Stage Two's blog

Here’s the scenario: your company’s product is nominated for some type of award where the “popular vote” matters (web-based voting, text-ins, etc), in a forum that is “gameable” (there’s no constraint to the quantity of voters, and they can come in through multiple means).  These happen all the time, not just in tech, but in sports, entertainment/media, etc.  So the question is: is it ethically okay to “pump up” the vote through employees, friends, family, etc?

I raise the topic based on a conversation I had with Marshall Kirkpatrick while at Gnomedex 08.  At the event, I “rated” the boxee presentation (they are a S2 client) a 5, but accidentally did so in public.  His (valid) concern was that I was stacking the deck.  My comment was there are several hundred people in the room, and I had the right to be one of the voters.  We had a good debate on the topic, and I’ve been thinking about it ever since.

An argument in favor of allowing employee/internal voting is that it’s fair and has precedent.  We all watched Obama and McCain vote (presumably for themselves), and the entire political process is about campaigning for votes.  So if the leaders of our country are allowed to shamelessly self-promote, why wouldn’t it be fair for a company to do the same?

Well, what happens when it’s David vs Goliath?  At CES last year there was a text-in voting system.  At the Bug Labs booth we asked visitors to vote for us.  We lost to Motorola, who just happens to have 80,000 employees.  Now I’m not crying foul here, and maybe they deserved it on merit, but a single internal email could’ve completely tipped the scales in an overwhelming manner.

The contrary example right now is Peek using their email network to bolster their campaign for Time magazine’s gadget of the year.  By using their personal connections they were able to stimulate over 3 times the votes of their nearest competitor, the MacBook. Other devices on the list included the iPod Touch, the Flip Mino, and the Wii Fit – nothing against Peek here, but the results clearly demonstrate the impact of getting the personal word out.

Let’s also consider related companies/vendors, such as PR firms, are they crossing the line by trying to gain votes?  What about a “well-connected individual” who may have invested in a firm?  Again, using politics as the example, everyone should be able to do what they wish.  That said, when competition actually matters (in other words, the prize has real, tangible value), is it fair for an influencer to “use” their network?

I’m of the opinion that the decision should be based on the context of the event.  If there’s voting for “the audience” then I think reaching out to a group external to that audience is inappropriate.  In other words, if there’s 100 people in the room, and more than 100 votes come in, it’s not what I would call “fair”.  That said, I think all 100 do get a vote, including company leaders, PR staff, etc.  So in the particular example of Gnomedex, I still believe that me voting was fine (especially since Dave did such a great job), but had I used means such as Twitter or my blog to solicit extra votes, that would’ve been an inappropriate move.

It’s hard to really incent anyone to play fair these days, but I think it’s the right thing to do.  If you are in the position to advise a company on marketing/PR activities, I recommend you try to figure out the “fair” thing, and raise your head high.  You might not win everything, but if you are racing the marathon, not the sprint, there’s no shortcuts to the end.

This entry was posted on Thursday, November 20th, 2008 at 3:26 pm and is filed under Marketing. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.