On the other side of the pond, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) charged and fined a “marketing” company selling fake reviews on Amazon more than $12m. That was a first ever for the FTC. Probably not a last.
And back closer to us on the Continent, at the end of last year, the owner of another “marketing company” was convicted by the Italian court, in a landmark fraud ruling, for selling fake reviews on TripAdvisor to hundreds of hotels and restaurants. If you want to know: they charged €100 for 10 reviews, €170 for 20 and €240 for 30. The sentence ? 9 months in jail.
Shades of grey - from manipulated reviews to multi-million dollar fines
But some of the conflicts of interest are more subtle. More difficult to identify. With consequences as severe, if not more.
Those are driven by some members of another growing phenomenon on social media: the influencers, micro-influencers and other social media “celebrities”. Let’s be clear: most of them do a great and genuine job. Sharing their discoveries, thoughts and convictions with their followers, in an honest manner. The issue is the less scrupulous, less transparent subset: those who have identified the same opportunity to monetise the inherent conflict of interest in social media.
The work of the less scrupulous ones is often facilitated by social marketing companies who are getting hired to help their clients “monetise their followers”. Basically, get them marketing and advertising contracts with brands and businesses. So far, so good. The problem arises when they do so without the minimum level of transparency vis-a-vis their followers. The consumers. Us. Simply: when they do not disclose that their post, communication, blog entry are supported financially by a third party. Basically, that they are advertisement.
That is where trust breaks.
Increasingly concerned by those misleading practices, the CMA investigated a few “marketing” companies. They ended up convicting a handful including one of the largest global players for having “used its own social media accounts, and arranged for widely followed social media personalities, to promote films, games and takeaway and dating apps, without readers being informed that the content was paid-for advertising.”
And to maximise the “Return On Investment” of those, the posts are purposefully designed to create the confusion.
As per the CMA: “these adverts may have been difficult for readers to distinguish from other posts, conversations and jokes they appeared alongside.”
To reiterate: a lot of the bloggers out there do a fantastic job. But their contribution is tarnished by that of the less principled ones.
Back to basics
We feel strongly that this is an area where social media and us, consumers, need to make some clear progress. From the professionals: by providing more transparency to the consumers. From the consumers: by being more sensitive to potential conflicts of interest.
How ? Simple: if we actually know the source of the review or recommendation, then the room for a potential conflict is greatly mitigated.
Back to basics: when we need a recommendation, let’s start by asking our friends and family.
(Credits: icons by Louis Prado, Anbileru Adeleru and Adrien Coquet from the Noun Project.)