WOMMA and Consumer Watchdogs Beat a Straw-marketer

So, I finally got around to checking out the agenda for WOMMA's upcoming conference in D.C. in December. Most of the agenda's the standard fare for WOMMA: How to influence the influencers, evangelists and other people with nothing better to talk about than your new energy drink or soap scum remover.

In addition to the couple of political and government oriented panels that are out of the ordinary (one on industry self-regulation and another on lessons from grassroots political campaigning), one session in particular caught my eye:

The Consumer Viewpoint: Consumer Advocates' View of WOM
3:00 p.m. - 3:45 p.m.
Hear directly from consumer advocates who have opposed word of mouth and asked for controls and reforms within the industry.
- How to distance yourself from stealth marketers
- Learn strategies for protecting and respecting your customers

My first thought was, "Man, I wish they'd ask me to be there." I've spoken to more than one person in the WOM industry who thinks the issues I've raised in SPS I and II regarding WOM marketing's potential impact on society are worth considering. Still, I'm not surprised I haven't been asked to appear as one who's opposed word of mouth. I'm not Commercial Alert or some other org with prominence. I don't put out press releases about my latest letter to the FTC or post futile online petitions to my site. The WOMMA site doesn't list who these consumer advocates will be (maybe no one's confirmed yet).

Not that I have the naivety to suggest my arguments against advertiser-engineered WOM would have much of an impact if SPS had more prominence; however, inviting a low-profile type such as myself to a panel like this would only serve to raise awareness of the issues raised in SPS. Why give a rabble-rousing nobody a forum?

Yet again, this exemplifies the misguided focus of anti-stealth consumer advocates who seem concerned only with whether or not marketers are honest with us. As I've contended in the past, this approach is not only idealistic, it misses the real problem posed by WOM marketing. That is, the commercialization of our interpersonal relationships. Here's how I put it in The Lowbrow Lowdown about a year ago:

I'll give Commercial Alert credit for helping to bring such tactics to the attention of the broader public; however, if heeded, the group's call for regulation will have little effect on the growing number of willing brand disciples who have no qualms about enabling the commercialized corruption of their relationships. In fact, the notion that consumers are victims in need of government protection from buzz marketing denies the simple fact that it's those very consumers spreading the branded word who allow the existence of such schemes in the first place. The government can't save us from our own human tendencies towards lying, servility or gullibility.

The people at WOMMA seem to like to present themselves as Spitzer-style crusaders fighting dirty marketing tactics. The WOMMA folks love to preach about how open and honest WOM marketing is because they say it enables an open dialogue between consumers and companies, so this transparency vs. stealth stuff obviously connects with their overall objective. The fact is, stealth WOM tactics could crush the industry if enough of it occurred or were exposed, and they sure as hell don't want their industry getting a bad name.

To question the broader effect of turning people's conversations into media channels would require far more introspection and willingness to recognize the negative side of WOM marketing.

Doubting Feasiblity of Trickle Down Disclosure

Marketer, consumer advocate and blogger at Brokerblogger, Bill Kelm, has this to say regarding my post below, WOMBAT 2 Marketers Will Learn How to Get You to Do Their Jobs.

I basically agree with all you said, but as a marketer for over 30 years, let me answer this question of yours: "The question is, if you do have a great product that organically inspires WOM, why do you need somebody on staff to spur it on?"

In the marketing community the answer has always been that while WOM is the best form of marketing, it is leaving the future of the brand in the hands (mouths) of others way too much. As you said yourself, "Sure, brand name products play a role in our daily lives, but most are not integral to our existence." So what is the solution to the challenge for marketers?

If you read Joe Chernov's, (BzzAgent's director of public relations) comment (and my response) on a blog post of mine it goes into the reasons why I believe that clear, conspicuous, complete, and comprehended disclosure throughout the total downstream is the key to making Word of Mouth Marketing ethical. It enables the consumer to know where the initial motivation came from to start the WOM, and therefore be empowered to make an informed decision as to whether or not they want to allow the manufacturer and marketer to "to Get You to Do Their Jobs". This approach is NOTHING NEW, it used to be called "consumer test marketing" or "sample surveying" where disclosure was upfront and consumer awareness of the process was complete. I'll bet that some of those people in the "sample survey" told their friends/family about the positives & negatives of the new products they would try whether they were paid participants or not. However, they were probably not encouraged to start a downstream.

