WOM vs. ADV

The Word of Mouth Marketing Association has started a blog to hype its upcoming Conference in NYC. The conversation on the blog (and at the Conference) is about the intersection of word of mouth marketing and advertising. This could get interesting.

I just tossed a marketing missive across the blog waters with this posting:

Comments

[Jim Seybert]

John - are you up for a theoretical discussion on the difference between WOM and ADV?

Seems to me, the primary difference - at this point in time - is the directedness of each. Advertising is highly directed by the sponsor, while WOM follows a path not always directable by the originator. Yes?

If that's the case, what happens if conferences such as the WOMMA teach people how to successfully control and manage WOM marketing efforts.

Will WOM techniques become the advertising of tomorrow?

From my foolish perspective, we have always had Word of Mouth marketing and as each generation of story tellers advances their craft, the grass roots efforts and new techinques they bring to the table turn mainstream and slip from an organic state and become "new" traditions.

Thoughts?

[johnmoore (from Brand Autopsy)]

Jim, I agree with you ... "Advertising is highly directed by the sponsor, while WOM follows a path not always directable by the originator." True.

WOM is as old as Adam and Eve. WOM will always be around so long as people populate this planet. Will it continue to be effective? Probably not. The pendulum will swing back and traditional "at"vertising will again rule the world. (Granted, “at”vertising will have mutated by then to become more a conversation than a monologue.)

I do struggle with the raise of WOM as a marketing activity. I fear WOM will suffer the same fate of advertising. That fate is where marketers spend dollars to make the WOM episode more remarkable than the product they are selling. (Case in point … gimmicky ‘buzzmarketing’ tactics that are all about creating awareness more than preference.)

Marketers should spend dollars to make the product more remarkable, not to make the word of mouth tactic more remarkable. Otherwise, all people will be talking about is what your company did and not what your company does.

Back to WOM, when it comes to trust and credibility (two factors I look for when deciding to buy a product), I trust more and find more credible the thoughts/opinions of my friends than I do of advertisers. Just my take on things.

[Bruce DeBoer]

The trick is to be tool agnostic: Brand awareness, Direct response, WOM, Viral, Search placement, and on and on and on. They NEED to work together. Remember marketing PLANS? Get a strategy. Use all that is available.

Maybe I’m completely out of the loop here but WOM v. Advertising makes absolutely NO sense to me at all. Seems to me the two would make an outstanding partnership / feedback loop. Don’t you think?

[Jim Seybert]

John, you said > "I trust more and find more credible the thoughts/opinions of my friends than I do of advertisers."

So, the secret for those want/need to control the message they are delivering is to find a way to sound like (or become) a trusted friend to the target audience - and BOY does that sound like Marketing 101.

Good thread started on this topic. Thanks.

[johnmoore (from Brand Autopsy)]

Yeah ... 'trust' is indeed of paramount importance for any marketing activity to work long-term. And it's more basic than Marketing 101 ... it's Life 101.

I just can't trust CP+K's Burger King ads. While the ads are highly creative, they over-promise on what Burger King can actually deliver.

To me, companies lose my trust when they don’t do what they say they will do. With Burger King, I expect the BK in-store experience to be as offbeat and fun as their ads are. But I don't get that when I go to BK. Same goes for Jack-in-the-Box ... funny ads ... but the in-store experience fails to live up to the creative ads. (Am I expecting too much from advertising? Maybe so.)

I do tend to trust my friends more than the ads I see. Now, my friends don't always point me in the right direction with recommendations. Sometimes they fail. (My friends told me to watch “Anchorman” and I did but I didn’t like it as much as they did.) But I forgave them for the poor recommendation because friendship is in it for the long-term. Friendship is a true relationship and not a business transaction.

Sure, businesses can try to be my friend with 1:1 marketing schemes that transform a transaction into a relationship. But that’s easier said than done. Companies just can’t layer on a 1:1 marketing program … building relationships and not transactions has to be part of the company culture to work long-term.

And that’s why I don’t think there is a trick or secret to be successful in business. Be genuine. Be generous. Be friendly. Be helpful. Be there. And if you can BE that … you can BE my friend of choice and BE my business of choice.

Was that too ethereal?

[johnmoore (from Brand Autopsy)]

Bruce ... check out Pete Blackshaw's thoughts on the zig/zag of WOM & POV ... methinks you'll like it.

[Thomas]

No, your comment (above) was not too ethereal, it was bang on the money. On all kinds of different levels. Hard to state it any better than that.

[Chuck Nyren]

Like most people here -- and folks posting on other blogs -- I'm not completely convinced that WOM is as effective as its proponents would like us to believe.

And their Comparison Chart is a combination of spin, lies, and half-truths.

That said .... the provocative title of WOMMA's conference and all the chatter in the ad/marketing blogs certainly has created a lot of WOM...

