La WOMMA a través de la empresa trnd, presenta su código de ética en España con la intención de desarrollar y mantener normas éticas apropiadas para los especialistas de marketing y anunciantes.

El valor de la ética, esta presente y de nosotros depende que se lleven a cabo estás “buenas prácticas”. ¿Qué opinan?

Son algunas preguntas que nos hemos hecho con Marc Cortés, Joan Jimenez y otros especialistas del social media.

Desde mi punto de vista, hay que dividir el patrocinio en 3 grupos:

1. el blogger recibe dinero a cambio de una revisión de producto, de la publicación de una noticia, etc.

2. el blogger recibe vales de descuento para probar un servicio

3. el blogger no recibe dinero pero recibe un producto para probarlo

El código ético de la Womma propone primero clarificar siempre la relación entre el blogger y la marca (“he recibido una compensación de XXX para probar el producto YYY, y esto es lo que pienso…”)

Segundo, recibir dinero en cash a cambio de una opinión no es sólo ilegal (hay una ley europea que impide el pago de dinero en cambio de publicidad o recomendaciones), si no que no me parece ético. ¿Cómo puedo guardar mi sentido neutro si recibo dinero a cambio de una opinión “positiva”? los lectores críticos notarán la diferencia.

Recibir vales de descuento para probar un servicio puede ser visto como dinero en cash, aunque sin el vale de descuento no probaría un servicio, por lo cual estamos en un punto medio entre recibir dinero en cash y no recibir dinero. Mmm… creo que aquí la prudencia es deseada. Pondría “he recibido un vale de 50 EUR para probar el servicio XXX y me ha parecido …”

En el tercer caso, cuando el blogger no recibe dinero, si no únicamente el producto, creo que su neutralidad es respetada y su opinión puede ser reforzada. “He recibido este producto de XXX y lo he probado. Mi opinión es…”

Un tema emergente en España, porque muchas agencias pagan bloggers para “comprar” sus opiniones. Personalmente veo bien que un blogger pueda percibir una remuneración, pero no a cambio de publicidad encubierta. Lo que cuenta, son opiniones reales y honestas.

¿Y que dicen nuestros vecinos de EE.UU. al respecto? A continuación un debate sobre cómo sponsorizar blogs.

Sponsored blogs come under fire

… Critics question ethics behind advertisers’ sponsorship of blog postings …

Corporate sponsorship is commonplace on the radio, behind celebrity endorsements and in professional sporting events. Now an increasing number of blog posts are brought to you courtesy of brands eager to reach consumers on the Web.

The rise of “sponsored conversation” is sparking spirited debate in the social media marketing industry, with a dichotomy forming between those who see compensation as a pragmatic option that benefits both companies and bloggers, and those who believe such practices could taint the legitimacy of writers and brands.

The discussion “gets to a really high level of where blogging fits into our culture and society, and whether it’s journalism or not,” said Sean Corcoran, an analyst at Forrester Research who believes sponsored conversation is becoming commonplace.

Forrester analysts say this approach can be a useful compromise between public relations, where companies have no guarantee of coverage, and advertising, where brands control the message. Bloggers can be seen as more authentic messengers because of their relationship with readers.

No one argues that bloggers should disclose compensation. Even when disclosure is made clearly, not all marketers are comfortable with payment.

WOMMA, the trade association for members of the word-of-mouth marketing industry, revised its ethics code this year. Among the changes, the code says the group’s roughly 400 members “stand against marketing practices whereby the consumer is paid cash … to make recommendations, reviews or endorsements.”

Paul Rand, chief executive of Chicago marketing firm Zocalo Group and the head of the ethics code revision project, said the membership felt strongly that “there’s a difference between paid dollar compensation to bloggers and providing a product or experience for review.”

But the debate over how to define sponsored conversation, and whether it’s responsible marketing, is far from settled.

Panasonic, for example, flew several bloggers to the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas this year. They received Panasonic products and were free to write about whatever they wished. Chris Brogan, a blogger who participated in the program, said it wasn’t sponsored content because he wasn’t paid for his time or to write about the gadgets.

