Exxon, Penguins and Faux Consumer Generated Media
August 3rd, 2006
If there’s anything that I feel our blog covers well and consistently, it is our passion for authentic communication between companies, customers, agencies, and the public at large. Much of Brains on Fire’s business is aiding companies in starting open dialogues with their customers. This is what we define as word of mouth marketing.
It does, however, feel like something comes up almost daily that challenges that authentic definition of WOMM and today is no exception. Today’s Wall Street Journal exposes a blatant misuse of YouTube. There is a (somewhat) funny video called “Al Gore’s Penguin Army” that spoofs the Vice President and the very concept of global warming that has been getting some good traction on YouTube. The creator is listed simply as “toutsmith”. It has high production values but, as we have seen over at the Church, there are lots of examples of talented individuals who create professional-looking citizen marketing to make their point. The WSJ thought this video was too slick and wanted to talk to its creator. After some technical analysis of where a Yahoo! email from “toutsmith” actually originated from, the WSJ was able to determine that the email came out of a D.C.-based PR firm called DCI Group which counts among its clients Exxon Mobil. Regardless of whether or not Exxon was involved in DCI’s creation or launch of the video, there is a clear violation of trust (and WOMMA ethics code) when a company masquerades as an individual in an attempt to spread propaganda.
If entertainment-based marketing or viral videos is your thing, you may want to take a lesson from the McDonald’s Corporation, burned by the Lincoln Fry debacle. They learned the hard way that fake consumer generated media can create more bad PR than street credibility. After that experience, they launched their McRib farewell tour site last year with my favorite disclosure: “This is Advertising © 2006 McDonald’s”. That is about as boiled down and to the point as its going to get.
We want to embrace and believe citizen marketers. Are we going to start asking everyone who creates an interesting video to prove that they “acted alone” and without some corporation pulling strings? I hope that instances like today will convince the marketing and PR world that living up to some basic ethical guidelines and encouraging clients to do the same is both the right thing to do and good business.
Other posts by Virginia.
johnmoore (from Brand Autopsy) says:
Just goes to show us marketers that we need to be as open as possible because the result of our ever-increasing world is that they are very few secrets that remain secret. In this case, we should hate the player and not the game. Rarely do I advocate “playa hatin’” but the playa, DCI Group, comes as much worse than does the Word-of-Mouth game.
August 3rd, 2006 at 6:27 pmVirginia says:
Unethical tactics like this that could tarnish the category of word of mouth marketing. That’s why its so important to out abuses like this and educate folks on harnessing the power of new media in an ethical, transparent manner. Regardless of the medium, ask yourself “would I be proud have this marketing in the Wall Street Journal?”. If the anser is “no”, don’t do it.
August 4th, 2006 at 4:25 amolivier blanchard says:
Get ready for a lot more of that.
August 4th, 2006 at 6:59 amBear says:
I don’t get it. Why does a video or other marketing effort have to be done by an individual? Isn’t it the end message and/or product that is the important thing and not how it got created? To say that a video is somehow less good because Exxon Mobile paid for it makes no sense to me. Propaganda is propaganda if it is created by the one or by the many.
This video shouldn’t be shunned because it was paid for by Exxon Mobile (It seems to me they have just the same rights of free speech as Gore does on this or any other matter) but it should be shunned because it isn’t very funny. Maybe they should have paid a funnier group of people to write their propaganda. I imagine Scrappleface would have done a better job.
August 4th, 2006 at 12:18 pmPaull Young says:
Great post Viriginia. I’ve added it to the list of resources (here) at the anti-astroturfing campaign page at the New PR wiki.
August 4th, 2006 at 11:46 pmRobin 'Roblimo' Miller says:
Not only that, this video’s use of the Linux “Tux the Penguin” mascot falls somewhere between rude and open copyright infringement.
I even made a video (without corporate support) saying so: “Al Gore’s Penguin Army” Video Misuses Linux Mascot
August 5th, 2006 at 4:59 amCK says:
Well said. All we need be, acting as individuals or on behalf of corporations, is transparent. If you believe in your cause — be it ad-oriented or personal opinion/agenda — simply put your stamp (hallmark?) on it. In either case, as these examples show, users will find out who did it anyway. Simply be upfront and transparent. Voila. Aren’t the best lessons the simplest?
Thanks for the good thoughts Virginia.
August 5th, 2006 at 11:49 amVeeDub says:
Bear- the point is not that companies, agencies or studios shouldn’t use the tools. They should and many are doing a great job at making it clear who they are. Case in point, the Agency.com Subway video that is getting so much press was uploadet by “agencydotcom”. Disguising paid advertising as the work of an individual enthusiastic fan is unethical.
There are quite a few examples of companies getting “outed” for trying to mislead the public with these campaigns. It insults the intelligence of your consumers which is a very dangerous game.
August 6th, 2006 at 9:59 amChris Stow-Serge says:
This is outrageous, but also a smart way for the republicans to market deceit (well it would have been if they didn’t get caught) Those on the left ought to be publishing this sort of material to get the real facts out - I know I’m a lot more likely to watch and forward a video than I am a lame text email…
more at stowserge.com
August 7th, 2006 at 7:20 pmMCK says:
As the earlier post suggests, we should prepare ourselves for a lot more of this type of propaganda. Given the surge in “citizen created” content, abuse will abound. We marketers and PR professionals do walk a fine line. The general public is certainly unaware that articles on the front page of major newspapers were written with input from PR specialists representing the viewpoints of their clients, and is depicted as “news”. Consumers need to be aware that much of the content in all forms of media is tainted by outside influence, and judge it accordingly.
August 8th, 2006 at 12:09 pmMichels says:
MCK makes a good point, and this type of thing should have been expected. Private interests are realizing that they have the ability to do the same thing that our government is doing: create propoganda. This problem is much more serious than it is given credit for, and I believe the reason is that major news organizations are not effective watchdogs over themselves. We’ve handed over much too much control to a corrupt few, and they are working today to literally re-write history in accordance with their views. Anyone who is not appalled at what is taking place in our great nation today either does not understand what’s happening, or simply does not care that we now sit on the eve of our own self-destruction.
August 9th, 2006 at 10:12 pmkk's blog says:
Links for Thursday, 08-10-06…
Exxon, Penguins and Faux Consumer Generated Media http:/……
August 10th, 2006 at 7:16 pmHigh-tech astroturf from Exxon says:
[...] As Brains on Fire reports, the Wall Street Journal has uncovered what looks like an incredibly inept piece of astroturfing by the DCI Group, possibly on behalf of client Exxon. [...]
August 23rd, 2006 at 2:34 pm