Ok just kidding and it was an unfortunate situation and the site took a ton of heat over it.

Let’s give a more positive response. The EiC of PC World a year + ago resigned because of “interference” with the publishers by Apple. It made the press “everywhere.” The publisher had a change of heart on capitulating with loveable Steve Jobs. He was brought back. The editor for MacWorld was reassigned. The editorial world was vindicated and everything was right with the universe.

It was a stupid move on their part at the outset (ok very quickly). They corrected the error and things got back to “normal.”

Can you get bad product out? Sure. Allow us to give you a personal example.

A number of years ago we provided a software product to PC Magazine as a first look review. We were asked if it was gold disc (shipping product). We said yes. Half way thru the review we were asked if we were POSITIVE and we went to engineering and asked emphatically…that is gold disc release right? The head of engineering was just as emphatic … it is.

We were asked four more times over the period of two weeks and each time we checked and were reassured. We just so happened to have been planning an editorial tour to their offices and we hit their door just as the issue hit the street.

We were cremated in their office with the VP of marketing sitting next to us. The long time friends on the editorial side said they were sorry, the facts were the facts. We assured them it wasn’t their fault and we had been completely reassured that the product was ready to deliver/ship.

When we got back to the office in California we had a meeting with the CEO, VP Engineering, VP Mktg. He had to explain why he had sabotaged the introduction/sale of the product (that was our words, not his). He simply said he was really sure, pretty positive the product was solid and they didn’t do any QC to meet the ship date.

We didn’t like the review. We would have prefered that it not be printed. But facts were facts and we had really asked them to do us a favor and squeeze us in that issue.

In today’s 24×7 review world we have people who have product issues. We work with them to solve/resolve them. Occasionally we have people simply throw up their hands and say they aren’t going to finish, write, post the review until the problems get resolved or it is up to their “standard.”

We honestly believe that no reviewer, writer or writing type wants to nail a company or product. They often filter out really bad products and let them die by way of non-exposure.

Do we/does anyone like to read a review where it says, “your child isn’t the best we’ve seen and could have been better.” Of course not. We want you to say the kid is gorgeous and a fantastically brilliant prodigy. But calling attention to some of the imperfections just is stating the facts. The same is true of a review.

Will producers pull their promotion dollars? Sure they might and that’s their right (it is their money after all). But most we know use the reviews — 3-4 in a row — as product feature worklist. That’s relatively inexpensive product research and guess what…if they do 100% of what the reviewers’ recommended/requested…you can certain the product will get outstanding review results the next time…

Agreed, I didn’t frame my point well. I was simply talking about Internet (the DARPA baby) and Web (from CERN). Thanks for the tip on the books, I’ll check them out.

“We aren’t certain what you call a bad review.”

Any review that rates a product or service below the middle of whatever scale the review is based upon or is negatively critical of a product. i.e.: Giving a product/service 5 or less on a 10 pt scale.

“If you take issue with some of the features, capabilities, applications don’t you also suggest what the company can/could do to correct the situation?”

I would, but I can’t speak for every reviewer in the world.

“No company says “hey this is a real dog…let’s send out a bunch and as people to write it up so we can sell a ton.” They aren’t that stupid.”

Agreed, no company intentionally releases a junk product, but it does happen un-intentionally sometimes.

“If the reviewer simply doesn’t like certain aspects and takes issue — threatening as you indicated — then you probably shouldn’t have them on board anyway.”

In my example the reviewer wasn’t making the threats they were receiving the threats. It happens.

This link gives you an idea, it isn’t 100% exactly like what I was describing but it’s still along the same lines. I’ll try to find some others.
http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?publicUserId=4561231&bId=8587828
Here’s a perfect quote: “Provo, who had written nearly 800 reviews for GameSpot, told its audience that he could no longer work for a publication that softened its scores to appease advertisers.”

Social media (Web 2.0) activities were not developed to help folks exchange information. You should look at some of the books published by O’Reilly Publishing to gain a little better understanding of the slow emergence and then explosion in this area…it is fun/interesting to read!