[Geno]

Chuck, I don't think WOM is a cure all for brands. But I know first hand it has worked for some of our clients. IMO Bruce is on the right track about being tool agnostic but WOM is not just some touchpoint listed with industry ads, internal culture, web banners, etc… WOM should be part of the marketing strategy across the board. It’s up to us as marketers working with our clients to find how this fits into there story. The big problem I see now, is too many clients that want to stir up WOM but they have no remarkable stories to tell about their product or service.

[johnmoore (from Brand Autopsy)]

Bingo Geno ... "... too many clients that want to stir up WOM but they have no remarkable stories to tell about their product or service." And that's why I believe too many businesses enagage in fairy tale marketing and make up stories about why their products are remarkable. These businesses need to practice Sethology and remarkabalize their business. Remarkabalize before you Advertise. Yeah ... I can believe in that motto.

[Chuck Nyren]

I'm not anti-WOM. I know it's been effective within certain demographics and for certain products.

But it's nothing new. The marketing channels are new, the way WOM travels (and originates) is new.

But there isn't a magic WOM wand. For the last fifteen years or so, people have been passing themselves off as 'branding experts' with magic branding wands. Branding vs. Advertising. Eventually, advertisers caught on that branding is simply a weapon in a large arsenal of ways to reach and keep consumers - not the be all and end all. (What's the name of this blog, anyway?)

Now the WOM people are waving their wands. In a few years there will be a new blog: WOM Autopsy.

But branding and WOM and good copywriting and design and TV and radio spots and long-form commercials for cable and the internet and print ads and PR and everything else will still all be weapons in all marketing/advertising arsenals.

I just found it interesting that the WOMMA conference uses old-fashioned scare tactics, cheap half-truths, and other (they say, "Old School") greasy marketing/advertising techniques. Perhaps it's tongue-in-cheek on their part -- using over-the-top hackneyed methods they say are 'old school' to promote their 'neo' marketing. If so, the irony will turn around and bite them.

Seth is a good guy, and on top of things. He's someone to listen to. WOM needs to be WOMed and put into practice in many (but probably not all) campaigns. It should be taken seriously. But this Old School vs. Neo whatever is just a bunch of silly hype.

And like most people here have said, if you don't have a good story, something to be WOMed - or if the demographics aren't there (many demographics won't respond to WOM) -- then don't use it.

The danger of and possible swan song of WOM: People will eventually see shills coming, will recognize shill-talk, shill blogs - and ignore it all.

[Andy Sernovitz]

Chuck -

I would make the case that WOMMA doen't use "old-fashioned scare tactics", etc.

The example you point to isn't a WOMMA message to promote a conference. It is a post by one of the many authors of our blog, contributing their thoughts to a converasation on the topic.

We're as new-school as it gets. To promote this event, we created a new blog on the topic. We invited 50+ people to be authors. And we let it happen. (It's at http://ads.womma.org)

Considering the blog is only 10 days old, I'd say we're doing a decent job encouraging conversation and creating a sharing, intellectually-rich environment.

The fact that we're all here, discussing this topic means that we're doing our job.

[Chuck Nyren]

I'll repeat a few things:

I'm not anti-WOM.

True -- the 'old-fashioned scare tactics' example I mentioned (a comparison chart) was from a blogger - a blogger who is an evangelist for WOM. It was not an advertisement for the WOMMA conference. Obviously, this blogger hasn't a clue what the 'new school' is and still uses those despicable 'old school' tactics. I'd banish s/he from the WOM Evangelical School.

That said, nothing is more 'old school' than creating a phony, hyped theme for a WOMMA conference - WORD OF MOUTH VS. ADVERTISING. Ten years ago all I heard was BRANDING VS. ADVERTISING. At the moment, it's MADISON & VINE VS. ADVERTISING. Madison & Vine is nothing new. It's over the top at the moment, and will eventually settle down - but it's no more over the top than old radio and early television shows where plots revolved around the sponsor's products (Gracie Allen baking a cake using the sponsor's cake mix, Jack Benny packing individual Kleenexes for his trip out of town because he was too cheap to buy a new pack). At least those examples were entertaining. But they pretty much stopped in the early/middle 1950s.

To me, nothing is more dishonest and 'old school' than shills showing up at bars or wherever and pretending to be your friend and offering you gum or lipstick. They remind me of shills used in medicine shows (talk about 'old school'...) And if I start reading blogs that are thinly disguised sales pitches, I'll never read the blog again. (Except, of course, if the reason for the blog is to sell you something, in which case it's really old-fashioned copywriting/advertising. Authorized company blogs, for example.)

I accept WORD OF MOUTH VS. ADVERTISING as tongue-in-cheek (and very 'old school'). And I'm interested in WOM as a sales tool -- using the internet and other technological marvels as WOM channels. It's all fascinating.

[Dustin]

johnmoore wrote: "To me, companies lose my trust when they don’t do what they say they will do. With Burger King, I expect the BK in-store experience to be as offbeat and fun as their ads are. But I don't get that when I go to BK. Same goes for Jack-in-the-Box ... funny ads ... but the in-store experience fails to live up to the creative ads. (Am I expecting too much from advertising? Maybe so.)"

