Church of the Customer Blog
« The myth that disclosure is damaging | Main | New Jersey Nets got game »
October 06, 2005
The myth that disclosure is damaging
Here's a fundamental myth about marketing and word of mouth: Up-front disclosure of intentions somehow undermines the effectiveness of your campaign.
That's why liquor companies pay marketing companies like Big Fat Inc. to talk up unsuspecting schlubs in bars about their favorite vodka.
That's why product companies like Essential Reality talk up unsuspecting schlubs in coffeehouses about their game glove.
That's why a whole roster of companies pay people to infiltrate chat rooms and talk up music groups.
That's why "The Purpose-Driven Life" author Rick Warren pitched a fit over the publication of "PyroMarketing," which shares the secrets of his book's success.
All of those people believed that disclosing their work to encourage people to talk about their products would ruin the veneer of an altogether fictional moment. (In Warren's case, he believed that the success of "The Purpose-Driven Life" had nothing to do with marketing but was really "God's supernatural and sovereign plan.")
This playground for prevarication is where trade publications have the opportunity to keep the industry free of shady work from companies like Big Fat ("the stuff we do ranges from totally under-the-radar campaigns to drive target buzz to more overt guerrilla marketing efforts." But Ad Age's effort this week was like a bad day on Fox News. "Is Buzz Marketing Illegal?" was the salacious headline on a superfluous article that didn't answer the question. (J-school graduates know better than to write a question as a headline.) Worse yet, the trade mag propagated the myth of disclosure: Douglas Wood, chairman of advertising and marketing law at Reed Smith says without challenge that "since disclosure undermines the value of buzz marketing, advertisers are in a Catch-22."
Since when? By whose measure? There is no Catch-22. It's a made-up reality and resides in the same neighborhood as Iraqi WMD.
A thousand companies can prove a thousand different ways that involving customers in the marketing process can and will contribute to word of mouth. Here's a few: Bike Friday, Ban, Southwest, iPod My Baby, Three Wishes, The Biggest Loser, The Purpose-Driven Life, Olivet College, and The Big Moo. And those are just the ones we wrote about in September.
What successful and effective word of mouth requires is customer involvement before, during and after product/service launches. Customers and prospects can get involved via beta tests, trials, samples, content creation, customer communities, feedback systems, customer advisory boards, backstage tours -- to name a few ideas.
If a product is worth talking about, it will naturally create word of mouth. Engaging in deception, trickery or obfuscation is the sure-fire route to bad word of mouth or expensive lawsuits for fraud.
To argue that disclosure undermines the value of buzz demonstrates a naive understanding of how word of mouth really works.
Other blogs that reference The myth that disclosure is damaging:
the difference of course is that companies hiring shills and leaners DON'T WANT TO INVOLVE CUSTOMERS WITH MARKETING, they just want to sell them stuff--now. they have no interest in cocreation of products, brands, long term loyalty, or any of that stuff you get with deeper, honest (and transparent) WOM programs.
I have a problem with companies like Big Fat. The undercover tactics they use to promote alcohol and tobacco products also target people who don't drink or smoke but happen to be at the club at the time. These unususpecting targets accept a cigarette or a drink from a good looking lady (or gentleman) believing that they'll... well... you know what I mean...
I believe in disclosure. It is a good thing. What is troubling is the inherent conflict of being a customer evangelist for pay. Disclosing that contractual relationship is good, but it does diminish the power of word-of-mouth. The reality is that that uncompensated testimonials are the most powerful form of promotion. Or, to put it differently, when the person pays to promote a product, not paid to promote is the most powerful. This doesn't seem to be enough discussion about this issue.
Disclosure lessening word of mouth may be the conventional wisdom, but I haven't seen any evidence of that. If anyone has pointers to studies, surveys, etc., please let me know.
You're absolutely right, Ed: There isn't enough discussion about this issue.
Buzz Marketing ILLEGAL?
Garbage.
This just shows that AD AGE do not understand what Buzz marketing
is at all. Which is slightly concerning for their shareholders.
Planting people in Bars etc is not buzz marketing, but is just barely
disguised paid advertising.
WOM, Customer Evangelism (of which I am a huge fan) or Buzz
occurs because customers WANT to spread the word.
Buzz is a feature that is introduced as part of the product or is attached
from the outset and is passed from person to person by viral chatter.
People pick it up and talk about it. No external influence required.
It is BUILT IN. That is the secret.
That is real buzz power, because it is FREE.
The customers do it all ... gratis.
I have written a free eBook about this called VIRAL ALCHEMY,
the most powerful force in marketing.
This is not a theory but an example of how I used it in action to
get over ONE MILLION HITS on my website in less than a month,
and sell over 350,000 copies of my book.
Check it out: http://www.viralalchemy.com
See you in the traffic!
Jonathan Gunson
PS: Ben Mcconnell and Jackie Huba run an excellent
Customer Evangelist blog here. Congratulations!