“It was expected that I write about CES and that if it made sense that I write about Panasonic, and I did, but beyond that, there was no quid pro quo,” Brogan wrote on his site.

Izea, a company that connects advertisers with bloggers, treats all compensation equally. Last year, Izea worked with Kmart to provide $500 gift cards to bloggers, who then wrote about their shopping experiences.

Under the WOMMA ethics code, gift cards are the same as cash. But Izea CEO Ted Murphy believes providing a gift card is acceptable and is no different than furnishing a product for review.

“You can’t draw a line between cash or a trip or a television or points or whatever it may be,” Murphy said. “All of that has an impact. There’s a transfer of value.”

Sponsored conversation is spreading beyond blogs to new media tools such as Twitter. Melanie Notkin, the creator of savvyauntie.com, participated this month in a Disney-sponsored Twitter campaign to promote the release of “Pinocchio” on Blu-ray. Notkin posted updates on the product launch and gave away five Blu-ray discs, using a special label to designate the sponsorship. She also alerted her readers before the campaign started.

“The very first thing I said to [Disney] was I needed to be transparent and authentic,” Notkin said. “I couldn’t just go out there and talk about their DVD without everyone knowing they were a sponsor.”

Notkin gained 1,000 followers during the three-week program. She’s now carefully considering offers from other companies.

Murphy said he prefers Izea’s 265,000 bloggers to maintain a ratio of one sponsored post out of every 10 posts. A site overrun with sponsored posts is known as a “splog” and can get kicked out of the network, Murphy said.

Bloggers say the relationship they’ve built with their readers safeguards them against becoming corporate shills.

“Getting stuff doesn’t mean you’re biased,” said Stacy DeBroff, CEO of momcentral.com. “If it biases you … you will lose your audience. People will follow you if you’re smart and articulate. The minute you lose your authenticity, people know and they tune out.”

By Wailin Wong |Tribune Newspapers

March 26, 2009

Fuente: Chicago Tribune

Si tienes una opinión al respecto, adelante! nos gustaría saberla!

Todo es posible, pero nosotros no trabajamos así. Nos guidamos con el código de conducto de la WOMMA por razones éticas y obvias. Empezamos hoy con los principios fundamentales. (Juan – cuando quieras lo traducimos al castellano

Word of Mouth Marketing Ethics Code of Conduct: Fundamental Principles

We respect and promote practices that abide by an understanding that the consumer – not the marketer – is fundamentally in charge, in control, and dictates the terms of the consumer-marketer relationship. We go above and beyond to ensure that consumers are protected at all times.

1. Happy, interested people will say good things about you.
It’s doesn’t take much more than that. Understand this concept, devote yourself to it, and you will be a successful word of mouth marketer.

2. Honest, genuine opinion is our medium.
We don’t tell people what to say or how to say it. We fundamentally believe that people should be free to form their own opinions and share them in their own words. While supporting the natural conversation, we take great care to ensure that we do not distort it.

3. We start, support, and simplify the sharing.
Word of mouth marketers use creative techniques to encourage communications. We make it easier for people to talk to each other, we create interesting things to talk about, we create communities to share ideas, and we work to find the right people who should know about what we do. Traditional advertising pushes ideas on consumers. We help naturally occurring good ideas move around.

4. Word of mouth cannot be faked.
Deception, infiltration, dishonesty, shilling, and other attempts to manipulate consumers or the conversation are bad. Honest marketers do not do this, will not do this, and will get caught if they try. Sleazy behavior will be exposed by the public and backfire horribly on anyone who attempts it.

5. Word of mouth marketing empowers the consumer.
Consumers have control, and they dictate the terms of a new, healthier relationship between marketers and the people who use their products. Consumers demand satisfaction, respect, and great products and services. When companies deliver, people will tell their friends. Word of mouth marketers work to accelerate this process, replacing aggressive advertising with customer-centric service, support, and open communications.

Fuente: WOMMA