We understand your irritation (reading between the lines we see this is happened to you). We aren’t certain what you call a bad review. If you take issue with some of the features, capabilities, applications don’t you also suggest what the company can/could do to correct the situation? Or if you simply write XYZ company’s product is the biggest pile of dung we’ve ever reviewed and it’s like so worthless then our first impression would be that you were ready to do a hatchet job before you started the review. No company says “hey this is a real dog…let’s send out a bunch and as people to write it up so we can sell a ton.” They aren’t that stupid.

If the reviewer simply doesn’t like certain aspects and takes issue — threatening as you indicated — then you probably shouldn’t have them on board anyway. If they don’t like what you said, we might suggest you also examine how you write reviews. There are ways of writing negative points that are softer and there are ways of doing it that are harder to swallow.

Makes a HUGE difference!!!!

“Unfortunately you’re starting with the wrong premise. Social media sites (and the iNet/Web for that matter) were not developed, run and maintained for your (or anyone’s) pleasure. They were constructed to make money for the stakeholders.”

They were? That’s funny I thought they were built to share data and research.

“Let us use a more realistic example. We conduct user group outreach/review/support programs for clients. We contact the Mac and PC user groups across the Americas — there are about 600 — and offer them product to test, evaluate, review. We ask two things in return:
1. They print the review in their newsletter and present their results to their membership at a meeting (yes we also provide them with a copy of the product to be used as a door prize to help them replenish their treasury for other activities)
2. We ask that they also post their reviews on public consumer review sites (there are hundreds around the globe)

This is viral marketing. This is grassroots. This is not dishonest on the company’s part or the user/reviewer’s part.”

This is all well and good until the company in question gets a bad review then threatens to never send a product to the reviewer again or to pull their “marketing” (banners or whatever) from the site (which represents potential loss of revenue to the reviewer/site).

Doesn’t happen. At least not by any company that has a brain.

You may pay people for their time but you want to get people who believe in the company/the product.

Let us use a more realistic example. We conduct user group outreach/review/support programs for clients. We contact the Mac and PC user groups across the Americas — there are about 600 — and offer them product to test, evaluate, review. We ask two things in return:
1. They print the review in their newsletter and present their results to their membership at a meeting (yes we also provide them with a copy of the product to be used as a door prize to help them replenish their treasury for other activities)
2. We ask that they also post their reviews on public consumer review sites (there are hundreds around the globe)

This is viral marketing. This is grassroots. This is not dishonest on the company’s part or the user/reviewer’s part.

Your version of “viral marketing” doesn’t exist in the real world…You are WAY too hard on yourself!!!!

Yes, in fact I agree that review sites help. People researching reviews will, however, consider the reviewers’ motivations. Are they paid by the maker (or agents) of the product being reviewed? If so, then those reviews are inherently more suspect. This is certainly not news to someone in your business – scandals of this nature appear all the time. Some of them even directly affect important issues (such as the Wakefield report which spawned a whole culture against vaccinations, and it was later revealed that the author was on the payroll of someone with an anti-vaccination agenda). Can you imagine the effect on, say, Consumer Reports if it was demonstrated that they primarily received free merchandise to review rather than purchasing the products they review? Lots of companies don’t like CR reviews, but they stay in business because people believe they are highly honest and not motivated by being paid by corps and PR companies.

It’s doesn’t bother me (as much) when someone comes up to me on the street, on some social media, wherever, and says something like “Hello, I represent XYZ corp. We have a product that does A, B, and C. I think you should buy it because [whatever]”

It DOES bother me when that person approaches me BECAUSE they’ve been sucking information out of something like tweets. The things that were said likely were not intended to be used that way. It would feel the same as if I was talking to a friend on the street and someone butted into the conversation with some interjection about a product we mentioned. It’s just old-fashioned rude.

My issue with viral marketing is a little different. If XYZ corp pays a handful of people to have a fake public conversation about something, then pays some other people to point to that conversation and say “look people are talking about the XYZ product it must be cool” – which, at the simplest level is how viral marketing seems to work (perhaps we’re talking about different things, but that’s what I consider viral marketing) – that is old-fashioned dishonest. That is shilling for the product in the traditional “snake-oil” way. My impressions of Twitter, for example, was that it was full of this sort of thing. Ultimately, I deleted my Twitter account because the signal to noise ratio there was so low. Right now, for example, people virally flogging these smokeless e-cigarettes seem to be everywhere. They all want to be friends. Ugh.

