Church of the Customer Blog
« Online vs. offline word of mouth | Main | Are you a barker or an attractor? »
July 01, 2008
Online vs. offline word of mouth
People who do a lot of online research are significant sources of advice about products and services compared to adults who don't do much research, according to a new study of 15,727 people by BIGresearch.
"Do you give advice to others about products/services you have purchased?"
| Active online researcher | All adults | |
|---|---|---|
| Regularly gives advice | 47.0% | 29.4% |
| Occasionally gives advice | 49.8% | 63.4% |
| Never gives advice | 3.2% | 7.2% |
Source: BIGresearch, SIMM 11 (December 2007)
After searching, how do you communicate with others about a service, product or brand? (Check all that apply)
| Face-to-face | 72.7% |
| 63.2% | |
| Telephone | 55.0% |
| Cell phone | 35.3% |
| Instant messaging | 17.7% |
| Text messaging | 13.1% |
| Online communities (e.g. MySpace, Facebook) | 11.8% |
| Blogging | 6.8% |
| Other | 1.8% |
Source: BIGresearch SIMM 11 (December 2007)
Contrast those numbers with a new study from Keller Fay which says 75% of word of mouth occurs in person, 17% on the phone, and just 7% online using instant messages, chat rooms, email and blogs.
BIGresearch and Keller Fay both found that three-quarters of adults tell others about stuff in person. But Keller Fay's numbers for brand conversations via the phone and online tools are markedly different than those from BIGresearch.
"Apparently, the value of eye contact, voice and perhaps even non-verbal communication provides a boost to credibility and the likelihood that we'll do something about what we've learned," said Brad Fay, a study co-author.
Here's what I consider a flaw with that thinking: The frame of credibility. Being credible isn't dependent solely upon the medium in which a recommendation occurs. Credibility comes from an established position of trust, whether it's in-person or online, or from a preponderance of independent evidence, such as a collection of reviews on a product site like Amazon.
When Virginia raves about Costco on her blog, I trust Virginia and her opinion. In my eyes, she's a credible source regardless of the medium. Years ago, Amazon established the Real Names system, which attaches a person's actual name to their review of a product, reducing the likelihood of widespread sock puppetry.
Conversely, I may regularly come into contact -- online or offline -- with someone whose taste is dissimilar, or has trouble with evidence. Their rave about a product or service is going to be less credible in my eyes, even if it's in person.
When it comes to word of mouth, the medium is not necessarily the message. The person is.
Other blogs that reference Online vs. offline word of mouth:
Fully agree with your point. I would much rather take the words of someone from my trusted network if they're advocating a brand or product vs. someone who I may not have had contact with but making the same suggestions.
Whether the person is right or not is a whole different story but its ultimately the trust factor that I rely upon.
I think your point is well taken, Jackie, in that the question has to be asked are you really comparing apples to apples with online vs. offline word-of-mouth?
I think it's entirely possible to have credible sources that you've never met in your life except through the Web, and have non-credible sources that live next door.
I also think it an enormous fallacy for the Keller Fay survey to assume that we are more likely to "take action" on advice given face-to-face than over the Web. The whole point of using the Web for community building is to get a broad cross section of large populations. I am far more likely to take action on a recommendation when I have a very large sample of population declaring value.
I agree with Steve. If you trust the review, it doesn't matter how it gets to you. You can build trust online -- it just happens a different way than meeting up with your friend for coffee. That's why I love sites like epinions and amazon. You can spot the bogus reviews, but the sheer volume of rankings and reviews evens it out so I trust what I'm seeing overall.
I agree with Steve. If you trust the review, it doesn't matter how it gets to you. You can build trust online -- it just happens a different way than meeting up with your friend for coffee. That's why I love sites like epinions and amazon. You can spot the bogus reviews, but the sheer volume of rankings and reviews evens it out so I trust what I'm seeing overall.
