Define “safe,” please.
January 4th, 2008
We were in a meeting last week discussing why a lot of companies out there are flirting with the idea of adding word of mouth marketing to their communication mix, but not committing.
“Because it’s not ‘safe,’” someone commented.
But what IS safe? What IS a sure thing? Print? Radio? Sales team pep rallies?
Turning your company into a movement is not new. But the tools for it are. Are THEY safe? I guess the definition of one person’s “safe” is another’s “risk taking.” I think the reason that some CMOs won’t commit is because it’s new. It’s different. “It’s not the way we normally do things.” And I think that’s just another reason that WOMM belongs in the PR realm. Public relations people get it. Word of mouth marketing isn’t a tactic for them – it’s what they do everyday. CMOs have to unlearn what they have been doing for the past 75 years and learn to think about communications differently. Safe or not – I don’t think that’s the question. But something’s gotta give.
Other posts by Spike.
Dick Carlson says:
Yes, I often get this same “ownership” type of objection when talking to clients about using new media in learning. They fear that if the learners are allowed to comment on (or, heaven forbid, RATE) the learning that all hell will break loose.
My favorite example to try to pry open their heads involves the Ford Pinto. A car that had a rear-mounted gas tank, it was discovered (who’da thunk?) to have a tiny little problem with exploding in a fireball. Ford evaluated the problem, and found that it was cheaper to hush it up than fix it — as there were only a few fatalities a year, and the lawsuits could be settled cheaply.
Nowadays, that shit would be all over the Net in a matter of minutes. There’s no “ownership” of information any more, and the gatekeepers are being overrun by the folks with the torches. (Nicely mixed metaphor, no?)
If there’s still resistance, I suggest that, when they return to their desks, they google “NAMEOFMYCOMPANY sucks”. In all likelihood, I don’t have to say anything further. The penny drops.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:08 amSpike says:
Great comment, Dick. I love the Pinto story. And you make a great point with it. Thanks for your thoughts…
January 4th, 2008 at 10:27 amolivier Blanchard says:
I had this discussion with a very large PR firm about a year ago, and they looked at me like I was insane. They explained that they had been in business for X amount of years, and that the way they had always done things had worked for them, so why change the formula?
Some people just don’t believe in change. They think that things will remain the same indefinitely - or at least through their tenure.
Others are just opposed to change. They don’t like it. They’re afraid of it. So they find reasons to shun it. New ideas are dangerous to them because they aren’t proven. They don’t have data to support the validity of an idea. They just don’t want to take a chance on something that isn’t guaranteed to succeed.
Denial in the business world may be a death sentence, but it is alive and well, sadly.
What I’ve found is that a lot of execs will give you a chance if you can set some specific goals and ways to effectively measure the results of a campaign or project. The idea may be great, but they’re thinking in terms of bottom-line and ROI. Show them the ROI, and they will be a lot more likely to buy into your idea.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:37 amJeff says:
Maybe it has to do with a fear of germs from the mouths which wom travels. I saw a woman yesterday with three teeth and I was afraid of everything coming from that mouth. Perhaps if we could get dogs to participate in WOM as they supposedly have cleaner mouths than us humans.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:52 pmJack says:
Can you proove ROI for WOMM? How long does it take for return? Will one negative PR blunder undo everything we’ve done in WOMM? You talk passionately about it but some people like to see facts. Ultimately it has to make me sales.
January 6th, 2008 at 4:55 amSpike says:
Scott (I mean “Jack”), we sit down with our clients at the beginning of a project and have “success envisioning” where we set goals for the movement. Whether it’s having “control” markets to compare to the markets where the movement is taking root, to number of active, participating people to increase in online conversations. We can prove that it effects sales - and we have.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:47 pmJake McKee says:
Spike, I agree that PR *should* be taking this role on, they *should* understand it.
Reality is, unfortunately, that the PR industry doesn’t seem to be getting it. I’m doing plenty of sessions to PR firms who don’t even know what social media/WOM/community/etc. is.
I’ve been saying for nearly 10 years that the PR industry should own this space. Yet, I’m still employed outside the PR industry… that says something. Something sad.
January 7th, 2008 at 8:58 pmBill Mosher says:
Spike, I believe if we look at this from a WOM pespective, the answer becomes clear. One of the foundations of a good WOM strategy is understanding the product-adoption cycle. Well let’s replace a product in this case with “inserting a wom strategy” into a CMO’s marketing mix.
There are CMO’s (innovators) who were/are pioneers and saw it as cutting edge and gave it a try. They did not come from many of the larger companies where risk is seldom taken.
Next come the early adopter CMO’s or visionaries. They are not afraid to test the waters and do not necessarily look for the classic ROI that relates to a dollar amount. Their ROI may have been first to try in their respective industry, proof of product acceptance or denial etc. etc. In short things that may not show up in a financial spreadsheet. Still , not many large organizations surfaced here… the ones who have are the companies that have a good product and smaller marketing budgets.
I guess my point here is that we need to look at our own industry strategies to uncover the companies or CMO’s that will include WOM in their mix. We are past the innovators, well into the early adopters and soon with good work from people like us we will lead WOM into the middle majority. Finding the early adopters in advertising, PR or any other department that see the value of holding conversations with J.Q. Public is the direction that one should take. Just my thoughts… enjoy reading your posts!
January 8th, 2008 at 6:34 amHave A Great Day!
Bill
Scott White says:
I don’t agree the WOMM is a PR tactic. If anything it falls under the branding umbrella. I see it as a brand awareness tactic or even an image tactic. But most certainly I feel it’s a branding tactic.
Just my 2 cents as a branding guy (I’m biased).
January 8th, 2008 at 6:56 amSpike says:
Scott, it’s a very debatable subject (just go to any WOMMA event). There is no right answer at this point and everyone has their own view (which usually coincides with their field/industry). Thanks for weighing in.
January 9th, 2008 at 6:07 amChristy says:
What if WOM belonged to product development? (Or those who dream up the next service, for those that don’t create a tangible product.)
Talk about the shortest path of communication! Isn’t that the point, anyway? Conversations on the product/service?
January 9th, 2008 at 6:34 amDick Carlson says:
Christy — you’ve got it exactly right. WOM (I still have trouble seeing that in lowercase, I read “worm”) is not something you should have to create. It is something that should spring from the fact that when I see your product, I just can’t wait to tell my friend about it. Great recent examples would be GPS, the i-Phone, and Jonathan Coulton.)
I’ve worked with lots of great PR folks, but I think they essentially still don’t “get” it. You can’t control the message, anymore. (Please read that a couple of times, take a deep breath, and repeat.)
In my years at Microsoft, I was constantly told that we were “on-message” or “off-message” or “our story wasn’t being told” blah blah blah blah. In reality, if MS customers liked what we offered, they told their little techie friends. If they didn’t like what we offered, they told MORE of their little techie friends. The only people who believed our “message” were executives and other PR folks. (For the source material on this, just google King/Clothes and review the data.)
I agree that most of the easy lifting has been done, and we’re getting into that middle-adopter phase where things have to be dumbed down and made easier for the masses. That’s what you’re seeing in Facebook, Twitter, and the ilk. (Amazing — I don’t think I’ve every actually typed “ilk” before.) But the selection will be Darwinian, and those that grok the change will continue to evolve, and those that don’t will be mostly doing business with your mom and dad.
Sic Transit, Gloria PR.
January 15th, 2008 at 12:46 pm