I agree that there is nothing wrong with getting things reviewed/discussed in general, but how that is done may well have a lot wrong with it.

We did not say reporters/journalists were called names. We said individuals on the Web when people take issue with them call them vile names and make statements no correct individual would make in mixed company or in face to face encounters (at least we hope not).

The web has helped desensitize people in their relations and social media is a way of reconnecting people in a non-confrontational approach (we hope). We know of hundreds of people we have contacted online, gone offline with and discussed their product/service problems/issues. In the vast majority of the instances the issues were resolved and they became happy — yes vocal — promoters of the product afterward. We have an aggressive review program for clients around the world where individuals receive the product, evaluate them, write them up/make presentations on them and then move on to the next product/service and do the same thing all over again.

Does that make them bad? Does that make them shills? No that means someone has taken the time/effort/trouble to do a lot of the work for you to help you narrow down your buying decisions. Of course you can discount everyone — everyone is a liar except you and me and we aren’t really certain about you! — and buy the product yourself and decide if you got the best solution or if you wasted your money.

Review sites, bloggers that do reviews, publications that do reviews all serve the consumer a valuable service. If you research 3-4 of the reviews you will see if there are consistent facts on which to base your purchase.

Companies invest in getting the products/services reviewed/discussed to help consumers make the right, intelligent buying decision!

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this scenario!!!!

I don’t know how you dated, but I was always very straightforward about what i was after. And you’re right – it was much easier than the silly games other people played.

Yes, in general, corporate interest seems to often be bad thing, or at least not a good thing. Corporations exist to transfer wealth from a large number of people to a small number of people. They do that mostly within the bounds of law, but as the events of the last few years have shown, without a solid ethical or moral code. Historically, corporations have been masters of deception, fraud and lies that make even politicians blush. You must be talking tongue-in-cheek if you don’t understand this… if I read correctly, it is your very job to overcome it.

>>UNFORTUNATELY your “statement of fact” is so full of dung it does not deserve to be responded to.

And yet you responded anyway…

We’ve gone off track here in any case. In fact, you’ve gone out of your way to make this very personal toward me. As a person skilled in relations, surely you are aware that is considered rather inappropriate. I would have thought that people in your line of would could handle disagreement a bit better.

>>You claim –Why is it, do you think, that people will call reporters et al. vile names? Why do you think there’s a backlash? — sorry we disagree so discussing your claim (we didn’t say proof) is pointless! We do encourage you not to run with sharp objects though.

Actually, YOU claimed: “We have seen media and journalistic sites shut down and reporters called the most vial names imaginable in the name of “backlash” or what the individuals might call biased reporting. Some of these people use vulgarities and threats online that they would (hopefully) be embarassed to use in public or 1:1.”

So please, answer the question I put to you… Why is it, do you think, that people will call reporters et al. vile names? Why do you think there’s a backlash?

No, by the way, I do not believe there is honour among thieves.

“It is important that people understand that you can’t necessarily trust what you see, nor the people that you meet on social media because they might just have a corporate angle.”

Good lord…everyone has an angle. It may be to help someone who is homeless and you are helping them because it makes YOU feel good but you have an angle…

Regarding your cyberthieves it is important to point out that most enterprise theft is done from the INSIDE, not from people in China, Ghana, Poland or wherever.

You say — they’re giving a free ride to corporate interest. — like corporate interest is a bad thing and yours is more noble?

You note — Viral marketing attempts to conceal the corporate motive — but hopefully you date and male or female you have “a motive.” Why do you conceal the motive. Wouldn’t it be better instead of “marketing” what you wanted from the relationship you simply walked up and said (whatever)? Certainly would save time and money and it would be more HONEST!

When our wife asks “How do I look in this dress?” we say fantastic because we have a motive — peace in the household.

