Responsibility for Unintended Consequences

"What is the responsibility of a marketer to understand the potential effects of the campaign?"  That's the question Susan Getgood poses.  She, of course, is referring to the now infamous Boston Bomb Scare last week. 

Susan raises an interesting point:

if the goal was to reach out to the natural audience for the show, those that already recognized the character, then the logical place to put the devices would have been colleges, universities and so forth.

Not I-93. Yet, the agency specified just those sort of places -- overpasses, bridges and the like. Why? Was it simply because those were visible spots, or did they perhaps have a clue of what MIGHT happen if a device was placed on a key and highly visible piece of transportation infrastructure? Or were they just stupid? We will never know for certain.

Katie Paine also has concerns about the guerilla marketing firm involved, but believes that Interference could still profit from the mess:

PR classes around the world have a great new case study to debate.  In my mind, the only figure in this saga that may still have egg on its face is Interference, the marketing firm that cooked up the lame brained scheme in the first place. On the other hand if the Aqua Teen movie breaks box office records, their phones will probably be ringing off the hook.

For John Cass, the answer may lie in tougher and better enforced ethics codes:

I think that any marketer should work within an ethical framework, their own conscience, the laws of the state they live within, and if you are a member of various marketing related associations, the ethics code of the association ... perhaps there should be consequences for companies that overstep legal bounds within the marketing community; we’d do that by suspending the companies involved in any national marketing associations they are involved with.

CustomScoop's Sarah Wurrey asks on our company blog whether this might not lead to copycats following the adage "there's no such thing as bad publicity."

One must wonder then whether there is a marketing exec somewhere turning secret cartwheels over this gaffe, even as they issue public apologies—and if other companies will make bungled attempts to imitate this sort of accidental publicity with stunts of their own.

Ultimately, every marketing firm and the companies that employ them must make their own determinations as to the level of risk they are willing to undertake, especially when it comes to guerrilla marketing campaigns.  By its very nature, this type of marketing will carry some risk.  And companies can't always foresee every possible unintended consequence.

Personally, I'm skeptical of ethics codes for professional associations and how much good they really do.  John Cass cited the Edelman 90 day suspension from the Word of Mouth Marketing Association last year as an example of the kind of thing that may curb questionable behavior.  But I wonder how much that would really factor in to any account exec's thinking at Edelman.  My guess is they fear their bosses more than WOMMA.  And Edelman isn't going to lose any business if it were out of WOMMA altogether.  That's not to say we shouldn't have ethics codes and firms shouldn't be urged to adhere to them, with consequences when they don't, but at they generally end up being fairly ineffective at behavior modification.

As usually happens, market forces will likely decide whether Interference went far or Boston overreacted.  Clients will vote with their marketing budgets by deciding whether to use that firm in the future.

Technorati tags: Boston bomb scare, Interference, guerilla marketing, John Cass, Katie Paine, Susan Getgood, Sarah Wurrey, WOMMA, ethics, marketing

Comments

[Ian Muir]

It's a pretty safe bet that the marketing people at both Turner and Cartoon Network are happy about this in many ways. For $2 million and the court fees for the two guys involved, they've recieved a huge amount of media exposure.

This story was on every major network and most local news around the country. It's also worth noting that for many the bad part of the PR from this is aimed at Boston. I've talked to several friends around the country and it seems that most are laughing at the City of Boston.

In a way, it's not the show that's getting pad PR. The show is just getting exposure as a result of Boston's mistake.

[John Cass]

Chip, I think Andy Sernovitz at WOMMA might argue differently with you about the benefits of being a member of WOMMA or not, after all isn't that part of WOMMA's selling proposition for joining, supporting the community will gain you recognition and eventually sales. Plus, in general if a company was not involved with the organization wouldn't other companies gain the opportunities instead?

However, I think you are right there are just a few associations that really give teeth to their ethics codes, WOMMA being a notable exception, partly because the association is steeped in the new world of blogs and is savvy enough to understand that the association gains credibility by making a code that is enforced.

The world is changing, blogs and other user-generated content gives people the opportunity to publish and converse in ways we would not have dreamed of just a few years ago. I believe the web and blogs gives each community something else, a connection with like minded people who if they speak up will share ideas, some of the discussion will be about ethics, if by this process more people put their reputation and voice to conducting business in a certain way, then this will influence behaviors. Some might suggest that this is not going to happen unless companies can see profit in keeping within ethics codes. I would suggest that there have been numerous examples of people and companies changing their behavior because of people constructive criticism within blogging communities. Edelman may be one such example, Kryptonite Lock another, and Dell yet another in part because of Jeff Jarvis and Dell Hell. As my examples demonstrate I would argue that blogging communities are becoming effective at modifying company behavior. You argue that associations are ineffective at behavior modification, I think in the old world you might be correct, but not in the new world of blogs. Now that ordinary members have the opportunity to give voice to what is ethical and what is not in the course of business, those members collectively have more power than even the largest companies in the industry. Some associations have been quick to realize this new reality and keep pace with members others have not. Never the less each business people has I believe a duty to encourage their community to keep within the ethics code of their association or conscience.

[Chip Griffin]

John- I'm confident Andy would disagree. And I'm not saying that WOMMA shouldn't build a strong code of ethics and attempt to use all of its influence to encourage ethical behavior.

You are also right in that WOMMA is more plugged in to blogs so they may be better prepared to have influence. But at the same time they are a very young organization so it is hard to know for sure what the long term success will be.

What does the future hold for the impact of associations on ethical behavior? I don't honestly know. History is replete with examples of people and organizations who were poised to change the world, but didn't. Call me a cynic if you will (and you'd be right), but I think we'll have to wait and see.

[John Cass]

Maybe it is because I have sat on so many committees and seen how just a few people can make a big difference, that I am an optimist. Personally I think ethical standards have more to do with the community conversation than associations, which is why it is important for everyone in a community to remember that what they say may influence others.