tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6187396913880956540.post6816048716856920674..comments2008-09-05T12:44:43.159-05:00Augie Rayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11717746847853655184noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6187396913880956540.post-68743764455642226832008-09-05T12:44:00.000-05:002008-09-05T12:44:00.000-05:00Great comments! I am thinking of a more significant response in the form of a blog post. Watch for additional thoughts on rumors and Social Media in the next few days, and thanks for the thoughtful comments!Augie Rayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02071008054820752066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6187396913880956540.post-35483654442775725852008-09-03T19:29:00.000-05:002008-09-03T19:29:00.000-05:00But do you think there are new avenues now for marketers to competitvely position their products against another by starting rumors? Given the ability to spread information in a much faster way, this would seem to be a valuable (and possibly very unethical) method of combating a competitor....but if you can't find or prosecute the source, what is to lose? And, what can the competitor do to provide that "ounce of prevention"? If nothing else, they will have to spend time, money, and energy on refuting rumors created by nae'r-do-wells.<BR/><BR/>"Rat droppings were found in hamburgers from 3 different McDonalds."<BR/><BR/>"Exxon has started adding 5% water to its gasoline products."<BR/><BR/>"Dial soap was recently tested to contain dangerous levels of formaldihyde."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6187396913880956540.post-76386969042000277312008-09-02T23:24:00.000-05:002008-09-02T23:24:00.000-05:00Rumors are notoriously difficult to track down and even more difficult to prosecute. Even assuming you can find who started a false rumor, they'd need to have enough assets to make a lawsuit worthwhile. Then you'd need to invest in a lawsuit, and defamation is a tough argument (which is why you see so little of these types of suits.) All a consumer needs to do is state something as an opinion or report it as a rumor, and its likely they'd deflect a legal judgment.<BR/><BR/>On top of all that, a lawsuit happens after the damage is done AND increases the risk of reminding people of the rumor (which is counterproductive).<BR/><BR/>I don't disagree legal recourse is an option, but an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure here. Better to manage your brand perception and build goodwill with consumers, which is always the best defense against false rumors.<BR/><BR/>One last point: The Coca-Cola incident wasn't cause by rumors or false statements; it was caused by consumers wanting their old product back. In this case, there is no one to sue because there is no legal defamation or damage. <BR/><BR/>Thanks for the thoughts!Augie Rayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02071008054820752066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6187396913880956540.post-28621782808897435862008-09-02T21:43:00.000-05:002008-09-02T21:43:00.000-05:00The question is: What should be the ramifications for people/companies who start and foster such damaging rumors? Imagine if Coca-Cola lost 20% of their sales for a few days/weeks because of some rumor? Shouldn't there be some ramifications on those that perpetrate this? If not, then it may become fashionable for marketing types to perpetrate these sorts of things against the competition. Refuting the rumors is one thing, but thousands of people still believe in old rumors that can easily be checked on Snopes.com (devil worship on Colgate-Palmolive packaging anyone?).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com