(n.b. this is a continuation of this discussion)
Armstrong Williams and Ketchum (well commented on here). BzzAgent.
Any difference?
Both situations have an individual being compensated (or having the potential to be compensated) for talking about something. Both situations have a behind-the-scenes intermediary (Ketchum in the former, BzzAgent in the latter) that is itself compensated to have individuals start a conversation. These conversations take place in situations where the other parties in the conversation would typically feel that the commentator is speaking from the heart, and not as part of a part of a program (or under contract). In both cases, the others in the conversation feel duped afterwards, upon learning that an interaction that seemed genuine was actually staged and part of a program of payola.
Despite all the metrics and process, I still feel the BzzAgent model is broken. How to fix?
1) Explicity lose the incentives (per here). If only a small portion of the BzzAgents are redeeming them anyway, what’s the harm? Even if half the current participants drop out, there still are (if the claims are true) many tens of thousands of people who are participating.
2) Require disclosure. When BzzAgents are buzzing, anything less than stating (either verbally or in writing, if blogging, etc.) “By the way, I’m a volunteer part of an organization that’s getting compensated to promote this product, and I will be writing a report on it at some time in the future,” is disingenuous. Just say it. The Marqui people do. (I’m not thrilled with the Marqui model, but I do respect their upfrontedness about it.)
3) Aggressively change the meaning of the word “agent.” For this to work, “agent” needs to mean “agent, as in catalyst,” not “agent, as in shady operative.”
Communication is good. An increase in interpersonal interaction is good. Making money is good. But doing the first two as a means to the third without disclosing it is a good way to rile up a lot of hornets. And that’s not-so-good.
I appreciate this. Part of the difference is the hipness quotient. Republican non-conforming minority columnist, vs. mtv-cool buzz. I think the paid buzz is worse, I already know there are many considerations in a journalist’s exposure of his opinions. An apparently private person on the street or friend paid to tout a product=betrayal of human contact.
If this ‘zzzz interrupted me at a party to shill his shoes, I would pull the shank outta my inferior shoe and beat him over the head with it. I’m surprised he didn’t pull out one of those metal shoe sizers and fit him for a pair right there at the party. If this story is the best of the bunch, I would hate to see the worst, or even average zzzz.
———————————–
BzzReport of the Month
BzzAgent Monel
Johnston and Murphy LiTe
10/20/04
Social Location
So I am in North Dallas (Highland Park) at a dinner fund raiser for some congressional candidate. This was well to-do affair in which the people hosting it had more money than sense. If you have a marble driveway leading to the front door. . . anyway, I was there as a favor to a friend. Her boss was hosting it so she had to be there. My wife was in Raliegh all week, so I was getting tired of pick-up from Sonic / Taco Bell. So this was a promising evening if for nothing but the networking. I kept finding myself in conversation after conversation about gun control, stem cell research, etc. I was trying to steer towards airport security so that I could talk about my shankless shoes, but that didn’t happen. But the Presidential race did come up. Hey, I haven’t had a chance to talk about the Presidential aspects of my shoes (which went with my suit – so I was loaded for bear). Somebody got on a Bush vs Clinton soap box (comparing Republicans and Democrats) and they were really droning on. Someone needed to cut the tension – so I was there with “well, you know what they both (being Bush and Clinton) had in common? They wore the same kind of shoes – Johnston & Murphys.”
That raised an eyebrow – with a question from someone wearing what I think was real fur (Kiki was her name – not kidding) “how, young man, do you know that?” Which I reply – “It’s a Trivial Pursuit fact. Every President since Fillmore has owned Johnston & Murphys. See these shoes I am wearing? These are Johnston & Murphy LiTes. These shoes don’t have shanks either so I don’t have to worry about running around airport security with socks.” So the soap box speaker (who was visually annoyed I took the floor from him) jumps in “speaking of airports . . . ” but he was cut off from another gentleman (Edward) who was either tired of the soap box speaker or actually interested in my shoes. He said “Hold on a second Bob” turning back to me “you said that these were Lites – does that mean they don’t have metal shanks?” Which I explain about the shoes don’t have shanks but also that they are form fitting, the dual-density outsole, and three part insole, etc. Edward said “I haven’t bought a pair of Johnston & Murphy in about four years. Maybe I need to look into some.” I offered to write down the name of the LiTes and my style of shoe on the back of my business card and to drop me a line after he purchased a pair. I hope to hear from him soon.”