Warner Bros. Spams Bloggers, Then Lashes Out Against Reactions
July 29, 2010 
Author 
In The other day I received a pretty bad pitch from Warner Bros. In fact, it was so clueless I forwarded it to A-list technology blog Techdirt. Mike Masnick been doing a great job of covering the entertainment industry’s (rather entertaining) ongoing misunderstanding of this whole social web thing, so I’m pleased to see him share the story with his community to continue that dialog (and maybe, just maybe help them – although they haven’t been listening so far).
The pitch was as follows:
Hello,
I am a part of the Warner Brothers word of mouth marketing team and recently came across your blog! Your blog uniquely stood out as dynamic, informative and highly creative. We are seeking bloggers that are passionate about entertainment to help us engage your readers with content that would be interesting to them.
We would like to have you join our WB Word marketing team to let fans know about our latest releases and relevant content/products. As a member of the team, you will be asked to display photos, clips, and stories on your Blog, Facebook and Twitter accounts. The best part is you will get paid! Additionally, we may even debut event previews and new content so that fans like you get to enjoy it first.
As Mike noted in his reaction:
Here’s a tip for Warner Bros.’ “word of mouth marketing team.” If it’s really “word of mouth marketing,” it probably doesn’t require you to pay people to talk about you…
But this pitch is worse than not being actual word of mouth marketing. To me, the pitch shows a deeper problem with the media brands of yesterday.
In essence: Warner Bros. could care less about anyone they pitched. To them, we’re just numbers.
The reasons we know this?
- They say “my blog uniquely stood out as dynamic, informative and highly creative” yet they didn’t even personalize the email. Obviously they said this to everyone.
- On the landing page they linked me to in the email, (I took that part out, they do not deserve link love) they mention it’s to receive information for a TV show. Except, blog readers here know I don’t even watch TV. So why would I possibly care about this?
- I am vocally opposed to paid blogging. Of course any time someone tries to pitch me on paid blogging I’m going to react negatively.
- I blogged about EMI for doing something very similar in a not-so-positive light. Clearly I’m going to share these pitches with the web.
They are taking the spray and pray, direct marketing approach to social media. Except, the social web is not merely a numbers game.
The story actually gets even more interesting and really gives insight into the mindset of some of the marketers working for traditional media brands. Someone from the Warner Bros. team left the following comment on the post at Techdirt:
The WB Word Team is fully accredited by WOMMA (Word of Mouth Marketing Association), which is in regular contact with the FTC regarding disclosure laws. As far as the incident you cite in you story, we were in the process of identifying key influencers on the web who we felt would be relevant to promoting our projects (television and not film as you represent in your story). This was clearly an invitation to join our team and was completely transparent in its intent. All of the work done by the WB Word Team is also fully disclosed and transparent and team members chose which projects they want to promote based on their individual likes and opinions of each specific project. We are dismayed that you wouldn’t call first and check your facts before writing this inaccurate story.
And, a Techdirt commenter responded with a keen observation:
Is this seriously the reaction they would have to this article? All a response like this would do is confirm everything that was said about how they really don’t get it. It’s mind boggling in it’s misunderstanding of the message presented.
I’ve gotta give WB the benefit of the doubt here and assume someone else went to a lot of effort to sound credibly like them. That, or the people in charge of the WB Word Team are astoundingly misguided in how to engage and interact on the “social web”.
Step 1) Try to bribe people
Step 2) Lash out at people who suggest bribery isn’t as effective as engaging your audienceWhat’s step 3? Sue and lash out at your customers that are trying to talk about your films/television and issue DMCA take-downs against them because they used a clip you provided … … oh … yeah, I guess they do that too.
Indeed. Maybe it’s time for the entertainment industry to stop fighting the future at every turn and work on understanding their audience and developing relationships instead of treating us like numbers.
When much smaller private companies truly understand how to pitch a blogger, it’s amazing how public companies with billions in revenue get it so wrong.
Sardar Mohkim Khan replied | Jul 29, 2010 (1 comment)
It is sad, i mean if big names such as Warner Bros. end up with such lousy marketing tactics the smaller names shouldn’t be held responsible for anything.
I experienced a similar thing from a PR firm representing a branding agency – it sucked big time.
Mitch replied | Jul 29, 2010 (13 comments)
Wow, it’s obvious they don’t get it. And citing that they’re accredited by an organization that purports to represent word of mouth advertising (doesn’t that seem like an oxymoron?) is almost like me having people say “I have black friends.” Actually, they should be flattered; they got word of mouth advertising, even if it wasn’t quite the type they wanted.
David Sonnen replied | Jul 29, 2010 (2 comments)
Traditional media organizations cannot “get it”. They have one dominant pattern for marketing and, hard as they try, they can’t stray from that pattern. That’s an unfortunate fact for any large organization that has seen success in their dominant patterns.
Warner is used to paying for advertising, so they offer to pay for what they see as advertising. The fact that social media isn’t advertising lies outside of Warner’s ability to perceive, as an organization.
I expect that a few Warner marketing folks do understand social media, but can’t implement their on-target ideas. It has to be frustrating for these enlightened folks to work inside a system that is impervious to change.
Catherine Lockey replied | Jul 29, 2010 (63 comments)
I see their approach as a long standing pattern of behavior which simply continued in your direction. This organization isn’t used to relating to individuals which is ironic since it is a multitude of individuals who generated their great income. They have a lot to learn from you Adam. They have a lot to learn from their consumers. I wonder if they’ll take a moment and just listen.
Jon Buscall replied | Jul 30, 2010 (16 comments)
Good call, Adam. I’ve had similar mails from US companies – even though I’m in Sweden. They never personalize, nor demonstrate an understanding of my blog.
Perhaps this kind of backlash – however small – will teach them something.
Tim Smith replied | Jul 30, 2010 (1 comment)
This is a really interesting insight into the big brand approach to promotion via social media. Clearly they have outsouced this campaign to an agency who have been tasked with recruiting a large number of bloggers without actually doing any reseach on the writers themselves. However, as long as Google value blogs as independent votes of confidence this practise will continue, and is bound to increase in popularity…
Mike Helton replied | Jul 31, 2010 (1 comment)
Hey Adam,
That was a good call because I have also received those kinds of emails. Using flattery to start the message is a great way to get the door opened. But it also blinds the suspect so entry can be easy.
Watch out!!
Mike
Pete replied | Aug 1, 2010 (1 comment)
Totally agree, these large companies haven’t a clue.
They all need to go back to marketing basics and actually engage customers
If they provide a product that people like, people WILL spread the word.
Maybe they should think about creating original content and programmes that people actually want to watch?
Now there’s an original thought!
Matt OWen replied | Aug 23, 2010 (1 comment)
It seems bizarre that an organisation like Warner, who’ve done so well with their multimedia campaigns, still don’t seem to understand simple engagement. I think (or hope) that we’re on the cusp of an organisational shift, but it seems to me it will simply take some marketers longer to understand how things work than others.
On a personal note – can I assume this came from WB’s tv department, rather than their film devision? Personal experience has shown me that those involved in celluloid are generally ahead of the social curve, while their small-screen cousins lag sadly behind – the perils of broadcast media mindsets!