BUZZ MARKETING: HONEST DECEPTION

 Roshan (Bob) D. Ahuja

Professor of Marketing, Xavier University

Cincinnati, Ohio

 Buzz Marketing: What’s All the Buzz About?

Buzz marketing is a new and rapidly growing form of word-of-mouth advertising.  The buzz agent, the person doing the buzz, does not inform the target customer (e.g., a friend or acquaintance, a retail store manager) that they are employed by a firm, e.g., Tremor Inc., BzzAgent Inc., or an advertising agency, to get the word out about a product or service.  Buzz marketing is the newest form of interactive advertising with the buzz agent serving as a type of “live” and in-person endorsement and advertisement.    

Buzz marketing is very effective because the buzz agent is perceived as highly credible since they are viewed as simply sharing their personal opinion in an honest fashion.  But this honest sharing is only part of the truth.  Moral problems occur when the truth is compromised in this highly sophisticated marketing strategy.   

This paper contends that the buzz agent is deceiving the buzz target by giving them the false impression that the conversation is a part of ordinary life, i.e., part of an ordinary conversation between two people exchanging ideas on a product or service, with no commercial agenda attached to the conversation.  In fact, the communication is a manufactured conversation, a commercial transaction, paid for by the manufacturer and the Buzz firm (e.g., Tremor, BzzAgent).   

These “live ads” supply many benefits to manufacturer and buzz agencies, such as, 1) marketing research knowledge, 2) they provide additional distribution outlets using the buzz agents as distributors and salespeople, and 3) they act as a form of advertising and work to affect and alter a customer’s choice processes.  All these commercial transactions are accomplished without the customer’s knowledge.  This paper asks these questions, “If the customer knew the whole truth, that the buzz agent was employed by the buzz firm to engage in promoting the brand, would the buzz agent be perceived as credible? Would the buzz communication be as effective?  Would the buzz target, realizing the true nature of the commercial transaction and, now able to act with full knowledge, make the same decision on the value of the conversation?  What are the public policy implications when commercial transactions are done covertly? 

This paper contends that this form of business communication is actually nothing more than a new type of a commercial marketing transaction and, as such, the buzz agent has a moral responsibility to inform the recipient that they are the target of a commercial transaction.  While it may be true that the buzz agent is honestly sharing his personal opinions, this fact does not mitigate that he is concealing his employment as a paid endorser.   

Buzz Marketing Using Teens: Public Policy and Moral Implications 

This form of marketing is particularly problematic when teens are used as buzz agents.  Marketing professionals prefer using teens as buzz agents since this age group is very difficult to reach using traditional advertising and marketing research venues.  Modern teens, having experienced thousands of commercials and other forms of marketing transactions since birth, seem to be more skeptical of marketers than teens of earlier generations.  In addition, these techno-savvy youngsters ignore commercials, don’t listen to radio like their parents did, and opt instead to communicate using Instant Messaging, email, and text messaging.  Armed with their Ipods and other gadgets, they prefer to download their favorite music without all the ads.  Buzz marketing, with its deceptive component, can sneak under the teens radar and not be perceived as “marketing.”   Therefore, it is very effective with this age group.    

When teens are used as buzz agents, especially teens 13-17, those under the age of legal consent, additional moral issues arise compared to the adult teen population, those 18 and 19, and other adults.  Although marketers call these 13-17 years olds “pre-adults” they  nonetheless are considered minors (children) and, as such, have always been considered a “protected” class, i.e., persons deserving considerations beyond what an adult teen, or the adult population, would be typically given.  Younger teens (13-17), not economically independent and not capable of reasoning at the adult level, are considered emotionally and economically vulnerable.  As nonautonomous and vulnerable children, all the moral objections to buzz marketing raised above take on even greater importance when this age group is considered.   

Consider the most successful and fast growing buzz marketer that uses teens 13-19 (although the primary concern here are those teens 17 and under), Tremor[1], Inc. a business unit of Procter and Gamble, Inc.  Tremor has over 280,000 teens as part of its Tremor Crew, as they are called.  While no parental consent is obtained during the application process[2], the parents of Tremor teens are sent a placard after their child has been selected, informing them that Tremor “is in the business of assisting teen marketers” and that their teen has a “unique opportunity to influence companies and friends by voicing their opinions.”[3]  Individual enterprises hire Tremor teens to get feedback on products and services and to help them get the word-of-mouth advocacy they need to sell more products.  Tremor’s success has been substantial for companies such as Toyota (the Matrix car), movies (My Big Fat Greek Wedding), shampoos, milk, cosmetics (CoverGirl), Coca-Cola Co., and even motor oil (Valvoline).[4]  Since teens spend $175 billion a year on products.[5]  “The possibilities are almost limitless.”[6]

Tremor is using the teens in three ways, 1) to generate marketing research information, 2) to distribute products to other teens and adults, and 3) to advocate or advertise for its clients and influence or alter customer choice processes.  Ahuja, Walker and Tadepalli[7] (2001) have identified the moral implications incumbent upon the marketer to fully inform the parents when children are used in marketing research studies.  The placard does not fully inform parents, in fact, many parents that this author has talked to never saw the placard (the child never gave it to them).  Moral responsibilities with minors and those considered vulnerable would indicate this type of “passive consent[8]” is morally objectionable.   

Not fully informing the parents that their child is engaged in a new type of sophisticated marketing research study is morally questionable.  In addition, not fully informing the parent that the child is actually a new type of salesperson or “distributor” for the product is also objectionable.  The parents, as guardians of these minors, have a long and established right to make fully informed decisions on behalf of their children.   

One additional moral implication has significant public policy implications.  Since Tremor teens are not told to inform[9] other teens that they are employed by Tremor, is this a form of a corporation of adults, by their purposive omission to ask teens to first inform other teens of their employment by Tremor, in reality adults asking children to engage in acts of deception?  It appears so.  Tremor and firms like it succeed by the very fact that the teens are considered “hip” and “cool” and have the newest products and latest information on music, movies, and other products and services.  The stealth aspect of buzz marketing is what makes it seem “not like marketing” to the teen.   

When adults do not fully inform the children to fully inform other children, serious moral implications exists.  As a society, it may be claimed, these marketers and not only selling to and through the kids, they are using the kids, asking them to engage in immoral behavior to the greater benefit of the firm.  The Tremor child was chosen because they were seen as opinion leaders among other teens.  Are adult marketing professionals teaching these future leaders a style of business transaction that makes deceit part of success?   

Bob Ahuja, PhD (ahuja2ski@aol.com) is a Professor of Marketing at Xavier University in Cincinnati, Ohio.  His current research concentrates on the ethical responsibilities of marketing professionals, especially marketing researchers that target children.  He has published in the Journal of Business Ethics, the Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice and others