Ask Wayne Brady what makes good improv and he’ll probably tell you his audience. I’m in Las Vegas this week with my husband who is attending the National Association of Black Journalists Conference. Last night we went to see Wayne Brady’s live improvisational performance “Making %#it Up!” at the Venetian.  In a rather quaint auditorium, Brady and his assistants removed the invisible barrier between artist and audience and encouraged full participation by audience members. To create laugh out loud comedy, audience members were asked to come on stage to role-play, suggest scenes for Brady to reenact, and provide the punch line for the joke. The end result: a damn funny show.

According to Wikinomics authors Tapscott and Williams, everyday people are the new media. Because of advances in consumer technology, we are controlling the Internet, television, news, and even movies. We now have the opportunity to dictate what information gets placed on the agenda for traditional media and consumers’ discussion.

Two things came to mind as I watched Brady’s performance. First, the leader (or in this case the star) does not hold all the power. Oftentimes, leaders simply have the most credibility and best means for spreading an innovation to the masses. The best solution may come from an audience member who is not bogged down with the pressures of thinking up the most novel idea. Secondly, people love being a part of the action and are eager to contribute if they know their idea will go towards creating something significant.

But last night’s performance also brought another thought to mind: I paid for Wayne Brady and not the comedic talents of Joe Schmoe. While mass collaboration is beneficial, we have to place limits on how much control consumers have in developing products and services. Why? Because too much collaboration may blur the line between professional and amateur. Tapscott and Williams write,

“In a world where all one needs is a camera phone to report on one’s surroundings, it is no longer as straightforward to pigeonhole a person’s role. In the emerging prosumption paradigm, a person can seamlessly shift from consumer to contributor and creator” (p. 143).

I disagree with this statement. The shift from consumer to contributor is not always seamless, particularly when the consumer has little or no professional training in what he is contributing to. It’s wrong to create the notion that any person with a blog or Podcast is a journalist. We need to continue showing the distinction between consumer-generated and professional content to uphold professional standards and limit career “remixing.”

It seems that Wayne Brady (the genius he is) recognizes this point too. He never gave his audience total control over dictating his moves. He shot down suggestions he didn’t like and admitted when concepts were too racy. Audience participation only made up the first half of his performance. During the second half of the show, Brady built the invisible barrier between artist and audience and performed self selected songs and dances, sending the message that ‘not everyone can do what I do.’

The Word of Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA) released its Ethics Code in 2005 to expose “bad-willed marketers [running] deceptive and dishonest marketing programs.” To achieve this, WOMMA built its Ethics Code on the following six principles: (1) Consumer protection and respect are paramount; (2) Honesty of Relationship, Opinion, and Identity; (3) Respect the rules of the venue; (4) Manage relationships with minors; (5) Promote honest downstream communication; and (6) Protect privacy and permission.

Earlier this month, it was discovered that Whole Foods CEO John Mackey was anonymously posting defamatory information about a rival company on a message board. Mackey violated the first 3 principles of WOMMA’s Ethics Code. By posting under a assumed identity, Mackey took control away from consumers to give biased (and possibly false) information that highlighted his company and downplayed his competitor. Mackey didn’t disclose his relationship to Whole Foods and his phony identity misled the public about who was really communicating. Had WOMMA’s code been released after July 2007, readers would think the document was in direct response to Mackey’s actions.

The Whole Foods scandal highlights the need for ethical marketing standards in the age of digital influence where true identities are usually hidden from the public. I won’t use this post to argue whether Mackey violated ethical codes. (That answer is obvious.) Instead, I will use this post to present findings of a quick and dirty conversation map I conducted to determine whether this latest case of “CEOs Gone Wild” brought attention to WOMMA’s Ethics Code.

Why a conversation map? Well, WOMMA’s website doesn’t mention the Whole Foods incident. This issue would help bring attention to the Ethics Code and WOMMA itself, but association leaders aren’t using specific ethics cases to advance their mission. After finding this, I was curious to see how well accepted or known WOMMA’s code is. I found the following:

• A Google search for WOMMA Mackey produced approximately 781* results, most of which were blogs. A July 12th blog post on A Shel of My Former Self discusses the Whole Foods incident and need for ethical blogging, but makes no mention of WOMMA. There were 23 comments associated with this post and in 3 of the comments the author calls for WOMMA intervention. A blog post on Consumer Generated Media (CGM) from July 12th was the only blog that provides direct mention of WOMMA in the post and links to their webpage. The CGM blog is very influential with a Social Meter score of over 2,000.

• A search for John Mackey Whole Foods in Google Blog Search produced approximately 2,722** results. The first 20 results were dedicated to the Whole Foods message board incident. While many of these posts mentioned ethics, there were no conversations regarding WOMMA or their Ethics Code.

• A search for Whole Foods in YouTube produced 378 results when sorted by upload date. The first two pages contained videos released within the past week and 4 of these videos are related to Mackey’s mistake. Similar to blog posts, the related videos discuss ethics, but don’t mention WOMMA.

Findings of this limited conversation map seem to suggest that controversy surrounding Whole Foods and the heightened attention to word of mouth ethics is not brining much attention to WOMMA. WOMMA mentions on their ethics page that they want to raise awareness of unethical practices to push “bad-willed” businesses out. However, the association isn’t capitalizing on relevant events that show need for ethical codes in word of mouth marketing. Perhaps this is WOMMA’s method for not being viewed a regulatory force as mentioned on their FAQ page. While this is commendable, highlighting such incidents would help WOMMA educate consumers, businesses, and advertisers about unethical marketing practices.

* Advanced Search Options: English Only; Results from the last 3 months
** Advanced Search Options: English only; July 13, 2007-July 20, 2007