You emphasized — you always knew with PCMag that whoever paid for ads got a good review — UNFORTUNATELY your “statement of fact” is so full of dung it does not deserve to be responded to. We have been in the communications business for 30 + years. We have worked with thousands of very professional, very ethical journalists — print, radio, TV, web, blog. You honestly believe you are better than them? These people hold themselves (99.99% of them) to an extremely high standard. We’ve had products reviewed by thousands of these folks and we’ve read even more pieces. They say what they as technically professional testers like and what they don’t like. You think we or any company person likes to see someone tell YOU what they don’t like about our product? NO…no company purposefully designs/builds a negative feature into a product or service.

You claim — make sums of money that normal people can’t comprehend — but you seem to forget that these companies INVEST billions in disease, prevention, life improvement with the hopes that the results will be good. Most of that research leads to dead ends. Those that make it thru can be quickly purchased in other countries of the world. However in the U.S. the companies test, retest, test again for 5-7 years. They submit trainloads of documentation and information and then MAYBE they are permitted to offer the drug to you. Trust us the hand of whatever you worship did not come down and POOF the medicine and cure you.

You claim –Why is it, do you think, that people will call reporters et al. vile names? Why do you think there’s a backlash? — sorry we disagree so discussing your claim (we didn’t say proof) is pointless! We do encourage you not to run with sharp objects though.

You comment — I’m much more concerned with people getting on social media to act as shills — we are sorry no one is paying you. Oh you have a job?

You said — I also think people collectively — sorry but collectively people are often a mob with independent thinking lost in the mellee.

One thing we do agree on…the printed word is inherently more “valuable” than the digital word. We enjoy holding, reading, “real” books, “real” newspapers, “real” magazines as opposed to video news summary dumps and brain numbing shows. Perhaps the Hulu ads are correct…it was developed by aliens to turn your brain to mush for eating.

Right now we have to get back to getting review product to folks so they can test and report their findings. And no they will not provide us with the information before the world sees it and no we don’t even ask!!!

And we are certain you will say…gee there is honor among thieves…

Failed to mention those other IT systems only due to lack of time, space and relevance to the specific topic at hand. Product placement in shows and movies is often silly… is there anyone who didn’t ridicule the computer placement in Independence Day? the banishment of Coke and the conspicuous placement of Pepsi in Grease? Movies aren’t social media, but I guess you’re saying that any publicity is good publicity. Fair enough.

I would never suggest that social media were made for my, or anyone else’s pleasure. However, my understanding of that leaves me a duty to point out to people who might not be so aware, that social media is a two-edged sword. It is important that people understand that you can’t necessarily trust what you see, nor the people that you meet on social media because they might just have a corporate angle.

As for cyber-thieves, yes, they are a risk, but I am 100% certain that more corporations have successfully sought and acquired my data than thieves.

>>We are at a loss as to what is wrong with viral marketing?
>>We’re not certain if you don’t like the words or just are
>>concerned that they haven’t approached you to test/talk about
>>their product.

I would not test/talk about their product. What is wrong with it is that it is simply dishonest. Viral marketing attempts to conceal the corporate motive – to make something popular before people notice that they’re giving a free ride to corporate interest.

>>Or you do it in the same manner you did in your example?
>>Want a computer…man we tried the (fill in the blank) and
>>it was a killer gaming and video production system. We
>>tried two others and they were mediocre, sucked. That’s
>>Viral marketing and getting 50-100 people to use the
>>product, talk about it to others and recommend it is not
>>only good (and honest) it is also the most effective
>>marketing a company can do!

No, it is dishonest unless you also clearly disclose that you receive compensation for making those comments and recommendations from the people you are making them about. Remember PC magazine? I can’t think of a single person who trusted anything they wrote over the last 20 years… you always knew with PCMag that whoever paid for ads got a good review.

Regarding drug ads – you’re wrong. It’s not the side-effects that scare people, it’s lack of trust in huge, faceless companies that make sums of money that normal people can’t comprehend (i.e. Pharmaceutical companies). People aren’t running around avoiding big pharma’s products (say, vaccines) because they get told they might burp, fart and shit themselves. They don’t trust drug ads because they don’t trust the sources of information about the drugs. And that one is difficult to overcome.