I appreciate what Bill's got to say about this, but, to me, the issue of requiring disclosure throughout the engineered WOM process is a red herring. Even if the potential negative effects of marketing-induced WOM can be quelled by disclosure throughout the entire WOM chain, the fact is it would be contingent upon it actually occurring at every connection. Not only is there no way of tracking that, it's doubtful it would ever occur, especially as the original disseminator gets farther and farther away from the subsequent disseminators.

In other words, once the message about the new hair care product or energy bar moves down the line from marketing campaign to campaign participants to the first set of recipients to the next, and on and on, is message spreader number 20 or 200 or 2,000 really going to choose to disclose the fact that this is part of an orchestrated campaign, much less even know to do so?

Not bloody likely.

The Kids Are All, "Whatever"

So, I heard back from Dr. Carl regarding his assignment of SPSII to his WOM students. Evidently, to his mild chagrin (and of course, mine) not many read it. But, since it's a newly designed class, he may decide to incorporate it into the curriculum a little earlier next time when the kids are more open to discussion of ethical issues.

Either way, it's a real honor to have someone like him even give it the time of day.

Open Thread for Dr. Carl's Students

Get this: Dr. Walter Carl of Northeastern U. has actually asked his students to read SPSII. He wrote me to say they'll be discussing it in class today, so I thought it'd be cool to create an open thread for them to post comments. Please feel free to opine on any aspect of the essay. I'm all ears!

Of course, the irony here is that when I was in school, I barely did the assigned reading, much less the extra stuff. Luckily, being an art major, I was able to avoid having to think too much, which was beneficial since I was busy killing off brain cells anyway....

At WOMBAT 2 Marketers Will Learn How to Get You to Do Their Jobs

Why should you attend the upcoming Word of Mouth Basic Training 2 Conference in San Francisco this Tuesday and Wednesday? For one thing, boasts the WOMMA Web site: “Word of mouth marketing is rapidly becoming a core part of the marketing mix. It's amazingly powerful - and it's easy to make mistakes…. Smart marketers have always known that word of mouth marketing is the secret weapon of the greatest companies. Satisfied customers telling their friends are your most powerful advocates.”

The reality is that the “greatest companies” actually developed products that were worthy of attention from consumers. Though I don’t know much about the histories of what many consider to be great ones – the Fords or IBMs or Cokes of the world, for instance- something tells me those companies or other “great companies” (read: highly profitable and enduring) certainly didn’t make WOM a “core part of the marketing mix.” There were no executive creative directors of buzz marketing, directors of word of mouth marketing, or directors of guerrilla marketing or any other execs on staff dedicated to getting people to market their products for them. They made – or make – solid products that people rely on and built brands that people trust based on the quality of their goods and services.

A lot of them like to throw around B.S. about “being remarkable,” a Seth Godin-inspired phrase from his book Purple Cow: Transform Your Business by Being Remarkable. They say honest-to-goodness WOM will only happen if you’ve got a “remarkable” product that compels people to want to talk about it. The question is, if you do have a great product that organically inspires WOM, why do you need somebody on staff to spur it on?

Why is there a need to go to a conference to learn how to harness offline word of mouth, or turn customers into advocates by “motivating them to promote your products? What are the implications of turning loyal customers into “a volunteer sales force through face-to-face evangelism and online via social media”? Or better yet, why would consumers want to talk up brands like Clorox, Hefty Serve 'n Store or Pedigree Dog Food anyway? (WOMBAT 2’s “How-To” sessions focus on all these objectives).

It’s true that the media landscape has shifted drastically since the good ol’ days of radio drama sponsorships and advertising on the big three TV networks. So, marketers are scrambling to find new venues to promote their wares. That’s where this growing industry comes in. We, they hope, will become those new venues, or as I write in SPSI and II, their “brand vessels."

I agree there’s nothing wrong with people naturally mentioning products in their daily interactions, and I think organizations promoting ideas affecting politics, society and culture can benefit from helping the grassroots and so-called netroots disseminate those messages. As for people participating in orchestrated marketing efforts intended to push products that have little if any real impact on our lives, however, I don’t get it. This SPSII excerpt explains why:

Sure, brand name products play a role in our daily lives, but most are not integral to our existence. Even now that brand marketers supposedly have granted us this magical power to define their brands, that doesn’t mean their brands have to define us. Empty lives and vacant personalities long to be filled with something, and marketers are more than happy to supply the stuffing.

