Church of the Customer Blog
« Six ideas for BzzAgent | Main | Creating pre-release evangelists »
December 08, 2004
Six ideas for BzzAgent
BzzAgent is riding a wave of buzz, both good and bad. Anyone plowing new ground is bound to stir up criticism. It goes with the territory.
BzzAgent helps companies market products, not create meaningful customer relationships. A company still has to do that hard work.
While customer evangelism begins with a great product (or service), it's hard for most companies to sustain that passion, especially since sustained word of mouth is the chief contributor toward long-term growth. BzzAgents spread buzz, but they're like the hipsters who who make new bars cool. Soon they find a new place, and the party's over. In this sense, BzzAgent risks being seen as just another ad agency. (Chances are, one of the big agency conglomerates would like to scoop BzzAgent up quickly.)
That's why I'm ambivalent about BzzAgent. It's attractive, but oh that advertising makeup. BzzAgent should be a natural beauty, especially if it's considered a leader in the word-of-mouth marketing sector. If the company is seen by some as yet another cloying undercover advertising firm, it casts suspicion on the entire sector.
That's why if I were Dave Balter, the company's founder, I would do six things to tighten up BzzAgent's legitimacy and, by extension, word of mouth marketing. (I've known Dave for more than a year, and he didn't ask for this advice but that's what a good evangelist does):
1. Dump the points program.
A transaction-based relationship for spreading buzz, whether it's points or cash, creates Raging Cow-like distrust. Points programs are inauthentic and focus action on rewards. Dave, you've already proven you don't need the program since most "agents" don't use them and regard participation its own reward. The agents who would protest the program's removal probably shouldn't be an agent anyway. Points programs are loyalty-marketing relics that have nothing to do with loyalty.
2. Get medieval about trickery.
The most disturbing aspect of Bzzagentry described in the Times article: trickery. Agents call up bookstores and pretend not to know the name of the book or the author they're "buzzing," but still ask if it's in stock. Or they disguise their affiliation or motivations. BzzAgent should establish crystal clear and uncompromising principles against any deceptive practices. Tolerating deception will only position you for continued criticism. It will put you on the radar of people like Eliot Spitzer and only invite the FTC's attention.
3. Drop the Bzz guides.
As the Times article describes, the "Bzz guide" agents receive have talking points and suggestions for specific tactics. While feature guides are certainly helpful for anyone, "talking points" is top-down message control. Tactic suggestion is a close second. True word of mouth has nothing to do with top-down command. Make BzzAgents responsible for brainstorming tactics and sharing them with others.
4. Root out secrecy.
BzzAgent "Gabriella" operates like a spy. A "secret agent," as the Times describes her. This is ridiculous. Let spies do their work in Iran, North Korea, or local school boards for that matter. Discourage spy-like agentry. Double-agents have no foundation of credibility and when rooted out, often face grave consequences.
5. Give up control. Go open source.
Turn over ownership of concepts, strategies and execution to the community. That's been the principle of success for eBay, where the community is responsible for the success of the concept. An open source culture will create community-minded watchdogs who, based on the intrinsic human nature for survival, will spot and eradicate free-radical cells, if you will, who threaten the success and future of the community.
6. Hold all agents, including yourself, to the highest ethical standard.
Without hardcore vigilance toward unquestionable ethical legitimacy, word of mouth marketing is destined to be what phishing is to email marketing. If the tricksters are not rooted out now, authentic customer evangelism will be circumspect. Ensure that each company principle is firmly rooted in being authentic.
Dave, your company is the new poster child (for now) of word of mouth, and everyone is watching.
Finally, about the article: I generally enjoy Rob Walker's work, but I found this piece disappointing. It was great PR for BzzAgent, and that's how it came across, too. Dave Balter's phones are ringing off the hook.
But the piece was missing critical analysis, something readers of the NY Times' Sunday Magazine expect. Where were the conflicting opinions about the efficacy of almost-stealth marketing? For Americans today, marketing is everywhere like never before. It's like air and water, and most of it is pollution. That's why society watchdogs such as the Times strive to keep our best interests in mind, not those of marketers. Walker dismisses any critical analysis by writing, "Marketers bicker among themselves about how these approaches differ, but to those of us on the receiving end, the distinctions might seem a little academic."