Why is it, do you think, that people will call reporters et al. vile names? Why do you think there’s a backlash? It would seem you agree that there is one. What would the source of that be? It’s an important question to answer – backlashes have a way of striking beyond the original cause.

If I may suggest an answer, it might be because people feel used when they find out that they’ve been subjected to that kind of bias that you might find, say, in viral marketing. That’s just a conjecture, but it does seem to fit.

Yes, comments do, in fact, seem less worthy when they come from a source that appears to have a vested interest in the subject. That’s why concepts like “independent review” and “third-party analysis” are considered important. So yes, the remarks of a reviewer who was given a product to review start with a lower level of trust than the remarks of someone who went out and bought the product to try it (or at least rented it). A reviewer has to earn trust, and it’s not easy.

And that trust isn’t earned by skulking around social media.

Don’t get me wrong… if XYZCorp wants to create an XYZCorp account on twitter and kiboize all tweets looking for mentions of their product, jumping in to converse with people, that’s honest enough (if somewhat annoying). I’m much more concerned with people getting on social media to act as shills without revealing their true nature as compensated employees or agents of a corporate interest.

I also think people collectively have to be very aware of what kinds of information they are making available on social media because they’re actually doing themselves the disservice while feeding marketing engines.

Regarding google, you are correct. I wouldn’t have launched Google or anything else with a business model like that, which means I wouldn’t have launched Google. Yep, I’d be financially poorer for that decision. Oh well. There are some things I just wouldn’t do, and there’s more to life than money. It’s not like I’m starving here.

I don’t think you hid anything in your article either and yes, you did everyone a favour by explaining what is going on. I hope it raises some awareness in the USERS of social media so that they can more appropriately deal with the shills and hucksters that will, over time, surround them. It’s not marketers that need to read your column, it’s social media users that need to read it.

>>Social media is here to stay and it is NOT a non-profit
>>segment of the marketplace.

That should be the banner page of Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, and all the rest.

Tonight I watched a play of Farenheit 451, came home, and ordered the book as I seem to have misplaced my copy. It will be nice to re-read it.

Heh, my captcha is “401 coke”. There’s some irony in that I suppose

We’re a bottom reader and top responder so we’ll start with your initial discussion and work our way down.

Unfortunately you’re starting with the wrong premise. Social media sites (and the iNet/Web for that matter) were not developed, run and maintained for your (or anyone’s) pleasure. They were constructed to make money for the stakeholders. We lived thru the bubble/collapse of Web 1.0 where there was no business plan for putting money in the cash register short of getting more investments from people and that was a failed concept.

Your profile information is out there not just for marketing (no we are not evil doers) but also for any governmental agency to find as well as cyber thief. Be a lot more concerned about that latter than the initial firms you red flag.

We believe that we were very emphatic with our points to encourage marketers to tread lightly. Men,women, boomer, hispanic, gamer and every niche location should be approached with caution. Most responsible marketers will lurk for a long time understanding the people involved, their agendas, their objectives, their goals before jumping in. The responsible ones also identify themselves as to their affiliation (only newbie marketing/communications/PR graduates attempt to fool people who have been on the iNet for longer than they have been out of school).

You use one of the poorest examples on the iNet when you bring up pharmaceuticals. Every pharmaceutical house and brand group has sites with information, guidance and assistance — blood pressure, cancer, swine flu, ulcers, you name it are usually from sponsors. They don’t try to BS you. They try to give you the information, the facts you need to make responsible decisions. Certainly it will be from their perspective but then the same would be true from a discussion you provided (few people provide information/advice and then argue with themselves).

Would you discount information on feeding/caring for your child just because the site was sponsored by J&J or Gerber? We would hope they know more about kids than we do!

What is iNet freedom? Google eliminates/blocks information access in China, in the Middle East and other areas that is not in line with their political or religious beliefs. Does that make them evil? We think not…you can not impose your idealogies or beliefs on someone else.

We are at a loss as to what is wrong with viral marketing? We’re not certain if you don’t like the words or just are concerned that they haven’t approached you to test/talk about their product.

