The whole thing sounds a bit like astro-turfing, artificially creating an apparently spontaneous groundswell of public support for an organisation or cause. That tactic does seem to go against the open communication that many bloggers have been preaching, and tactics like it serve only to damage the reputation of the growing medium.
Maybe he should have claimed someone mistakenly transposed the Sponsor's name... Families Working For Wal-Mart.
I mean, come on, including the writers' Last Names does not make it transparent.
Exactly. As with most half-hearted apologies, this one doesn't actually apologize for what the firm did. Instead it "acknowledges" that some tactical mistakes were made.
I suspect the entire strategy was deceptive, which requires an actual apology (instead of a pseudo-apology).
Good post. I think regardless of whether they disclosed the name or not this campaign was a bad idea. It is a case of bringing an old mindset to a new medium.
I probably can't (and shouldn't) add more flames to the fire, since I have posted about this 3X this week ... but, John, you are dead-on yet again.
The more I think about this flap, the more pissed and depressed I get.
Edelman screwed us ALL over. Next time we suggest a blog strategy to a client, will I hear, "What about that Edelman/Wal-Mart crap? We don't want any part of THAT."
And I wouldn't be able to blame them.
Both Mr. Edleman's and Mr. Rubel's response were plain pathetic. I'm glad to see someone else isn't so quick to forgive the beloved celebrity bloggers.
It's tough to maintain ethical standards in what is perceived as an unethical industry. And since we are in the business of shaping perception, we know that perception is reality.
Right on ... the suggestion was that a "mistake was made."
But in reality, the entire project was planned as a ruse, without fully disclosing not only who the participants were, but what their affiliation was and how involved Wal-Mart was with the project.
The sad part is that it wouldn't have been a big deal to simply state up front all the details. Who would care? That's the frustrating part ... the idea that it all had to be done "under the covers."
In actuality, the RVing blog was a great idea and could have been a really cool, really valuable tool for Wal-Mart.
The other thing that is disconcerting is the suggestion that Edelman's social media guru was not involved in the project at all? I don't understand that.
To me, the litmus test for a corporate blog is simple: Can a regular Joe or Jane Consumer quickly and easily find out who is footing the bill?
Precisely so.
But in reality, the entire project was planned as a ruse
right again.
The whole thing is just embarrassing astroturf. And you are correct to say that an RVblog, done properly, would have been a very good idea.
"...the RVing blog was a great idea…valuable tool for Wal-Mart."
John, the title nails it, and I think you rightly put the focus where it should be: the original idea. My POV is as an art director/senior creative strategist.
One thing the Rubel PR lynch mob seems to miss is that Wal-Mart's blog isn't the first to do this, yet Rubel's name chums the waters for some reason.
Search adrants.com for Coke Zero for their high-profile fake blog that nobody I saw from the PR possee write about.
Or the new Toyota campaign with two teens visiting high schools. Think they're doing that for free?
Does anyone attacking Steve/Richard have a clue, let alone a solution? All I hear is "Shoulda been transparent”, or "We need to learn from this."
I take ethics seriously, but ok, learn what though? That a mea culpa after the fact is a lesson? Too much focus on defining 'is'?
And that misses the point. Go back to the launch.
Telling people up front these two were a paid writer/photog team would not be enough, and I think might potentially have derailed the idea.
Why? Because unless it's Paris and Nicole driving the RV, nobody cares about a newspaper writer or photog they never heard of, even if you published real names, photos and social security numbers.
It was cool when we all thought two people out of the blue took initiative to show a brand some love. But tell people they're pros, and we lose that charm/appeal.
I think there‘s an easy adjustment to make the idea work though:
Take the focus off the duo and make it about Wal-Mart employees. In that case, you could have anyone drive the damn RV then because it wouldn't matter - it's not about them anymore. I’m sure there's no shortage of ‘characters’ working the night shifts to interview.
Speaking of employees, maybe that's the best job they could get. Why not hear their stories? That's something they could feel proud about and might lead to genuine blog WOM for the brand. Ford does it in its Bold Moves campaign.
And with the right guidance, Wal-Mart could’ve been talked into letting some negative feedback seep in with the positive interviews. Hasn’t anyone learned from the Tahoe fiasco they blogged about? Well, apply it here in assuring Wal-Mart that things would be monitored.
As creative director, this is what I would’ve brought up in the planning stage with the PR group, agency planner and/or creative team, which goes to your point questioning the use of a social media guru.
Is Wal-Mart off the hook in this? Yes – and no. On one hand, I say brands get a pass because they trust agencies to guide them. Contrary to what a brand thinks about itself, sometimes, it really doesn’t know how to navigate consumer waters.
On the other, brands have a big say in the creative process too. (Not saying that's the case here), but since they pay the bills, they usually get their way and resistance becomes futile if they get their hearts set on something.
(Additional response in this post because of character limit.)
To clarify, my post above is in reference to all the comments I read on both Rubel's and Edleman's blogs. (And I've read them all.) The tone of discourse here is far more civil.
The point about Toyota is that having worked in a lot of agencies, sponsoring people for trips and participating in brand promotions is very common.
Talking about footing the bill branches off from the main point about discovering the identity of the real bloggers though. (Both important issues, but both may also be mutually exclusive.)
Speaking as a consumer now, I always assume there's compensation, be it for the athlete in a :30 Super Bowl spot or the guy for Nissan who will actually live in his car for seven days.
In a perfect world, it's nice to think there should be disclosure about who pays who for what in ads, but, I have to ask, where do you draw the line then with what I get to know as a consumer? Is this a slippery slope we're on?
As such, am I entitled to now know how much John Cleese gets for his TBS spots?
Or do I get to find out if my favorite celebrity who endorses a product really uses it?
Or the actor in a Mt. Dew commerical, how much did he earn?
At this point in the game as consumers, isn't it implied, and aren't we smart enough to realize, that someone's always footing the bill for the things being marketed to us?
Wow, MTLB, those are awesome points you bring up ... I appreciate you getting into the "nitty gritty" with us because that's where the real learning will take place, not in the quick hits that the blogosphere is so fond of.
I guess my own personal belief is that the choice of forum is critical. In other words, we instinctively know that a commercial is a commercial and that the people in them are actors, being paid to promote. But even though blogs are new, we expect them to be personal voices of real people -- especially if the blog is positioned in that way.
That is the biggest issue I have with the RVing blog. It was positioned as two regular people cruising the country. Even if it wasn't specifically communicated like that, the INFERENCE was that these were "real people" and not journalists.
That makes all the difference to me.
So I don't think transparency means we need to know how much John Cleese is getting paid to be in an ad. But social media is different and should be treated as such.
I don't know why that is. Maybe it's not true at all, except that I can't make a commercial and buy time on "Survivor," but I can quickly and easily set up a blog. So perhaps that's the line of demarcation???
nice site kino bad muskau body trimmer pfadfinder geschichte
Commenting by HaloScan