Call me crazy, but I don’t want to talk about brands and products all the time, and I don’t want my friends to, either. I don’t want my emails or my blog to be cluttered with links to the latest gadget or designer handbag or homemade video dedicated to the greatness of Crest White Strips. I don’t want my head to be clogged with what some “director of online community engagement” thinks I should know about his advertiser client’s hair conditioner. I’d rather think about things that are actually relevant to my life outside of what I can buy.

I’ve been accused of projecting my values onto people who willing engage in WOM campaigns, and I’ll wholeheartedly admit that to be the case. But to me, that’s an inherent component of opinionated commentary.

There will be tons o’ bloggin’ done from the conference in SF. Though I attended the first conference earlier this year in Orlando, I won’t be at this one (and I doubt I’ll ever be let into another to be honest). Still, I’m interested to see what comes out of this one….

BuzzMetrics CEO on SPSII

Jonathan Carson, CEO of BuzzMetrics (a WOM measurement firm recently acquired by Nielsen), posted about SPSII last month, noting, "I think this is a really important dialogue which Kate is beginning." I wanted to respond to a couple points Jonathan made in his post. First, he writes that in SPSII I state "that stealth is not important, and that WOMMA is guilty of ignoring the real ethical issues."

Because the stealth issue has been the focus of almost all criticism of WOM marketing, I made an effort in SPSII to leave it alone for the most part. I certainly believe that covert marketing campaigns involving undercover "bar leaners" and phony bloggers could have a negative effect on relationships and society. What I'm saying in SPSII is that many WOM marketing campaigns and WOMMA (the Word of Mouth Marketing Association) demand that people participating in WOM campaigns reveal their campaign affiliation. The WOM marketing issue has been bogged down in the stealth discussion for too long, forsaking what I believe to be some very significant ethical questions.

Jonathan acknowledges this: "I strongly agree with Kate that there are tons of other ethical and policy issues which need to be studied and critiqued as well. If advertisers really do start allocating more and more of their money to media which is consumer-generated, then there are all sorts of societal and cultural ramifications which need to be considered. There's lots of fodder for discussion in the SPS piece...."

Ruskin Praises SPSII

I got a note the other day from Gary Ruskin, executive director of watchdog organization Commercial Alert in which he thanked me for Sales Pitch Society II, and wrote: "It's an excellent piece. Bravo. Sad, too."

Brits Prefer Ads in People Form

This just in from Forrester Research: according to a new report, "UK consumers are getting more annoyed with advertising, but less so with viral marketing. And consumers who like to exchange viral messages also have a higher appreciation of advertising in general. Marketers can improve general ad campaign targeting and results by preseeding it with a viral campaign."

I'm no big fan of ads, either. However, I recognize their purpose (to support the media outlets we rely on for information and entertainment or merely to promote goods or services). What I'm getting at is even though I don't like being bombarded with advertising, I'd much rather know when advertising is present. In the same way that I like my media content (news reports, TV sitcoms, films, whatever) distinctly separated from commercial content, I want my interactions with others separate from ads, too.

I wrote about this in SPSII:

"Sure, many companies today provide communication tools (refer a friend forms, community discussion forums, etc.) that enable already interested, possibly-loyal brand fans to readily share information about or recommend a brand. Send the latest Budweiser TV spot to a friend, Send your buddy a personalized SoBe ecard, Record your own Firefox testimonial: these kinds of things seem pretty harmless. However I'd argue that the proliferation of such tools and features has helped acclimate people to sending and receiving branded messages when communications would otherwise be less-dominated by them."

Here's another excerpt from SPSII that explains why I think this is significant and something we should contemplate:

"Whatever the tactics used -- evangelism, buzz, viral, blah, blah, blah -- the ultimate mission of WOM marketers is to insert their brands into our conversations. Considering the fact that in most cases, our conversations are the foundations upon which we build our relationships with one another, we shouldn't take it lightly."

I think that says it all. Plus, I'd much rather be playing sudoku or readin' the paper right now (it's gorgeous here in the backyard) than pecking out opinion on this damn machine.