the community decision for the article you linked was that it was a guerilla campaign. When I read that article, I didn't realize it was such, I assumed the same as the editors. Fortunately, there's a large community here, several of which commented that not all was as it seemed, and I was enlightened.

Yay for community discussion. Articles aren't generally statements that the community makes, they're statements that the community responds to. That's why us old timers (and I'm a young'un, at that) are still here.

De Beers, Viral Marketing Since 1888

[Ranger]

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you to find that deceptive advertising is going on. I mean it's not like they, as in the ubiquitious they, think people are malleable, easily led astray, brainwashed, etc, etc.

De Beers has the longest running viral marketing campaign in history. It started in the 1880's and is still going strong today.

Re:De Beers, Viral Marketing Since 1888

[Sunburnt]

That Atlantic article about DeBeers was brilliant. Paying thousands for a chunk of cut carbon always seemed ridiculous to me, and its a fascinating reading abut how the whole consumer perspective on diamonds' value is a tenuous marketing scheme, successful for almost a century.

Another despicable instance of top-down commercial culture having actual material consequence. Tragic.

Re:Question . . .

[morgan_greywolf]

Advertising is commercial speech. Commercial speech is regulated by, among other agencies, the FTC. For example, it's illegal to make false claims about a product or service. Nissan can't make claims that a car they sell can do 0 to 60 under 3 seconds unless the car can actually do 0 to 60 in under 3 seconds. McDonald's can't go around claiming that the Big Mac as it is today is low in fat, unless they come out with a 'Tofu Big Mac' or whatever.

There are all kinds of other laws regulating commercial speech: cigarette advertising must include disclaimers stating that smoking is hazardous, 'bait and switch' advertising tactics are illegal, etc.

One reason why the FTC is investigating 'viral marketing' practices is that they are trying to see if advertisers are using viral marketing practices to try to to do a 'run around' on the various FTC-imposed marketing rules. Another reason is that they are trying to see if the marketing practice is unfair to the consumer, because one of the charters of the FTC is to make sure that marketing practices are fair to the consumer.

My point is that no one should really be surprised by any of this... regulation of commercial speech is one of the things that the FTC does.

Not necessarily...

[KingSkippus]

The alternative to advertising is paying more for things.

My devil's advocate reaction to this is, "not necessarily." If company X didn't have to spend a billion dollars to counteract company Y's $900 million advertising budget, they could use that money to help save consumers dollars. Or they could put it into R&D and engineering to actually make a better product instead of just telling us it's a better product.

Also, I (and a lot of other people) are more than willing to pay a premium for ad-less products. Does anyone remember the days way back when most cable channels didn't have ads? Now you have to pay the cable company for channels with ads, and the channels that don't have ads are very expensive. (Yet notice how they still have a lot of subscribers for that premium.)

I myself don't watch ads on television at all. Every show I want to watch, I either get via iTunes download for $2 a pop (or a season subscription), or by less scrupulous means that I don't want to go into if it's not available by any other means (wink, wink). I have a few small web sites I run for personal reasons, and I buy the hosting space at a reasonable non-free price so that I don't have to subject my visitors to a barrage of ads. I run Firefox with AdBlock so that I can avoid as many ads as possible while browsing the Internet.

I still run across ads now and then, as they're unavoidable in society. The point, though, is that I still spend plenty my share of disposable income, companies still make plenty of money off of me, but they have to do it by actually having products of decent quality that I want or need, not by yelling in both my ears constantly.

In other words, there is another way.

Personally, I think the best advertising any company can have is virtually free. It's from friends who have products and tell me about them. It's from reputable website reviews that describe up-and-coming technology and products. It's from companies' own websites that provide as much real information about products I'm interested in as I need to make an informed decision. All of these things are dirt cheap compared to the billions that companies spend on radio, television and web ads that I never see or hear. Go figure.

A better solution would be to teach children how to think critically

Amen.