To me, this is an issue of comparmentalization. Too many companies treat advertising and marketing nearly independent of business operations and product development/management. Marketing should be able to influence operations and operations should influence marketing.

Speaking of compartmentalization, why are we doing just that to advertising and WOM? In the eternal words of Rodney King... "Can't we all just get along?" Even Seth says in his book Permission Marketing that sometimes you have to interrupt in order to get permission. Advertising is great at interrupting, it just too often isn't utilized to feed into a relationship (ala permission marketing). Why WOM vs. Ad? Why not WOM and Ad?

[Steve Hershberger]

'Truth in Advertising'

The reason this blurb exists is that it has elements of reality. Is there truth in what is being spun to us? Do you know that on TV, milk in coco-puffs commercials isn't milk? Real milk doesn't 'look bright white?' Ever heard a pitch man say, 'It's great except for this slight flaw, but the brand is fixing that and making it better based on (insert bloggers, customers, feedback, research, etc.)' Nah. However, advocates do that. Doesn't some buzz ask questions? 'Hey, I have heard about this. Man, does it really do that? Wouldn't that be cool if it did? I have got to try it!'

This is reality. This is WOM. You can't buy it....sustained interest and passion. You can predict it, direct it, shape it and of course learn from it.

Here is my take on the Ad Age article.

Recently, Mathew Creamer, a writer at AD AGE, wrote an article titled, 'Is Buzz Marketing Illegal?' Wow, want to fan the flames? As you read this a number of WOM providers are preparing a response to the title and the body of content associated with the article.
To be honest, I like advertising as a medium. Sometimes as great commerce, sometimes as great art. On occasion, a balance of both. A few (only a few) ad guys I like and respect. Some I know (Mark Pearson), others I don't (Donny Deutsch). Both, because they are who they are. Period. They infuse their passion, direction and genius into what they deliver. They aren't afraid of mistakes nor do they shun from risk or innovation. Bravo guys.
Back to WOM. Recently, at a WOM conference, I had conversation with a fellow marketer in which I painted a picture of a Senator calling for hearings into the need to regulate our industry due to the need to protect the consumer from…well, you get the picture. Truth is, both myself and the other marketer see this as a reality given Washington’s shameless need for grandstanding and the belief that paid WOM marketers are hiding in the crowd, posing as you and me, waiting to pounce on unsuspecting citizens and empty their wallet and brainwash them.
In the world of WOM, we can (and should) take lessons from the early days in technology. I speak from experience, as I directly participated in this world, running a tech firm and participating in the hype that spread from Northern Highway 101 (Palo Alto/Burlingame/The Valley) to Silicon Alley (New York) and all ends in between. Spam is tech's red-headed step-child. We didn't set rules or pay attention to what could happen if things got worse, and they did. We didn’t pay attention to the communication vehicles, only the apps. Shame on us and lesson learned.
Tech's got spam. The ad world has advertorials and direct mail. WOM has shilling. So what's shilling? Read the AD AGE article. Paid or incentivized endorsement done undercover. There is a BIG grey area here in terms of what is paid or incentivized endorsement. Points? Rewards? Cash? Also, how ‘under-cover’?
To better understand the impact of this, you have to know that Word of Mouth is really broken into two distinct categories-Buzz and Advocacy. Buzz can follow Advocacy, but visa-versa is tough. Advocates move the needle-long term. It generates marketshare and profit. Advocates are sustainable; they deliver results, consume more, communicate more, recommend more, and are more passionate, knowledgeable and loyal. They don't like to be 'overtly' paid. They won't endorse hot dogs one week and cell-phones the next. Buzz is quick and a little thin on meaningful content…or trust. That is unless, it has some degree of advocacy intermixed or on the back-end.
As much as I want to say that the AD AGE article is full of hot air and an advertising industry conspiracy to discredit WOM marketers, I can't. Why? In large part, the article is valid.
With that said, from my vantage point, few ad agencies I am aware of are capable of matching the focus, efforts and results of WOM-centric firms such as ComBlu, Intelliseek, GfK (and a dozen or so others), etc. We are specialists, not generalists. We don't create brands, we make them better. The one exception to this is Organic. They are great. They get it.
What we (WOM specialists) do is based on discipline, measurement and lots and lots of expertise in very specific areas center around research, psychology, sociology, public relations and to some degree, database marketing.
So in conclusion, remember that WOM can be a double-edged sword. There is NO magic bullet. Be careful. Don't take anything for granted and if you are paying a spokesperson, call it what it is, no matter if it is on TV or grass-roots. It's only a matter of degree. We need to learn from history. Spam and the excess of advertising have taught smart marketers a lot. We need to heed and adhere to these lessons if we are to be more effective and also respected.

[Mike Lundgren]

I like this soundbyte from the Chicago WOMMA conference: "If a marketer says it, it’s an Ad. If a consumer says it, it’s WOM."