Walter,
we really must meet sometime as we are here in Boston.
Regarding P&G.
I was thinking the P & G example is a little bit like going to a supermarket where someone asks you to test a product, say a dip or a new type of microwave sandwich. If I ate the product, liked it, bought it and went home and told all my friends. Commercial alert is suggesting the company would ask me to inform everyone I spoke with about the new product that I received a free product at the supermarket. Somehow I don't think that type of product testing and promotion is against the FTC rules. What do you think?
I also wrote more on the subject on this post:
http://
blogsurvey.backbonemedia....hing_in_ad.html
Dr. Carl,
I've been thinking a lot about disclosure in the BzzAgent/Tremors WOMM model. I'm currently reading Grapevine and I've heard Dave Balter speak on this and I've read some of you stuff from previous WOMMA events. Dave says (usuallu citing some study conducted by you) that the effectiveness of a BzzAgent isn't effect by the disclosure of their association with a WOMM program . This makes sense to me as I think it is more about the trust of the listener and the tone, context, sincerety, etc. of the WOM Unit.
All that said, in the real world, with real people, I think it's unreasonable to expect them to disclose anything - they are going to share what they think is interesting/relevent/helpful. I don't think Termor should say "if you do say something about product X be sure to tell them you're part of the program" anymore than they should tell them what to say about the product itself. WOMM is about encouraging people to talk like people and not like marketers. Forced disclosures are not how regular folks talk.
What we can (and should) expect is for Tremors NOT to discourage disclosure - either directly or indirectly. Since everyone working in the area of WOMM says you can't control the message, I think it is an unrealistic for us to expect agecies to be able to when it comes to disclosure.
So, "You never tell a panelist what to say." is not a cop out AS LONG AS "You ALSO never tell a panelist what NOT to say."
This is a subtle but important distinction - and a question that I'd love to ask a Tremor's panelist (because now that this has blown up - I don't beleive either Tremors or Commericial Alert. 
)
Keep up the good work.
-Matt
John and Matt,
Thank you both for your comments. I've responded in two parts: Part 1 and Part 2.
Walter
PS -- And John, let's find some time to meet in person 
Correct me if I am wrong, but I see a clear difference between an actor who is paid to follow a script and an person who is given a free sample or two and encouraged to talk about it if they like it.
Its seems to be mainly a question of "obligation"
Its not clear from what I've read if the teens involved in Tremor have any obligations to promote the products or are tracked in any way as far a results. It doesn't sound like it. It sounds as if they are free to spread positive reviews of a product or, (gasp!) even negative reviews.
Paid actors chatting up products is a different situation, but I can't imagine that those hokey gimmicks are believed or actually pay off.
It all sounds pretty harmless to me considering that undisclosed marketing efforts have been going on for years. Anyone knows that a retail salesman's job is to sell you something, but not everyone knows that he is pushing that particular T.V. not because it the best quality or value, but because if he can sell one more of that model this month, he'll qualify for a trip to Hawaii, all expenses paid by the manufacturer.
Someone might say in a store environment, its clear that a salesman's agenda, no matter what it is, is usually at odds with the buyer's best interest and one should always beware. Well, I think we have to recognize that today, all the world's a store and a little healthy skepticism is well advised. I also believe that teens who are supposed to be more succeptible to sneaky marketing tactics, are the most aware and sensitive to these attempts.
Commenting by HaloScan
