Abbott Pays Mommy Blogs To Review Similac App
8 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // February 28th, 2011 // 8:57 am
Abbott Laboratories and its marketing of the Similac infant formula is again under a microscope. The latest episode involves a new mobile phone app that offers a plethora of tidbits and tools for tracking feeding schedules for babies (see this). And the app is getting some favorable reviews from some mommy bloggers (look here and here), but what is not evidently clear is that these moms were paid by a company doing work for Abbott.
Now, not all of the reviews are entirely favorable, and the mom bloggers do appear to disclose that payment was received from a firm called Collective Bias, which describes itself as “an emerging media firm focused on the intersection of mobile/social media and social shopper marketing” (read here), although the moms insist their thoughts are their own. Nonetheless, a link to Abbott is not clear, as the Marketing Mama blog noted, so we asked John Andrews, the managing partner at the firm, about the relationship and he acknowledged that Abbott is a client.
We then contacted an Abbott spokeswoman, who says that contracting with Collective Bias gives the health care giant confidence that readers will not feel uncertain about motives, an issue that has plagued Internet reviews. “There are a number of mommy bloggers who are part of their network, which is good for reaching moms,” she tells us. “And not all bloggers disclose their compensation practices and we want to make sure we’re associated with a network where the disclosure is made. We want to associate with bloggers who are transparent about their compensation practices.”
There is a disconnect, however. On one hand, Abbott champions transparency in the hopes that anyone reading the reviews will somehow feel comfortable about why the review appears in the first place. Yet Abbott, itself, is not going the distance when it comes to being transparent, because its own name is not associated with the payments. Perhaps some may infer Abbott is linked to Collective Bias, but if transparency is a concern, then why not go all the way and note explicity that Abbott is paying for reviews of its own products? There is irony in the lack of transparency.
Abbott was similarly criticized for a lack of candor earlier this month over a survey that is regularly mailed to new moms about breastfeeding and the use of infant formula. But the survey is distributed by the National Institute for Infant Nutrition, a non-existent entity, and the name Abbott never appears, leading to complaints that the query is nothing more than stealth marketing (back story).
Hat tip to Bnet
industry insider
Here’s a low tech alternative:
-Baby cries=baby is hungry
-Baby is fed=baby stops crying
-Baby is burped=baby is satisfied
Don’t need an app for that. Any alarm clock set to go off at 2 hour intervals works just fine.
Adam J. Fein
Much ado about nothing. There was a disclosure at the end of each post, per FTC guidelines (http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/endortest.shtm). Caveat reader.
Do you think Bill Cosby made TV commercials because he just really, really loved Jell-O, or because Kraft Foods paid him? I don’t recall any disclaimers at the end of those ads.
Based on the response to Jim Edwards’ post on this topic (http://www.bnet.com/blog/drug-business/payola-at-novartis-theraflu-app-got-rave-reviews-from-8220sponsored-8221-bloggers/7511), the mommy bloggers also don’t see a problem.
Adam
Ed Silverman
Hi Adam,
Thanks for the note. At the risk of repeating myself, I simply suggested that Abbott should take the extra step and disclose - fully - that Abbott is paying for reviews.
I did not suggest that Abbott violated any laws, but again, the irony is that Abbott is advocating for transparency, but did not do so itself.
In the interest of full disclosure, that would have been helpful. Not every person who reads a review on a mommy blog should be expected to determine there is a link to Abbott, even if it may appear evident to some.
Hope this helps,
ed
Adam J. Fein
I understand, Ed, but my point is much simpler.
The disclosures in the two links you include above clearly state that each review was compensated. In this day and age, most blog readers are clever enough to interpret the review based on this information. I bet most readers could also figure out that Similac paid for the review, regardless of how the money flowed to the bloggers.
Adam
Pelfrey
Adam,
Assumptions are never foolproof. That’s why disclosures are required by law in DTC advertising. And some of the most heartfelt admissions end up being fiction for a check. I don’t read mommy blogs, but I would not necessarily assume that they were or were not compensated.
Ed Silverman
Hi Adam,
Yes, you’re correct, the various sites that I visited all contained the same disclosure or disclaimer, as it were. And I agree that, perhaps, most could figure out who paid for what. But perhaps a few wouldn’t notice the disclosure or put two and two together.
For that reason, I simply thought Abbott should go the distance. And I thought it was ironic the company did not do so after citing a preference for transparency in the first place. In that context, there was no reason not to do so.
Best
ed
Doc
“Lack of candor” by a pharma company?!
I’m shocked there is gambling going on in this establishment!
Suzanne
OMG I would have loved this app, and I nursed both my children! I wrote all that stuff down. It was the only way I could figure out when it was safe to leave the house with the least hassle while we were out.
I can’t believe they had to pay people to review it, but that should have been disclosed.