Word of Mouth Tactics are not Movements
February 25th, 2008
I didn’t catch the Oscars last night, but Cordell commented that everyone and their mother are creating consumer-generated media contests. (The boys at AdPulp touched on this as well.) And that’s GOOD. They’re inviting participation. Getting customers involved with the brand. Baby steps, people. Baby steps.
The thing that I’d like to make clear is that these are word of mouth tactics. And while (sometimes) they are great for generating interest, as our friends at Fizz say, “there’s no ‘there’ there.” Because these things don’t make a movement. They don’t unite. It’s still a brand asking their customers to tell them how great they are.
And if we’ve all learned something together, it’s that it’s not all about you. It’s about how you fit into your customer’s lives.
Blogs. Messageboards. Consumer generated videos (CGM). Viral videos. Social networks. These are all tactics. And these are the “what.” Not the “who.” There has to be a tie that binds. A bigger picture that holds all the tactics together. A movement led by the people (or at least together at first). And a lot of this happens offline in a tactics-free world.
But if you create something that has depth. That has soul. Something that grows out of your customer’s love for you and what you stand for. Something that originates in their lives instead of in a boardroom, then implement the tactics based on that train of thought – you begin to plant the seeds for a movement.
The web is littered with tactics. The “next” MySpace. The “next” Facebook. The “next” YouTube. Why not be true to you? Or even better… be true to your customers. They deserve better than you throwing up another blog talking about yourself. Think about it before you throw up that blog or CGM contest talking about yourself. Is that what your customers really want to hear? If not, how can you engage them in a way that’s authentic to you and them?
Other posts by Spike.
olivier blanchard says:
Spike, do you find that there is a difference between a tactic and a vehicle?
February 25th, 2008 at 11:41 amScott White says:
You’ve just defined brand identity. I agree developing a soul and something that ties everyone together is exactly the way to go. Once you’ve established this brand identity and then position you can introduce tactics.
“Movements” (see my blog on that term: http://www.brandidentityguru.com/wordpress/?p=541) must reflect a companies brand identity, if not they’re just brand image problems.
February 25th, 2008 at 11:58 amKyle says:
Spike, I don’t know if you saw what David Jones said a while ago but I was wondering what your take was.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0L7HZaL004
February 25th, 2008 at 1:58 pmSpike says:
Hey Kyle, I actually did see it back when: http://brainsonfire.com/blog/2006/11/17/bonehead-roundup/
February 25th, 2008 at 3:24 pmSpike says:
O, I think it depends on your definition of vehicle. That’s a pretty broad term, isn’t it? (Or it could just be me.)
February 26th, 2008 at 6:57 amScott White says:
Well a vehicle could be a promotional item (like a stress ball with your logo) or it could be a direct mail piece. But ultimately I think they’re all tactics.
February 26th, 2008 at 10:45 amolivier says:
Nah. We aren’t talking about promotional campaigns at all, Scott. But you’re right, Spike. ‘Vehicle’ is a broad term - just like ‘tactic.’
Let’s say Company XYZ wants to help strengthen their user/customer community, give it a means to express itself, allow power users to send feedback to product managers, organize events around a product, etc.
In my mind, a ‘vehicle’ is a tool that falls in line with that type of ’sponsored empowerment’ strategy.
While it is also technically a tactic, it isn’t as patently self-serving and short-lived as a promotion or a publicity stunt, which are both more traditional examples of ‘tactics’.
In this light, a ‘vehicle’ is a passive enabling tool while a ‘tactic’ is an active promotional tool.
If that… makes… any sense.
February 27th, 2008 at 9:17 amBIG Kahuna says:
Yea, it makes sense. Cool beans.
February 27th, 2008 at 4:50 pm