Marketing StrategyResearch and InsightsThe Future of Content

Eloqua and Marketo Debate Social Media Ethics on Twitter

By December 8, 2011 2 Comments
Joe Chernov and Jon Miller

Joe Chernov and Jon Miller

Marketing automation software heavyweights Eloqua and Marketo have been clashing over social media ethics on Twitter. The dispute began with Eloqua vice president of content marketing Joe Chernov linking to a Marketo promotion that looked to generate social media shares of Marketo in part by offering prizes. Chernov claimed the promotion is in violation of FTC regulations and WOMMA ethics standards.

Jon Miller, founder and vice president of marketing for Marketo, responded by pointing to an Eloqua promotion that offered hotel upgrades in return for social shares regarding Eloqua. Both sides denied the accusations, saying their promotions contain disclosures that make them compliant with the regulations and standards. (See highlights of the debate in our Storify roundup below.)

Both companies have had a transformative impact on marketing operations, providing software that enables marketers to produce more, and higher-quality, leads online.

While the debate highlights some of the ethical complexities in web promotions today, more than anything it seems to illustrate the intensity of the competition between these two firms, both of which have seen increasing success and growth. Additionally, both companies have been champions of content marketing, practicing it in their own operations and advocating it to their customers.

Marketeer Staff

About Marketeer Staff


  • Thanks Joe for your super thoughtful and thorough comment. As more and more of marketing activity occurs through social channels, the issues that you raise here are becoming more and more relevant. The deep analysis you’ve provided adds a lot of insight to this issue.

    • Joe Chernov says:

      Thanks for your reply. I suppose my only lingering issue about this topic is that some people are trying to frame it as a debate: Joe vs. Jon. And while the back-and-forth has all of the polemics of a debate, it’s no more even-footed an argument than a fire chief arguing about burning buildings with a pyromaniac. Of course, I am not suggesting that (a.) Jon plays with matches, nor that (b.) what his marketing department does is anywhere near as menacing as arson, but rather this: just because two people see the same situation — in this case, the importance of transparency — from two polar opposite perspectives, doesn’t mean that each opinion is as viable as the other. -Joe