Just like a company looks at a "marketing mix" there's a "WOM mix" of how I am an evangelist for a product. I may blog about it, see you in person later, and answer your call when you reach out, but they are all a part of it. Some buying decisions are made based on one interaction, but often times, it's a combination of them.
Regardless, you are, as usual, right. I just call it "the person is the channel"
http://www.jer979.com/igniting-the-revolution/the-6-billion-channel-universe/
I agree - if you trust the person, you trust the review. It also strikes me how great a part word of mouth plays in the success of a product or service. Not a new idea, but a good reminder for service providers that when you deliver an exceptional (or exceptionally bad) customer experience, word will spread in a variety of ways.
I agree - for me it is solely based on the person telling me the review - not how I come across the review. That "online vs WOM" debate seems to be a hot topic right now. I find that interesting. I watched an interview with Fox and the president of a customer service company called Mindshare where they also talk about this. I did like his view as well - check it out at mshare.net/news/mshare-news-04102008.html.
Jackie:
First of all, great post. I really enjoy your blog.
But I'm afraid it is your thinking here that is flawed. You quoted Brad Fay as saying "Apparently, the value of eye contact, voice and perhaps even non-verbal communication provides a boost to credibility". He said it provides a boost.
Your comment back was "Being credible isn't dependent solely..."
He didn't say it was dependent solely. He just said that face to face provides a boost.
His point is very well supported by reams of social science. People do rely on non-verbal cues to infer credibility of people they're interacting with. And they do a very good job of inferring this BTW.
This doesn't mean it's an all or nothing deal. It doesn't mean that we trust the used-car salesman we can see over an email from our mom. It just means that being able to see someone is helpful. Not just with credibility, but it's more impactful because it involves more of our senses and it creates a stronger emotional call to action.
Will the increasing prevalence of online communication change this?
I really doubt it. People are wired to need and respond to the physical presence of others. We crave face to face interaction and the touch of other people. I don't see this going away ever. Do you or any of your readers value a romantic relationship that takes place only via email as much as one that involves some face to face interaction?
In the end, it's very hard to argue that face to face interaction does not provide a significant advantage over other forms all things being equal and depending on the specific need. Again, you are going to trust your mom more than a stranger no matter the medium. And for purely factual sorts of things (how much does something cost, does it need to be dry-cleaned...) the medium probably doesn't matter that much. But when you're trying to change behavior, face to face is a better way to go.
@Adam
I respectfully disagree. A face-to-face interaction only provides a tangible, emotional advantage over other types of interactions if the credibility of the speaker has been pre-established.
You stated, " . . . all things being equal, and depending on the specific need . . . you are going to trust your mom more than a stranger no matter the medium." Are you sure? Do you trust your mother's opinion if there is a 75 percent dissatisfaction rating of the same product online? The emotional impact of face-to-face word of mouth is but a small part of the overall buying decision.
Steve:
First of all, thanks for respectfully disagreeing. Since I have not previously established credibility with you, you could very well have disrespectfully disagreed :)
In the interest of full disclosure, at this point I should say that I did earn my PhD studying nonverbal communication. Not sure if that gives me more or less credibility. You be the judge.
1) Regarding your 2nd paragraph: I said all things being equal. Assuming the 75% dissatisfaction is coming from a group of people and not just 1, all things are not equal. The word of 1 person vs. 100 is not a parity situation. How much does face to face add? I don't know. This depends on a host of variables including - as you pointed out - previously established credibility. But also mood at the time... The right person face to face could very well be worth more than 1000 people online.
2) Regarding your 1st paragraph: You are not correct here. Meeting a woman by catching her eye across the room at a party and then talking to her has a significant advantage over meeting her in a chat room or by posting on a blog. And there is no pre-established credibility there. I'm not saying you're going to buy something on her recommendation, I'm just stating what is today a fact: face to face is more emotionally impactful. Can other variables wipe out that effect? Sure. But that comes back to my all things being equal comment. Human interaction is extremely complex. Outcomes are drives by a complex web of variables.