Academic? A typical curt dismissal of critical thinking by Big Media. Rob, you're better than that, and so are New York Times readers.
Other blogs that reference Six ideas for BzzAgent:
» BzzAgents from Jack Cheng's Blog
I've had time to let this BzzAgents thing simmer for a bit, so here's my .02 on the matter... Cheaper Conversation BzzAgent has a very clever business model. But there's something about it that just feels... wrong. Some say that it's still doesn't solv... [Read More]
» BzzAgents from Jack Cheng's Blog
I've had time to let this BzzAgents thing simmer for a bit, so here's my .02 on the matter... Cheaper Conversation BzzAgent has a very clever business model. But there's something about it that just feels... wrong. Some say that it's still doesn't solv... [Read More]
» Experimenting at the Fringes of Marketing from Crossroads Dispatches
I partly wrote the Open Letter to the Lunatic Fringe of Marketing because I was amazed with all the attention on Lovemarks when something is happening that is a true lunatic fringe, er innovative, experiment in marketing is nearly completely [Read More]
» The Hidden (in Plain Sight) Persuaders debate from adland
Some great advice from author and consultant Jackie Huba to BzzAgents in response to the NYT article and backlash: [Read More]
» How Can I Trust Anything I Hear About Seth Godin? Or Anyone Else? from The Social Customer Manifesto
Yes, it's time for another "I hate BzzAgents" rant. I just learned that the last two books written by Seth Godin have been marketed by the evil BzzAgent machinery. This is kind of a funny, Catch-22, recursive, ouroborosian sort [Read More]
My Feedback..!!
1) Agree -Points sytems. Does not make a difference ( to me !!)
2) Disagree- "trickry" ?? Foul words !@!- I'm intelligent enough to make my own thoughts.
3) Disagree- "guides". Giveme all the "howtos" available
4) Disagree - "secrecy". The community does not act like a "spy-like agentry". Like to throw me your no# ?? Mine is 905 270 2025.
5) Agree. "Go open source" I'm there..BzzAgents Are there !! R u there ?
6) Agree. Pls furnish creditential.
its a tie...like to tip the scales ??
Peter, thanks for your feedback.
I see at least four perspectives at play here:
1. The product company
2. BzzAgent management
3. The BzzAgent community
4. People who come into contact with BzzAgents
The first three on the list have their agendas and will argue for them mightily.
I'm looking at this from perspective number four. Without the willing participation of number four, the work of the first three groups is meaningless.
Trickery and deception work well for magicians like Penn & Teller, but the audience members know ahead of time they're being deceived. When it comes to legitimate word of mouth marketing, the expecation is that the buzz is based on an honest, if flawed, exchange of information.
That's why a "no deceptive practices" rule is important -- there are no expectations for the rest of us that BzzAgents are just messing with reality. Obviously, that's clear to you but as the Times story made clear, it isn't to all of the BzzAgents.
An "open source" theology would likely ease hidden agenda concerns since the work of the community and company would be in the open for all to see.
Good ideas... certain to start folks thinking.
As a BzzAgent, I don't truly care about the points system, but I think they are used as a carrot (honey?) in order to encourage the filing/tracking of BzzReports. I think those reports can truly help a wise company make improvements on their products, or discover an idea for future products.
On the other hand, I really enjoy the BzzGuides. Not because I need their help in discovering what I will find interesting about the campaign, but because on more than one occasion they brought to mind a friend in a different category/business/circle that liked the item for a completely different reason than I liked it... plus, sometimes their BzzKits are just damn cool to have!
I like the idea of open-source, but I also think that BzzAgent deserves to make a fair (even an unfair) profit from their ideas and strategies for tracking and reporting WoM.
