After Tom Hespos basically dismissed Buzz Marketing as a "recipe for disaster" in yesterday's Online Spin, a torrent of comments were unleashed in response.
A snippet from the article:
If there's something more to this notion of "buzz marketing" that what I've already heard, someone needs to spell it out for me. It sounds to me like a recipe for disaster.
The pitch, as far as I know, is that people sign up to be paid to push products and services to others, in effect becoming agents for a marketer. Umm, excuse me, but I thought the industry was moving toward more transparency and not less.
According to guidelines established by the Word Of Mouth Marketing Association, agents are supposed to disclose their relationship with the companies whose products they push. Can someone explain that one to me? I understand the importance of disclosure, but doesn't this represent a huge catch-22?
The 55+ comments in response to the article are mostly in support of Hespos' assertion. But there are some notable exceptions. (The list of commentors, btw, reads like a "who's who" of online marketing.)
Joseph Chernov of BzzAgent uses an illustrative example. "Acme" co. gives a guy a free hammer as part of a focus group. They apparently know they've got a good product, and they're looking for both feedback and buzz. "Gus" tells a friend that he got the free hammer from Acme, and shares his likes and dislikes about the new product:
This is how word of mouth occurs in the real world. It’s woven into the fabric of everyday conversation. It’s not compromised by disclosure, but rather augmented by it. In this hypothetical, Gus’ acknowledgement that he received a free hammer did not diminish Guy’s interest in the product. Nor did it create an appearance of Gus being “paid off” by Acme. This is how friends speak; this is how people relate. Natural and honest.
Acme learns that the lightweight head is a priority for a real consumer; Gus completes an overdue renovation project; and Guy gets to check out a useful product during a commercial he wouldn’t have watched anyway.
What are your thoughts about Buzz marketing? Useful tool or impending liability? Read the article, read the comments, and let us know!
Heard about this, by the way, from AdRants, whose editor has a pretty eloquent response to the debate.
The war is won in the trenches. If you don't want to get a little dirty, then you can be the next Netscape too! MHO.
Posted by: Randy Charles Morin | November 16, 2005 at 04:58 PM
If my article and the ensuing comments indicated that I'm against Word of Mouth Marketing entirely, I didn't mean to reflect that. As you can see on the Spin Board, we got involved in somewhat of a semantic argument for part of the discussion.
To clarify, I'm against anything that bribes people to serve as covert agents for a brand or product. And I question the effectiveness and potential brand damage that may occur when agents disclose they're incentivized to give their opinion. ("What? Brand X needs to BRIBE people to say nice things about them?")
What I do support, however, is the notion of encouraging organic buzz. Provide tools to those who want to rave about your product, so that they can spread the word easier. Place people from your company on the front lines and give them the freedom to participate in conversations about the product or brand.
Posted by: Tom Hespos | November 16, 2005 at 05:39 PM