We provide a product to you which you test, like (we hope) and tell others. We ask you to discuss it or recommend it. Or you do it in the same manner you did in your example? Want a computer…man we tried the (fill in the blank) and it was a killer gaming and video production system. We tried two others and they were mediocre, sucked. That’s Viral marketing and getting 50-100 people to use the product, talk about it to others and recommend it is not only good (and honest) it is also the most effective marketing a company can do!

We just read an article on corporate data theft and people interviewed were asked if they would “liberate” corporate IP for a third party for $1 million. The results were about 40% said they would for a Mill. And the other 60% wouldn’t for that money????

Your comments regarding the importance of TV and magazine advertising isn’t an ancient finding, the studies were very current. We do like to hear people say they aren’t susceptible to or affected by advertising?

Most studies show that you aren’t aware of specific ads even if you have seen them for months on end UNTIL you are interested in buying or using the product. We’re vegetarian but we watch most fast food ads because the first couple of times they’re interesting. We don’t drink but we still enjoy beer ads. But then we enjoy the creative work that goes into them compared to the few shows we watch — except for Deadliest Catch!

We wonder why you raise so much noise regarding honest ads but failed to mention Macs, Dell systems, Cisco telepresence systems in shows and in movies. Do you believe the networks go out and buy those products to use as props. No nor does everyone go out on their way to the NCIS set to buy their fix of Starbucks coffee or….

Didn’t really know we had AdBlock on our Firefox but then we just use it.

As for your paying for ad-free media, congratulations but you are in the minority. That means you are willing to pay to read the Wall Street Journal or NY Times. Or do you go to the free (read ad supported) news feeds? Sorry we asked!

We definitely do not believe that TLP is a mouthpiece for marketeers (our rephrasing of your comments, not theirs). Just because they provide anyone — including yourself Evolving Squid — a platform to present his/her ideas or thoughts doesn’t put them on the other side of the tracks.

We have seen media and journalistic sites shut down and reporters called the most vial names imaginable in the name of “backlash” or what the individuals might call biased reporting. Some of these people use vulgarities and threats online that they would (hopefully) be embarassed to use in public or 1:1.

Marketers, engineers, teachers, accountants and yes even lawyers aren’t bad people as a category. Let’s not catalog people until they open their mouths and prove you are correct about them.

We appreciate the fact (and fully agree) that word of mouth is the most effective advertising PERIOD. Would it make it any less powerful or credible if you later learned someone was GIVEN the product and asked to discuss it when appropriate? Of course not. How does WOM develop…people TRY the product. That is true of media reviewers, a technical person you respect or someone you pass in the hall.

Regarding the strengths and weaknesses of products. We don’t happen to like pharmaceutical ads because we’re hyped up after hearing what it’s going to do for you but then they give you the obligatory contraindications and cripes we’ll go blind; our hair will fall out; we’ll bloat, flatulate, lose control of all bodily functions.

Gee sounds like something we want to use day-in, day-out.

The bottom line we don’t believe we hid anything in the social media write-up. In fact we believe we did you a strong favor by speaking from a marketeer’s perspective and telling people what they can/can not, should/should not do.

Social media is here to stay and it is NOT a non-profit segment of the marketplace. TLP and every other social media location is in this arena first because it is so D*** much fun and changes so rapidly you hate to go to bed at night for fear you’ll miss something. Secondly 99.99% are here to at least make a living — if they make huge $$$$$$ great!

Of course Evolving Squid you never would have stooped to launch Google and be so crass as to sell ads, clicks, personal info, priority locations, etc right?

Marketing it is often said is the second oldest profession in the world. It was invented to bring together the buyers/sellers of the oldest profession.