The trickery is something I think we could do without, although I've been known to ask a bookstore if they have a book in stock -- or ask when it will be available (I'll use the author's name and title though) -- knowing those bits of information can often help in telling a friend where they can pick it up (those Seth Godin "Free Prize Inside" cereal boxes were pretty tough to find in the beginning!)
I also think the ethics guidelines are a good idea. And BzzAgent already has them posted on their site, and a handy reference card is supplied with every BzzKit. But I don't think I'd have a problem if they DIDN'T distribute those cards. I don't need a company supplying ethics to me... I have my own.
If individuals have to rely on companies to supply ethical guidelines, we're in sorry shape. Just because a company distributes ethical guidelines (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/enron/enronethics1.html) doesn't mean the "company" will follow them. It's up to the individuals involved to know right from wrong according to their own sense of ethics.
My interactions with Dave Balter and his group have always been excellent, and I've no shame or ethical dilemmas over any of the items or instances I have chosen to Bzz.
I would hope each and every BzzAgent would conduct themselves in the same manner, and I have no reason to doubt that's just what they are doing. The benefit of each BzzReport being individually evaluated by a person in "the hive" carries with it that if something would happen to be reported that might be deemed as "inappropriate", I'm certain that it could be acted upon with urgency.
BzzAgent is a great group of people, and I'm happy to play a small role in their success.
Ben, Thanks for the loopback. Appreciated. I'll like to further delve into the 4th one.. "I'm looking at this from perspective number four. Without the willing participation of number four, the work of the first three groups is meaningless."
I'll agree, without the 4th segment (the true markets) the first three are meaningless and will be a waste time.
The openness about the Bzz Community is that I get to choice which compaign that I'll to work with. How I wish to particpate, and engage the 4th segment. (the Marketplace).
I am still feeding Dave et al, thoughts on what it may take to be truely Open Source for all to see. Right now, we dont have upfront visiablity on the 'agendas'. I'll conceed that point. After all, at the end of the day, Dave et al need to put porridge on their tables..correct ?? and with all this Hype, I tend to belive that certain agendas need to be kept privy.
As A BzzAgent, am I really interested on which company Dave actually engages for a bzz Campign ?? Not really. I trust, in good faith, that they will not infringe on ethical standards and they do the oroper prep works. Both partners enter into a relationship that should bring meaning and value. Else all get burnt an it the Product and the Campign becomes a failure!!
I'll accept mistakes, but not unethical values. Theres a big difference, between mistakes and unethical value driven strategies !!
With that in mind, I sincerly belive that the BzzMangement is the catalyst and the glue which ties together the Prodcut and the Marketplace. We are just the conduits.. albeit a new specimen in the marketing regime.. which differs in the traditional sense of Brochures, TV ad's etc etc.. and hoepfully like Don says "It's up to the individuals involved to know right from wrong according to their own sense of ethics" !!
I have one question for you.. What do you think is the ethical practices that a BzzAgent needs to adhere too, from the eyes of the 4th segment ??
All this divergent talk about BzzAgent is making me uncomfortable. But my feet sure are comfortable.
Have you tried wearing the new shoes from the Johnston & Murphy LiTe collection? They are so much lighter than my other dress shoes and they are the ONLY pair of shoes I need on a business trip.
Speaking of business trips … because these new shoes from the Johnston & Murphy LiTe collection are based on a fiberglass shank rather than metal, they help me breeze right through airport security. (I don’t really know what that means but it sounds cool.)
Now I’m not the only one who loves Johnston & Murphy shoes. Did you know that every US President from Fillmore to Bush has had a pair of Johnston & Murphy dress shoes custom designed for their feet? Pretty cool, eh?
Plus, all the shoes in the Johnston & Murphy LiTe collection feature a discreet anti-bacterial and anti-fungal latex insert layer which is sheathed in fine Italian leather.
I bet you are wondering where you can get a pair of shoes from the Johnston & Murphy LiTe collection. You can find the Johnston & Murphy LiTe collection at fine department stores like Macy’s, Bloomingdales, and Dillard’s. You can also find these super-comfortable and super-lightweight shoes at Johnston & Murphy retail stores and through their website at www.johnstonmurphy.com.
