Healthy Skepticism Library item: 19289

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

Publication type: news

Silverman E
Abbott Pays Mommy Blogs To Review Similac App
Pharmalot 2011 Feb 28
http://www.pharmalot.com/2011/02/abbott-pays-mommy-blogs-to-review-similac-app/

Full text:

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