Protect Me, Oh Federal Government

[ml10422]

I'm a grown-up. I don't need the Federal government to protect me from viral advertising.

For my entire life, I've been exposed to celebrity endorsements, and the only effect has been to fine tune my bullshit filter.

Please refund the portion of my taxes that is going to paying these guys salaries.

Re:Question . . .

[HappySqurriel]

A simple question in response to your question ...

Why is important to tell people who paid for a political comercial when it was played on TV?

The reason is simple, because it is reasonably simple to mislead people about the source and content of an advertizement. Consider the harm to a political campaign if people started making fake comercials for their opponents in order to make their supporters look stupid ("My name's Dan, and I think all these 'feminists' need is a good ing. I support John Smith because he believes a woman's place is in the kitchen.").

As comercials move away from being in comercial breaks and billboards to product placement and blogs it is important to tell people that they're being advertized to and who is doing the advertizement.

Consider the damage that would be done to the XBox had Sony created a fake blog on how to pick up 12 year old boys on XBox Live (and made sure that this got noticed on major news sites). If Sony got away with it, XBox Live could be killed by people's outrage.

A few problems with that...

[dslauson]

In the literal sense, corporations do not speak. People who work for them do.

Let's say I work for a studio that is producing a new movie. If I go out on a movie forum and say "Have you heard about this movie that's coming up? It's going to be pretty cool!!!", that could be considered viral marketing.

So, what if it's true, and I really believe it? Even if it's not, you can't prove that it's false or misleading. An opinion, by definition, is subjective.

Also, where do you draw the line? I'm a software engineer. Am I not allowed to say good things about my company's products when I'm making the rounds at Christmas parties? Do I have to preface it every time with, "FYI: I'm an employee of X company, and my opinions my be influenced by that."

And, if it was mandatory to identify yourself, that's very difficult to enforce. Online, it's easy to be relatively anonymous. And, if I'm talking about my product and I don't properly identify myself, what are you going to do, throw me in jail? Fine me? What is a fitting punishment for the crime of stating an opinion in the improper way?

I can see your point that it can be misleading and untruthful. However, regulating it is impractical and unfeasible, not to mention clearly contrary to the first amendment (I don't think your comparison to insider trading laws really holds water).

It is each of our jobs as an internet citizen to determine what information on the web is good, and what is total crap. That's the way it's always been, and I genuinely hope it remains that way so that we don't start down the slippery slope toward internet censorship.

Re:A few problems with that...

[Sj0]

You're not getting paid to be at the party and talk about how great your product is; you're not an actor, and that's the distinction here, at least for me. Walking down the street hearing conversations, having a beer with your buddies and overhearing some guy having a conversation -- are these people real, or are they just actors trying to get you to hear about their product?

As far as I'm concerned, no company should be allowed to engage in a mindfuck that severe.

The Original Post is Totally Missing the Point

[Nommus]

Viral marketing is quite often an attempt to encourage users to pass on your marketing material without any financial inducement.

As soon as there is an additional incentive, it becomes much more like affiliate marketing.

Some incentives might be included that are not financial, such as unlocking access if you get 3 friends to sign up.

The biggest problem with the FTC statement is with Affiliate marketing, especially where a marketer is offering a recommendation regarding a specific product, with the ability to link directly through to that product with a CPA or affiliate link.

On stuff like this you listen to lawyers, and consult with them if you are in any kind of internet business.

Here are some references to what 2 lawyers have written about this.

http://www.copywritersblog.com/2006/12/13/ftc-crac ks-down-on-word-of-mouth-advertising/
http://www.copyblogger.com/affiliate-marketing-dis closure-now-required-by-law/

This affects Amazon, Google, Ebay, Clickbank, Commission Junction, Linkshare and a host of other billion dollar companies that allow affiliates to link directly through to a particular product or service with a recommendation.

Disclosure: I practice disclosure on my blogs and use affiliate links recommending products, and have an interest with this as I just launched a disclosure policy plugin for Wordpress. It is available free of charge and is GPLed