Don, you're absolutely right that just because a company has ethical guidelines means not all agents or employees will adhere to them.
The difference here is scale. BzzAgent has a massive volunteer army compared to some agencies that ply their deceptive "stealth marketing" with a few dozen mercenaries on the streets and in bars.
Because of that scale, BzzAgent will have to work harder to maintain and enforce ethical standards against the volunteer agents who play fast and loose with the truth. If not, the rest of the agents will suffer the consequences of the company's diminished reputation.
In a few ways, isn't that happening already?
Ben, all good points.
I like the way you pose the important questions -- I just think that once they dip a hand into controlling the questionable tactics of the agents, it's a slippery slope to trying to handle the tactics as well.
I feel a program like this has got to be either total control (as in the cases of actors hired to troll bars for alcohol companies or have pics snapped of them), or completely hands-off, which is much closer to the BzzAgent model.
On the other hand, I feel if a BzzAgent gets caught in something unethical, they should probably be booted from the program (and all future campaigns) because they harm not only the rep of BzzAgent and all the 'good' agents, but could damage the brand of the BzzClient as well.
[sarcasm]
OH... and wasn't the previous posting of "BzzAgent SirNoze" clever? See how he was taking digs at BzzAgent while posing as an agent himself? What a witty guy!
[/sarcasm]
Hi Ben,
great comments. Probably the most inspired one since the BzzAgent debate.
You're right, the debate goes beyond BzzAgent's reputation : the whole buzz/wom industry is concerned now.
I would add a seventh point :
7. Change your name. "Agent" has a bad meaning. Agent means "Stealth, secret", it also means "in the service of someone".
So litteraly, BzzAgent means "someone secretly doing wom for a business". Not too positive.
Word are bullets. Neverunderstimate the power of words and their evocative sets.
PD, it seems a solid ethical guideline would stand firmly against *any* form of deception, whether it's spoofing one's identity online, offline or on the phone line, pretending not to know the name of the product, or pretending to be someone you're not in order to win a prospect's trust.
One other ethical guideline seems to be context -- evangelizing a product when the situation makes sense. Both Jackie and I have occassionally post raves about products or companies, and those raves were of our own volition, not because we were part of an organized marketing campaign. If someone were to post a comment to this blog raving about a particular brand of shoes, for instance, that would seem, at best, disingenuous.
Don, thanks for the comments. The agent/not an agent phenomenon floating through the blogosphere related to comments and comment spam are an interesting duality to BzzAgent's larger issue: Are people really who they say they are? Can you trust that the person who's writing comments is really who he claims to be? It's hard to say, which seems to be the point.
Stephane, you've hit upon an interesting issue: "agent" carries multiple meanings. If stealth work is happening, does that tip BzzAgent to being more of a spy agency rather than a network of trusted advisors?
I get the point -- and it may be valid -- but I don't think Stephane's "literal" translation is the only one from which to choose...
Insurance agent, travel agent, purchasing agent, etc. I view the word in terms of being a trusted resource, not a secretive manipulator.
As I'm thinking about it... travel agent may be a good analogy. They are frequently given free travel perks (cruises, flights, hotel stays, etc.) in exchange for the *hope* of a positive recommendation to their clients.
There is no guarantee of a positive review -- but the ideal result is that by experiencing the (cruise, etc.) for themselves, they will enjoy it so much they will choose to recommend it to others.
Jackie … don't you think the 'Root out secrecy 'and 'Give up control/Go open source' advice to BzzAgents should also apply to the Word of Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA - www.womma.com) that BzzAgents belong to.
WOMMA aren't being transparent about who their members are and what their membership criteria is/are, yet they expect to release the first version of their "Word of Mouth Marketing Ethical Code of Conduct" in January, or at least that's what it says on their web site. Don’t you think they need to say whose interests they represent before they release their Code of Conduct if they are going to be credible?
