With new regulations on blogging and viral marketing set to become law, the CEO of one viral agency looks at what might become of those who fail to adhere to the rules correctly.

With the Consumer Protection Against Unfair Trading Regulations (CPRs) coming into force on 26 May 2008, many cynics are hailing the death of viral video marketing. But are these doomsayers right, or can simple best practice rules ensure viral video's continued success?

Despite the CPRs' looming introduction, there is still confusion about the main terms of the legislation and how they will affect viral marketing. Generally speaking, if consumers are treated fairly and are not being misled, then it is unlikely that the CPRs are being broken.

The main area that will be affected is guerrilla marketing techniques that involve 'falsely claiming or creating the impression that the trader is not acting for the purposes relating to his trade, business, craft or profession, or falsely representing oneself as a consumer.'

In other words, using editorial content that has been paid for without disclosing that the space is advertorial, will no longer be acceptable. This has been the standard in print marketing for some time, and these rules are now being applied online.

Too often, viral video seeders engage in dirty tactics to ensure the widespread viewing of videos. With marketers naming these underhand techniques 'web-raiding' and 'forum infiltration', guerrilla marketing has gained a sexy image. But the backlash against those caught causes long-term harm to brands.

One of the most well-known examples of the damage caused to brand image is Walmart's fake blog, or flog, 'Wal-Marting Across America'. The blog was started by a pair of 'average Americans' charting their travels across America in a campervan and staying overnight in Wal-Mart car parks. The site was soon exposed as a marketing misadventure set up by Working Families for Wal-Mart (WFWM), an organisation launched by Wal-Mart's public relations firm. WFWM paid for all expenses and even pasted a logo on the side of the travellers' campervan. Although the blog featured a link to WFWM, it was not identified as a sponsor.

There was massive uproar in the press and the blogosphere following this and Walmart's image was seriously tarnished. Although the blog is no longer in existence, if you type the phrase 'Wal-Marting Across America' into Google you still find nearly 2,000 results, proving that bad feeling and online comments linger for much longer than the ill-advised campaigns.

More pertinent for agencies engaging in bad practices are the 1,000 hits on Google related to the agency behind the Walmart flog. Not only is the discovery of dishonest tactics damaging to the brand, it is also extremely damaging to the credibility of the agency behind it.

But the CPRs go further than posing as the author of a blog. Marketers commenting on genuine blogs and posting links on forums are now also required to disclose their association with the company or material they are promoting.

It has always been unlikely that an unscrupulous marketer with a few internet pseudonyms will make a large difference to campaign results in the face of millions of legitimate viral viewers. With the new risk of heavy fines and even imprisonment, as well as the resulting damage to brand image, these practices are really not worth the gamble.

While it may be a challenge to implement the new regulations, marketers should not assume immunity and take advantage of enforcement issues to continue their fraudulent campaigns. Communities will notice wrongdoings and will expose the companies' bad practices online. Marketers' fake comments are easy to spot as they're rarely written in the argot of the target community and tight-knit, loyal communities will 'out' deceptive tactics.

To ensure that markers still get great coverage while complying with the new regulations, brands need to ensure that they are open and honest with online communities: engage in conversations, don't try to dominate them.

You can't control the feedback given by communities and trying to do so will damage brand image. Instead, embrace it and see this as an opportunity to up your ante by responding to comments in a positive way. Brands that listen to their online communities and heed their advice will do much better than companies that ignore responses and try to manipulate comments. At Unruly Media, we've seen the community feedback loop generate some of the best results for advertisers, leading to genuine brand advocacy and product recommendation.

Marketers that are responsible with their viral practices and engage in clear and honest community contact will fare best once the CPRs are enforced. We will still see marketers trying to work around the regulations to manipulate communities, but these will be tomorrow's case studies of marketing malpractice.

Scott Button is CEO at Unruly Media.