Hi CG, DB, Justin I was of course being facetious when I suggested that all bloggers who linked to the story are secretly BzzAgents -- but, as Justin sussed out, there is a real concern behind it. Is that now my safest assumption? That I'm being duped in all interpersonal communications? Even as someone who is all for innovative marketing, I'm not really looking forward to that world, and I think marketers need to err on the side of transparency, particularly in the pure WOM plays that BzzAgents employs. Why? Unlike on the internet -- where we all have a healthy skepticism and even an appreciation for the well-turned hoax -- the interpersonal space comes with something like an expectation of honesty. I may think someone is trying to get over on me, but I don't (yet) consider social strokes they are receiving from some marketer as a possible motive. This is, of course, why such marketing can be so effective -- people's defenses are entirely down, because they do not believe what they are hearing is commercial speech. But at what cost? To follow up on CG's point, when WOM becomes marketing, what will happen to honest WOM? I think Balter called for transparency at Ad:Tech because he knows that without it, marketers will destroy the very thing they are trying to harness. And, on a personal rather than professional note, they will be creating a culture of suspicion in which the market has at last been fragmented into a collection of solitary souls.