3) People always feel they are rational and make smart decisions. They do the research, they are not swayed by emotion... And you put one hot woman in a room full of guys and watch the reason seep out of the room! Liz's comment that if you trust the review it doesn't matter how it got to you, sort of misses the point. The point is that face to face gives you a better opportunity of generating trust than sending an email or posting on a website. There is ample evidence that people are swayed by the appearance of others. They even attribute greater intelligence to people that are physically attractive. I shop on eBags. I love the product ratings and I do use that as a major guide when I buy from them. But I'm not so sure that the right person looking me in the eye couldn't make me switch from buying the product with a 98% approval rating as rated by 1000 people to a product with no rating. And anyone who insists that they couldn't possibly be swayed, isn't being entirely honest. And the "right" person doesn't necessarily have to have pre-established credibility or be a luggage expert.
4) I was making a larger point - not just about what it takes to convince someone to buy something. I am reacting to an undercurrent within the online WOM community that seems to believe (not that I've seen it explicitly said) that somehow the rules have changed and direct personal contact with people is not that important anymore. And my point is that humans are the way they are. Change of this sort takes forever and I wouldn't bet that humans ever change that much where face to face is replaced entirely.
Finally, look back at my post and at Jackie's original. Her argument that Fay's thinking was flawed is, itself, a flawed argument. All he said was that face to face provides a boost. She argues that his thinking is flawed because it is not true that being credible is solely dependent on the medium. Well he didn't say it was. So you can disagree with everything I say, but I'm not sure how you or Jackie get around that one.
The Keller Fay study says:
"75% of word of mouth occurs in person, 17% on the phone, and just 7% online using instant messages, chat rooms, email and blogs"
But if I understand it correctly, they are looking at this from the perspective of the person doing the WOM and not the person on the receiving end.
I'd be curious to hear it switched around and see how those numbers look, i.e. how do you HEAR about recommendations.
Here's why...
When I tell someone something via offline WOM, I'm generally telling one person at a time. Occasionally I may tell a handful of folks at a lunch or dinner. Once a month or so, I may tell a few hundred something at a speaking gig.
But overall...the impact in terms of my WOM going out is minimal. Sure, I do more telling in person, but the imapct of each WOM action is small.
On the other hand, if I make a recommendation via Twitter, I'm reaching 1600 people. If I send it out in my newsletter, I'm reaching 30,000. If I post it on my blog? Half a million or more.
Thus, you can't really compare my offline WOM actions with my online WOM actions and tip the scales in favor of offline. I can reach more people with a single blog post than I will in an entire year of offline WOM.
So even if you disregard the issue of trust and credibility (which is obviously still important) I have to think even that limited amount of online WOM is having as much or more of an impact as that large percentage of offline WOM interactions.
I think what you wrote is very nice, but I think you are missing a huge boat. Direct and indirect are completely different even thought they may happen with in both online and offline environments. This is what I mean, when we search the internet to find random thing, we have a goal in mind. However when you are conversing with your friends you will converse about random services (this can be a conversation on a blog, or in person). When someone searches the net they have a goal, a specific topic they want to find out about, this is the direct. They have a direct need and know where to find a direct solution. They can go online and find a consumer generated review right then and there for exactly what they are looking for. This directness can also be true offline when asking a friend a direct question rather than having them say in a conversation "i like so-and-so". So I think you should check out another study done by Kelsey group about consumer generated reviews http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1928.
The point I am trying to make is either online or off the way we are becoming programed with the easy access to information we only want direct information and right when we want it. Yes if your best friend has a problem with joe the auto mechanic you are going to remember but you know there are thousands of shops to check out with one click online and can find that word of mouth much quicker and more effectively. Direct online searches are where word of mouth has moved to, and where it will stay from now on.
Interesting debate. Having carried out an occupational psychology study with Cisco into the benefits of video conferencing a couple of years ago, I do understand Adam's point about the benefits of face-to-face interaction, including increased trust.
