By Dan Rosenthal
Every year, researchers discover that consumers don't trust ads, no matter where they appear, but instead they trust their peers' opinions when it comes to buying things.
And every year it's a big revelation.
And every year, marketers discover a new name for word-of-mouth marketing, as if renaming it will somehow address the "new" research.
Like, "consumer engagement," "join the conversation," or "experiential buzz" Or, "blogorhythmics." (I made that one up.)
The premise is, and was, even back in the sixties, to influence consumer choice by influencing peer opinion leaders. Examples are college fashion boards that give popular students a chance to express their views to the people who design clothing. By placing stars on their blouses and gifts in their closets, these marketers hope to generate word-of-mouth advertising. In bars, same thing. Every neighborhood tavern has one or two key "leaders," and a smart beer or vodka brand would single them out for tastings – and other favors – in an effort to influence calls. Today, with the growth of online consumer reviews, the temptation to influence them appears irresistible. An article in The Washington Post on March 29, 2010, addresses a lawsuit alleging that Yelp, an online reviewer site, manipulated its content by exchanging higher positive reviews for advertising dollars. The article elaborates about how online reviews and product recommendations by everyday folks may not always be ... everyday folks.
I have always had, and I still do, a problem with word-of-mouth (WOM). It's unethical unless the mouth 'fesses up.
The Word of Mouth Marketing Association offers an Ethics Code which is admirable and recommends "the highest level of integrity." The code states " WOMMA members promote honesty and transparency in their practices and methods, such that all forms of consumer manipulation are rejected." They require full disclosure of the relationship between marketer and consumer-influencer.
But – duh – doesn't that defeat the premise that it comes from a friend's mouth? Shouldn't the name be changed to "word-of-marketer's-mouth"?
Implying a person is recommending your brand to a friend suggests that the opinion is genuine when it simply is not. It capitalizes on trust, and unless the sponsor's shill uses full disclosure – which in practice is murder to implement – that trust is broken and we should be ashamed.
What I have learned about research is that consumers will never say they are influenced by advertising – and most will say, even under hypnosis and truth serums, that they ignore ads and consult friends when they want to make purchase decisions.
However.
Ad campaigns move the needle, and great ad campaigns burst the needle into the stratosphere. Just look at what is going on with Old Spice right now, with Axe yesterday, and with thousands of other brands that spend around 3-5% of sales on getting their brand out there in a straightforward, albeit sophisticated, way.
Friends don't let friends buy drunk – the best, most ethical route is to work on making your product or service worth an honest word – from an honest mouth.