Church of the Customer Blog
« The buzz vs. word of mouth divide | Main | The end of soda sales in schools »
May 02, 2006
The buzz vs. word of mouth divide
BzzAgent founder Dave Balter asks on his company's blog: Is BzzAgent hurting the word of mouth industry?
That's a bold question to ask the world, but I don't think it's a question about harm. It's a question about purpose.
From our vantage point, quite a few companies equate word of mouth marketing to the BzzAgent approach, which retrofits the classic model of advertising: Send information to a pre-determined demographic group of prospects and hope they'll act on it. In this case, the campaign "information" from BzzAgent is most often a product. After sampling, the desired action is buzz.
A few weeks or months later, everyone moves on. Some buzz has spread. That's the purpose. Is that approach harmful to the word of mouth industry? It depends, of course, on what you believe the industry should hold high, how it should behave, and who it represents.
If anything, the buzz surrounding BzzAgent has coaxed the marketing groups of some big companies to consider word of mouth alongside their traditional menus of coupons, inserts, TV ads, co-ops, etc. Measured against the longstanding, one-way nature of most traditional marketing programs, that's progress.
But BzzAgent symbolizes something else: a schism in the nascent word of mouth "industry." On one side are advocates for outsourced buzz directed at prospects. Let's call them the "new traditionalists." On the other side are relative purists who believe existing advocates are best-suited to create organic word of mouth because brands create remarkable products and service. All of which adds up to greater loyalty. Let's call them the "WOM progressives."
New Traditionalists are comfortable with BzzAgent because it speaks their media-steeped language. (BzzAgent calls word of mouth a "media channel.") Since scores of companies haven't invested the time or resources to build their own customer communities or networks, BzzAgent provides ready access to a network. Many ad agencies see the BzzAgent model as complimentary to the traditional marketing mix.
The WOM Progressives don't care for the New Traditionalist model because it represents a marketing shortcut. They should build their own networks of loyalty. Furthermore, an underlying fear of the WOM Progressives is that the New Traditionalists will eventually pollute the "media channel," i.e., society, with undercover agents who secretly manipulate moms and kids. Of course, a fair number of lower-profile "guerilla" agencies already do this. BzzAgent encourages its agents to disclose their affiliation.
Which leads us back to the beginning and purpose: short-term campaigns vs. longer-term customer relationships. Some companies may take years to develop their own networks, if ever. Perhaps a split in the WOM industry one day between the New Traditionalists and the WOM Progressives is inevitable.
Update: John Moore explores a similar idea in "WOM creationists vs. WOM evolutionists."
Other blogs that reference The buzz vs. word of mouth divide:
Great definitions! In the end, does the ST vs. LT distinction matter? All smart marketers are trying to build long-term customer relationships. Using an agent network as part of a campaign is best done in context of an overall integrated strategy - otherwise, it's a waste of money.
Great post, Ben.
My two cents? WOM is not a media channel. When you make it a media channel, you make it a commodity. And that cheapens the entire industry.
XOXOXO,
A WOM Progressive
Peter -- I think the distinctions matter for organizations focused on long-term word of mouth as a pathway to loyalty, lest it become a series of recurring, unrelated campaigns. Either they're investing in building that social capital now or a competitor is.
Spike -- Agreed. I fear that calling WOM a media channel will reduce it to a numbers game instead of a relationship builder that delivers improved numbers.
As the director of public relations it not only occurs to me that there is some confusion surrounding BzzAgent’s vision for WOM as a medium, but also concerns me greatly. Our concept, in its most fundamental form, is a distribution channel for third-party agencies.
The goal of our Media Channel service runs entirely counter to commoditization. We are not aiming to reduce WOM to a numbers game, a la CPMs, but rather to allow creative professionals at advertising firms to design (and monetize) engaging, “WOM friendly” content on behalf of their clients, and then implement their programs on a pre-existing network of trained consumer volunteers.
It’s the same underlying concept as traditional advertising: the medium simply links relevant content to relevant consumers. Our vision is to enable advertisers to focus on their core competencies, while allowing us to continue to grow, train, segment and nurture our agent network.
WOM would only become a “numbers game” in our media model inasmuch as it would allow consumers to participate in more campaigns and campaigns of different varieties, which, as it happens, are precisely the requests we most often here from our community of volunteers.
Joe -- Thanks for the comments and jumping in. I don't think anyone sets out make their business solely a numbers game, nor did BzzAgent, but whether you're distributing groceries, gas or guns, that's often the unintended outcome for distributors. Competitors will eventually jump in and quickly apply the laws of economic efficiency.
That's why we have strongly encouraged Dave to help BzzAgent's clients develop their own networks and communities, not just be a conduit for them and the ad agency world.
Ben — bravo on some very insightful thinking. I also have to give Kudos to Joe and BzzAgent they provide a great service backed up by very innovative thinking and great pr. Falling in the “WOM Progressive” camp – thanks Ben, I know first hand this approach is not easy, it take a lot of time and energy, and building relationships with your customers can be tricky. The progressive approach is not for every company and the same can be said for the traditionalist approach. I have presented side by side with BzzAgent and I think together we pose questions that should led to some serious soul searching for companies. I hope in the future we can both be at the same table again, its good for WOMM.
The fact that several people who view this industry from different perspectives are taking the time to consider WOM philosophy (of all things!) is tremendously refreshing, and, one could argue, a positive sign for marketing's future. While soundbite-ready debates nip at the periphery of of WOM, it is these very discussions that form its very core.
Geno's comment that he has presented alongside BzzAgent triggers a thought: If the topic of Traditionalists vs. Progressives has triggered such debate on this site, perhaps it would make for a valuable panel session -- moderated by Jackie, perhaps -- at a future industry event?
Joe -- That's an interesting proposition. Could be worth a suggestion to the June WOMMA conference organizers.
Ben,
Given the catalyst for Jackie's post, I think the suggestion is better coming from you! :-)