The same 'Root Out Secrecy' advice applies to their ethics committee who should also take your ‘Give up control/Go open source’ advice with regard to the Word of Mouth Marketing Ethics Code of Conduct they are formulating. Seems like they are formulating a set of standards about transparency behind closed doors right now. Isn’t that the antithesis of transparency and in contradiction to the set of standards that you recommend to BzzAgents?
Perhaps WOMMA should also be looking into the ethical issues of marketing with minors as well as just those relating to transparency. Certainly, they would be more credible if they formed an umbrella group perhaps with other interested parties like the VBMA, which you and I belong to. That would be more like the ‘Give up control/Go open source’ advice you are making to BzzAgents don’t you think?
Either way they need to make sure their own house is in order before they start preaching!
All the best
Justin
WOMMA may be behind schedule on its code of conduct document. I commented on a draft back in July and saw an updated version in August, but that was the last I saw of it.
The code featured this important guiding tenet: members "practice full transparency." With the exception of one person, the idea was supported by all of the draft respondents.
Hi Ben
Without wishing to be rude you haven't exactly answered my questions.
My point was that WOMMA are formulating a set of standards about transparency behind closed doors which is not only ‘untransparent’ but contradicts the advice given to BzzAgents about rooting out secrecy and Giving Up Control and Going Open Source. Can you tell me where you stand on this?
So for example, are you and Jackie members of WOMMA? If so then why isn't this stated on their and your websites?
Also could you explain what is meant by full transparency because quite clearly BzzAgents are unable to practice it if they can't control how their ‘agents’ spread the word. So it's all very well agreeing to principles of total transparency but if you can’t practice what you preach it’s meaningless.
Could you also define Word of Mouth Marketing to me and how this is differentiated from Viral and Buzz marketing, if at all, because if an organisation is about to make a Code of Conduct don’t you think that they need to define the context they are referring to first?
For example, are you saying that the marketing of the Blair Witch Project was deceptive or is this a kind of hoax a legitimate technique. If you think it is legitimate then how do they do this with a code of conduct that calls for Total Transparency? If you don't think it is legitimate then why?
Sorry for all the questions but as you can see there’s a lot to discuss rather than create some rushed knee jerk reaction in response to the problems of stealth and undercover marketing, which I’m on the record as being against. Certainly, the discussion is broad enough not to be left to only one body to formulate behind closed doors. As you say yourselves, Give Up Control and Go Open Source … let’s widen the debate and allow all stakeholders to participate.
Best
Justin
Well, I guess you are going to avoid widening the debate to apply your advice to WOMMA as well as BzzAgents.
You are advising that BzzAgents hold all agents, including themselves, to the highest ethical standard. Yet you seem to be avoiding saying that the association they belong to should hold themselves to equally high standards.
Seeing that they are now charging companies to join their association I think it's fair to suggest that they too should ensure that their house in order before they start preaching, particularly as far as the transparency of their membership is concerned.
Given that there is also another more Internationally representative association in this area I also think it fair to argue that the formulation of ethical standards should not be left to one or other of the associations, and perhaps some umbrella organisation should be set up to ensure that all stakeholders can participate.
I have to say I’m pretty disappointed that you don’t seem prepared to engage me on this topic given the advice you gave above.
Obviously, the question of ethics in our field matters too much to be assessed only by members of any association.
The whole industry should be involved in it.
How about Jackie and Ben chair the debate?
I like this this thread of great converstation its become organic. some points
1) I agree with the "Agent" word.. but then Don has a good rebuttal to the offering.. "we also have "Travel Agents". So why not evenaglist a wacky, wierd sounding name.. and then wiki it..
2) Etical standards... whos sets them ?? The Values Institute sets stds for Corporations however, none for indiviudals..what is the best router to formulate these standards ?? Something like the 3 laws of robitics.. even a rookie should be able to state them..e.g
1)I'll shall not make Bzz about a product that I'll never buy.
2)I'll alway make postive remarks unless in circumstances which are in conflict with rule(1)
3) I'll always conduct myself in the mode and manner that i see fit to implement rule1&2
ok ok.. dont point em fingers at me.. just a stab at what simple rules sets in ethics and ocde of conduct could be...
