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.

Two Cents from an Agency Exec

Believe it or not, I actually am friendly with someone who does WOM marketing, and this person read SPSII and sent me some interesting feedback. To protect this individual’s identity, I’ll call my industry buddy “Agency Exec” or AE.

AE says, "I have 2 fake accounts on BzzAgent, Tremor and [a colleague] has 2 on Tremor and VocalPoint. there's absolutely no verification that competitors, old men, etc, aren't duping their ‘sophisticated’ forms to sign up."

Yep, AE, I’ve got a BzzAgent account, too. And no, I don’t actually engage in their campaigns; I have it for research purposes. I’m well aware that some marketers are skeptical of the validity of WOM agency models like these that seed products to people who may not be who they claim to be. I guess what it comes down to is that most marketers are still in the experimentation stage when it comes to using these types of services. If they get the return on investment they’re hoping for, I suppose they’ll continue putting money into WOM.

Another comment AE made:

word of mouth marketing isn't evil. consumer generated content/media isn't a bad thing. there are two words that summarize the crux of this whole problem with companies trying to misguidedly seize it: subservient chicken.

EVERY company we dealt with for at LEAST a year after it came out wanted to make the next Burger King subservient chicken website. bad fit or not, they wanted ideas on ‘viral’. hell, we still get that thrown into RFPs. right now it's YouTube, last month it was MySpace. they're all sheep marketers, and very few actually ‘get it’."

There’s no doubt that WOM is one of the big over-hyped trends in marketing these days. But recent trends like viral, WOM, the use of Consumer Generated Media (CGM) and other related marketing tactics seem to reflect a broader shift away from top-down advertising towards involving the consumer in actually participating in the brand promotion. When MySpace and YouTube get trumped by some other latest and greatest, chances are that same general idea will be there.

Imposing My Beliefs on Others? A Little...

Dr. Walter Carl was kind enough to write a critique of SPSII, so it’s about time I responded to a few of his points. First off, he notes, ”I think it's essential that we create a space to discuss the issues that Kate raises in her analysis about the societal and ethical effects of brands and in our lives and the marketing methods used to promote those brands.”

Cool. I’m hoping this blog can be a forum for that discussion, and SPSII could serve as a launching pad.

Now, onto Carl’s “Areas of Divergence.” I’ll put these in separate posts since it’s Sunday and I’m hung over and I don’t know if I’ll get to all of it today. He writes

“I'm sensitive to, but ultimately resist, the argument that people are "facilitating their own exploitation" by participating in organized WOMM programs. This seems to reproduce a kind of "false consciousness" argument where the critic defines somebody else's reality for them. Kate's suggestion that the motives for participating in organized WOMM programs -- empty lives, desire for belonging, acceptance and insider knowledge, and sheer materialism -- could all be valid. But I wonder if the critique is somewhat reductionist by only, or at least primarily, looking at their participation in the WOMM program; this is likely just one aspect of their multi-faceted lives.”

Here, Carl references my contention that the rise of CGM and WOM marketing are “the ultimate score for marketers,” contrary to the belief among media pundits and Internet evangelists who call it a consumer coup over the brand tyrants. I go on to note, “Companies may have less ability to control their brand messages; however, the fact is that by willingly engaging in orchestrated WOM campaigns, people are condoning the deliberate injection of brands into their conversations. In essence, people are facilitating their own exploitation, merely because marketers have asked them to.”

I can see how my argument may come off as patronizing or hyperbolic. After all, who am I to judge the lives of WOM campaign participants based solely on reports they’ve written or the mere fact that they are participants? Carl’s right; WOM marketing is one aspect of a WOM campaigner’s multi-faceted life. Here’s what I’m trying to get at: when someone deliberately discusses brands as a result of direct influence by marketers, he is engaging in conversations he wouldn’t be having otherwise. The very fact that he’s chosen to participate in a WOM campaign has the potential to alter what he chooses to talk about with those around them. Where he may have brought up last night’s game or whether he thinks Rummy should get the boot, he may instead bring up how he’s tryin’ out this new 8-blade razor from Shtick that works way better than those lame 7-blade jobs.

In most instances, “exploitation” may be too strong a word. Perhaps “manipulation” or even just "modification" are better ones. In this case, however, the campaign participant is cognizant of the fact that his discussion is being manipulated or modified. It’s true that people who sign up to join WOM campaigns don’t think incorporating brand blab into their everyday chats has the potential to corrupt their relationships. I am impressing my own personal beliefs onto these folks, arguing that there is that potential. In the first SPS I called it “a barter of Faustian proportions.” It’s not that extreme, but that doesn’t mean it has no effect on their multi-faceted lives.

Professor WOM Gives SPSII the Nod

Professor Walter Carl of Northeastern University, who's been a great resource for me in my preparation and writing of SPSII, has some comments about it on his blog that have given me a whole lot to chew on. Though I love reading about what he agrees with, I especially appreciate the criticism which can only help to challenge me into honing my argument. I have lots of specific responses, but have to get to the pre-work workout, so no time at the moment.

Sales Pitch Society II Officially Unleashed

I'd meant to launch SPSII this past weekend, but didn't get 'round to it till the wee hours of Monday morning. Let's just say I had an extended date with a bottle most of the time, and when Sunday hit a sore throat did along with it. So, after going to sleep extra early on Sunday, I awoke around 5 and thought, hey, I can publish Sales Pitch!

As noted in the intro, it's all about stepping back and contemplating the potential effects of engineered Word of Mouth marketing campaigns. If you're so inclined, please read it, share and discuss!