Via Ad Age, the U.K. is about to pass some very strict laws about what marketers can and can’t do in online spaces, specifically when it comes to identifying themselves around viral and blog marketing. From Ad Age:
Word-of-mouth marketing in the U.K. will face radical restrictions starting May 26, when it will become a criminal offense for brands to seed positive messages online without making the origin of the message clear.
Brand owners will face fines or even prison sentences if they contravene the consumer-protection regulations. The legislation came into force across Europe on Jan. 1, 2008, and is set to begin in the U.K. next month.
The rules make it an offense to blog, use brand ambassadors or seed viral ads while “falsely representing oneself as a consumer.” They also apply to bloggers who fail to disclose they have accepted money to write about a product.
The article touches on two examples of what would be out of bounds:
- Sony’s ill-fated PSP viral campaign a (glaringly obvious) attempt by the company to garner some underground cred
- Whole Foods CEO John Mackey’s dalliances in the Whole Foods message board on Yahoo Finance under a pseudonym.
While the American word-of-mouth marketers are unlikely to come under anything more than self-regulation at this point, it does put projects like Ted Murphy’s highly controversial PayPerPost blog network, in which bloggers essentially take on paid assignments directly from advertisers, in a different light. While PayPerPost bloggers are now required to disclose when they are being paid for a post, it’s interesting to think what the blogosphere, and word-of-mouth advertising in general, would look like if full disclosure was required about any and all money accepted.
(Note: I was not paid for this post.)