Lastly, I'll second the nomination on a mutal debate via this blog thru Ben and Jackie.. It will really be interesting ..however, pls dont jump the gun and do it right away.. its holiday season.. my 2 cents.. ok make that 3 cents !!
Well, WOMMA are planning to release their WOMM Code of Conduct in January, so the debate should start soon or none of us get enough time to put our points across.
Funny thing is that I'm in the branded entertainment end of the spectrum which is about as transparent as it gets, i.e. it's branded. But there's a diverse group of practitioners out there who should be allowed to have their say.
Justin -
You and your association (VBMA), were invited to participate in the WOMMA discussions about an ethics code back in October. We have re-extended that invitation every week since then, including a few days ago, when we invited VBMA to join the ethics committee.
In fact, we have emailed the invitation and regular updates to all 1103 people who have signed up for our mailing list, which also listed all of our members.
Instead of participating, you keep launching these sneaky attacks full of innuendo, buried deep in blog comments. If you want openness, participate and contribute openly, instead of this hostile and unconstructive sniping.
The door is open; we gave you what you asked for months ago. Come in and contribute so we can work together to further this industry and protect consumers.
Andy Sernovitz
CEO
Word of Mouth Marketing Association
http://www.womma.com
P.S. Yes, we charge membership dues, just like every other association. But membership is open to everyone, and always will be.
P.P.S. You are the only one talking about WOMMA imposing our standards on others. Our members are working on a code of ethics that we believe in and that applies only to ourselves. If someone doesn't like it, they don't need to join. But we're going to to the right thing and stick by it.
Andy
Firstly, I think you are being a little disingenuous when you say that there has been an extended invitation to join in your ethics committee.
However, you are right that I, and others such as Jackie, had been asked to participate in the development of the Code of Conduct earlier this year, but I remind you of the following paragraph
"WOMMA actively monitors word of mouth marketing campaigns to identify irresponsible practices that violate the WOMMA Code of Conduct. We consider it our responsibility to reprimand and, potentially, publicly-expose marketers who execute irresponsible word of mouth marketing"
This goes well beyond "a code of ethics that we believe in and that applies only to ourselves". In fact, it sounds like a witch hunt.
Now maybe things have moved on, but as you said in the email the other day I now have to pay to participate in your ethics committee, which I didn't have to do earlier in its development.
Well, without paying to participate how could I possibly know that things have moved on or changed from you original plans?
I and others outside the US cannot participate in your webinars on this issue because an 0800 toll free number has been used even though I had asked if WOMMA could work out a way that we could join in. It's a big world out there even though I thought the web was supposed to make it smaller.
So the door is hardly wide open even if you do send an email newsletter from time to time, but that isn’t exactly participatory.
I’m all in favour of working together to further this industry and protect consumers but I think the ethical issues here are too big to be left to any one association to assess. Looking above it seems like I’m not alone despite what you suggest.
So why don’t we form a coalition where practitioners in the field of buzz/viral/WOMM can participate in the debate on ethics regardless of whether they are a member of the WOMMA or VBMA? Certainly, they shouldn’t be made to pay to participate.
In the meantime, I think you should practice what you preach and be more transparent about your membership. You could start by including a list of members on a page on your website.
Best
Justin
It hardly seems possible that branded entertainment is the most transparent type of marketing.
Television shows and movies are filled with placed products, either stealthily in the background or overtly upfront, as in most episodes of the TV shows, "The Apprentice" and "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy."
These multiple-brand shows never clearly announce that companies pay big bucks to have their products covertly or overtly featured.
Ben ... when did product placement become branded entertainment?
I'm talking about branded entertainment, i.e. entertainment that is branded. The idea being that the brand wants you to know it's from them, so how can that not be transparent?
Anyway, disappointed to see that you would rather make cheap shots rather than be prepared to champion or support a coalition that allows all practitioners in this space to debate the important ethical issues regardless of their affiliations and free of charge, i.e. Give Up Control and Go Open Source.