However, my view is that WOM works on several differnt levels. For example, if a close friend tells me about a great experience with a hotel, it is likely to influence my decision when deciding where to stay. At the same time, there have been plenty of occasions where my decision has been made by several positive reviews on sites such as TripAdvisor.
I think that face-to-face interaction will always have the edge over online influence when it comes to WOM, however it will always have its place. As people become increasingly comfortable interacting online through blogs and online communities, I suspect the percentages might change.
Quite a few interesting perspectives on this. The value of any recommendation, review or referral is ultimately a measure of trust. In addition to the couple of useful research references discussed above, I'd add the Edelman Trust Monitor http://www.edelman.com/trust/2007/prior/2006/mastertrust06.ppt. Although this is not an area I have researched, the results from Edelman seem to resonate.
Great post and discussion!
First of all - there seems to be a dearth of data on those that submit reviews online – an audience I’m sure all marketers want to target.
That aside, what significance can a marketer derive from the data provided? To this point, I am in the same camp as Jennifer. Sure, 75% of people are more likely to evangelize in person, vs. 17% online, however, if those 75% only reach 1-5 people each and the 17% reach 1600 each (that's not statistically supported), well then, what's better?
The book "Groundswell" by Charlene Li and Josh Bernoff (http://www.forrester.com/Groundswell/) takes on this subject with several great case studies and some good strong data. Chapter 3 talks about "social technographics profiles." Here, they say that 18% of US adults are "creators" meaning they are online consumers who are publishing at least once a month online. There are a few other groups, but the largest group at 48% are considered "spectators" those that consume what the rest of us are producing - blogs, videos, forums, reviews, etc. So you have many listening to the words of a few. In addition to the broach reach of few in the online medium, the very act of someone evangelizing your product or company online has the additional side effects of boosting your product/company SEO and thus allowing you to better reach those who are active online researchers. You begin to see a cycle here.
Additionally, I couldn’t agree more with the point that the medium does not equate to credibility. Consumers will weigh factors about the person giving them information in order to determine the credibility or relevance of the information. Just because 75% of the people are talking doesn’t mean there’s someone listening.
So, while this data is probably interesting from a sociographic perspective, it probably isn’t very informative for marketers. If you're using this data as a means to determine marketing focus and spend, it seems like it can only be taken as PART of the story. You'd need to couple this information with statistics on those 17% - how often are they evangelizing? Where are they doing the 'talking' and what kind of reputation do they have in those communities?
Adam,
Thanks for the follow-up comment. I see the rationale behind your argument, though I do have one note--
I don't think that the online word-of-mouth community movement discounts the validity of human interaction. I think what it does validate is that certain shared values, experiences, perspectives, and sense of "community"--belonging to something greater than ourselves--are inherently built in to respected online communities. We'll always love and respect our mom/sister/brother/friend/uncle/pastor, but the public nature of the Internet, as others have stated, gives a much broader potential audience. Though each individual "touch" is less effective than a face-to-face, the overall impact is much higher. This has been proven in the world of sales time and time again. Outside sales has a much higher close rate per opportunity--but inside, or remote sales, generates seven to eight times as many opportunities.
I agree with the comment on the 'trusted network'. If I see a site with a couple of testamonials, I'm cautious. Anyone could have written them. And for those that don't know, there are individuals who can be hired to promote products through social msrketing.
Buyer beware.
There's a couple things to throw out regarding F2F recommendations vis-a-vis blogs, social networks, etc.
(1) Everybody talks. Not everybody blogs. Not everybody has a MySpace.