ES: Hey, I’m thinking of dumping this ancient computer and getting a new one, what do you think?
Eric: Good idea, that computer is slow. I have a mac notebook and an intel desktop.
ES: interesting. Mac makes good notebooks, but I need a desktop. Was thinking AMD with ATI video
Scott: Definitely AMD and ATI is the way to go. Look at the X4 955 and the HD4890 cards
Bob (a peripheral follower who actually works for Apple): No way, Mac is the way to go, it’s awesome and you won’t be beholden to windows.
Dick (a peripheral follower who actually works for NVidia): ATI is good, but the GeForce cards are better, even if they cost more.
ES: GeForce costs too much and what good is a Mac if I have to run Windows on it to do anything I want to do?
Bob: you have to look at the upside, you can run Mac software and Linux too.
Dick: ATI sucks.
Scott: Money doesn’t grow on trees
ES: Wait a minute, who are you guys?
…

And illustrates the important issue. I *KNOW* who my friends are and whose opinion I trust. The opinion of my closest friends will ALWAYS be worth more than the opinion of some corporate shill. People who just butt in to a conversation to flog a particular point of view ARE AUTOMATICALLY SUSPECT IN ANY SOCIAL INTERACTION, even in social media. It doesn’t matter if they’re flogging a product, a political candidate or position, a religion, or whatever.

We trust our friends, we might consider the words of random associates, but the value placed on that interaction is pretty low in most cases.

What we do value is when a company answers honestly about the strengths AND WEAKNESSES of its products. That builds trust. But I want to come to the company with those questions, not have the company come to me.

Here endeth the lesson

Short summary: Everything that TLP says is true. However, TLP is talking from the marketers’ point of view. Users of social media are probably a lot less keen on having their conversations invaded by corporate shills. Persisting to do that, by increasingly underhanded means will necessarily generate a backlash against your product, against advertising in general, and against social media.

In the heyday of banner advertising, there were studies (an associate of mine did one, for example, for his masters thesis) that demonstrated people would stare at a cursor rather than look at ads on web pages. Don’t think for a second that there isn’t a social media equivalent of that.

Unfortunately, that’s not why people put those profiles there. They put a profile in social media to find people with similar interests, not to attract marketers. To use the profile for marketing is an abuse of the information – perhaps not an abuse of the terms of service of whatever social media, but certainly an abuse of the information from the point of view of the person who provided it.

I’m pretty confident that anyone who actually takes the time to do research will find out that what I am saying is precisely true.

However, this article makes a good point – users of social media should be VERY careful what they put into their online profiles. Information you put on the net will be vacuumed up and used for marketing and other intrusive purposes.

>>You may complain about the volume of email and spam you have to deal with every day but baby you ain’t seen nuthin yet!

Indeed! That’s why marketers really need to rethink their methods now, and users need to rethink what information they make available.

>>“Qualified” search offers quite different and informative results than “total” search results

Yes, and that’s often a bad thing for the public. Years ago, search engines returned the list of hits. Now every major search engine prioritizes that list at least in part by the money that some sites have paid. The result is a list that is biased and less useful than in the past – if I’m looking for information on drug Xyz, will I get an actual research report, or a marketing blurb disguised as a research report? If I want to find out about tuna fishing, do I get statistical information from a university or a report from Starkist?

The stuff you’re talking about here is as much the enemy of Internet freedom as is the government interference that TLP decries in other posts.

>>can generate effective viral campaigns for products

Don’t count on that to last much longer. People are getting aware and fed up with viral campaigns. They are often considered dishonest when they are discovered. It might give a product a boost initially, but there’s a backlash. Viral campaigns are about as fun as being Rickrolled.

>>TV and magazines produced the greatest awareness and each contributed more impact than online

Yes, they did. But what happened over time? So much advertising that now people get up for a beer and mute the TV during ads. Magazines are falling out of favour – who wants to pay 5 or 6 bucks for 100 pages of advertising and 20 pages of content?

Advertisers MUST beware… people are becoming numb. Product hawking is becoming so ubiquitous that it is in danger of simply becoming background noise to be ignored. It’s already the subject of ridicule.

People are starting to put up defences against corporate intrusion – even though most people do understand that a certain level of corporate noise is necessary. The level that people will tolerate is a lot lower, I think, than advertisers realize or would like it to be. AdBlock Plus is pretty much THE most popular plug-in for Firefox, for example. There must be a reason for that.

Personally, I’d rather pay for ad-free media than turn my personal information over to be mined by people who merely want to separate me from my money.