(2) When I want to make a recommendation, I might not use a blog or LinkedIn or whatever unless I believe my audience there can actually get at the thing I'm recommending. If I say they have great sushi at Concerto Fusion, are you gonna run out here to Trenton, NJ, and have lunch with me to check it out? Not likely. Though they DO have great sushi. LOL That's not a flaw in the online genre; it's just that not everything people recommend is available to everyone on the Internet. I use the Internet to recommend stuff like blogs. Like this one. :-)
(3) The flip side is that a recommendation made by almost any means OTHER than F2F has a longer shelf-life. For that reason, if no other, we're not gonna see anyone give up on the Internet genre, and we may see it expand -- especially if the thing being recommended is not just down the block.
Keep up the good work!
Well very impressive survey!
The frame of credibility means as well the "the world of mouse" - instead of mouth - where the person is.
"The web doesn't forget" says Godin the Guru and the pay off of my company since 2000 is " I am what i web " as you can see on www.piramide.net
So for that facing the ubiquity of new tech tools behind them still there is "the person" and his credibility or the "world of touch"...
;-) alex k.
Nice Post - I am going to write about this topic myself - as I have significant disagreements with the conclusions of the study - but I am waiting until after the Thursday webinar so I can get a better feel for what they are saying.
TO'B
There's an interesting follow-up study posted on Grok.com that talks about reader-review interaction when buying on the Web.
Thought it might be germane to the subject at hand here.
http://www.grokdotcom.com/2008/02/25/70-of-online-shoppers-read-multiple-product-reviews/
Hi Jackie - this is a really great point. I've been researching where to emigrate to and I've been reading lots of blogs and forums. And with every post I read, I'm asking myself whether that person is actually like me and if they have the same tastes. And I guess this is what people do when they're reading a review to buy anything.
Interesting. Marketing Charts had a great article on Offline/Online WOM amongst Hispanics.
http://www.marketingcharts.com/print/influential-online-hispanic-consumers-super-e-fluentials-4088/
There is so much over-indexing amongst this demographic, I'm glad I work where I work.
I am delighted with all the interest in my firm’s study about online versus offline word of mouth, and am grateful for all the comments from Jackie and others. I wanted to wait to read all the comments so we could address the full range of issues before weighing in. First, I’d like to clarify a few points that have been raised:
1. There’s an important difference between Keller Fay’s statistic showing that 7% of conversations happen online and the “bigger” numbers cited from BIG Research. Our statistics were based on a single “most recent” conversation, whereas BIG’s were based on a multiple conversations (on average, 2.8 conversations) that followed a web search. (Notice BIG’s stats add up to much more than 100%.) To make a straight comparison, you would have do reduce BIG’s numbers by a factor of 2.8. Also, we know that when a person is already using the internet to do a web search, the chance of then using the internet to share the information rises.
2. To address Jennifer’s question, we find that the share of conversations that happen through email or messaging is the same whether you are collecting statistics from the “sender” or “receiver” of WOM. Only in the case of blogs do receivers report a higher reliance on the internet than senders—one third higher—due to the fact that so many people have the opportunity to read a single blog post.
3. Our study supports the idea that online and offline WOM are both highly credible, especially when compared to traditional advertising communications. All forms of consumer-to-consumer communications perform exceedingly well compared to paid media. That said, we do find higher levels of credibility for offline modes of communication to online, and we hypothesize one reason may be the benefits of eye contact, nonverbal cues, and possibly vocal intonation. I was glad to see this was consistent with Adam's experience.
4. Our hypothesis is supported by a surprising finding—that we assign higher credibility even to our spouses and best friends when we communicate with them face to face or over the phone, as opposed to through the internet. Obviously, the identity of an information source is most important, but we think it’s worth noting that the mode does confer some "boost" in value apart from who is doing the talking (or typing).
More broadly, I would make the point that we do no see any “either/or” when it comes to online and offline WOM. Both are highly valuable, and both work together very well. Online conversations often quote offline conversations, and visa versa. Both types incorporate online and offline information sources as well. Indeed, we see increasing evidence that the internet (in all its forms) is the most powerful medium for connecting brands directly to their most passionate evangelists. Yet offline is important too--and there's more for us to learn about how it works.
Thanks for a great series of comments.
