cgm

Books on a Shelf: Citizen Marketers - When People are the Message

At the most recent WOMMA board meeting, customer evangelism evangelista (and fellow WOMMA board member) Jackie Huba gave me a copy of her latest book written in partnership with co-evangelista Ben McConnell entitled, drumrull please....Citizen Marketer: When People Are the Message.  While I'm a wee bit bit skeptical about the reapplicability or re-appplication potential of some of the book examples (scaling "passion" is easier said than done), and early this year I didn't net out in the exact same place as Huba and McConnell on their well-blogged observations and take-aways re: big-buzz-low-box Snakes on A Plane, the book's an excellent, engaging, provocative and case-study rich read.  It also validates and reinforces so many dimensions of CGM.  Moreover, I hardly need cash from PayPerPost to say or blog, enthusiastically and with nary a hint of reservation, that Jackie and Ben are among the most thoughtful, articulate, and customer-centered thinkers in marketing land today.  Then again, am I truly enough of an evangelist to write more than a couple hundred words at 4 AM this morning when BrandWeek magazine just published an excerpt of their book that better telegraphs the book's broader content than my own blog blather: I think not.  Again, here's the link to the BrandWeek article.  Important to note that well beyond the case studies, the book is loaded with compelling frameworks to help us distill, categorize, interpret and understand what's really taking place behind citizen marketer viral bursts or threads, including this construct regarding so-called "memes" (help me, I still struggle with that term).  "One reason why citizen-created memes spread," the authors note, " is that they often follow the four stages of successful meme replication:

• "Assimilation. The meme is noticed, understood and accepted by someone, who becomes a host of the meme.
• "Retention. It's embedded in memory. The longer it's stored there, the better.
• "Expression. The idea can take some form, such as language, text, pictures, or even in unconscious behavior, such as the way someone walks.
• "Transmission. The host passes the meme on to one or more people.

All in all, a smart book by smart people...and quite timely.  Jackie will be speaking (and signing books, I presume) at the upcoming WOMMA conference in Wash DC next week in case you happen to be there. 

Friendly Debates. Buzz Divides. WOM Wars?

The KellerFay Group, in conjuction with BzzAgent, just dropped a new report on word-of-mouth, drawing largely from solicited opinions from the BzzAgent panel.  Very good read, with key learnings that both reinforce (with more focused clarity) what we know and suspect, as well as break open a few new opportunity zones.  I particularly agree with the conclusion that "word of mouth marketing can produce impacts beyond spreading the word."  Among their headline recos for marketers: "aim for higher impacts" (get consumers to website, drop samples, drop coupons), Go in-store ("foster interactions at point of purchase"...recall my "Ex-Spot" piece), Be Social ("build socialability in campaigns"), and Help Your Advocates be online and offline (create a blog, upload a demo video, etc).  I'm always a bit skeptical about comments like "Again, the interactions need to be natural" (far easier said than done when marketing of any sort is at the heart of the process), but the spirit and intent of the comment (like the online video panel last week emphasizing "authenticity") is right. 

Intimate versus Incidental WOM Revised: In skimming through the charts, the one question that keeps jumping to mind is one I've called out before: is there any risk that such research is too anchored to the world of "familiars" versus the "incidental" impact of word-of-mouth.  Moreover, does the process of emphasizing intimate (e.g. I know this person) offline connections discount or undervalue true word-of-mouth impact, especially online.  In one of the KellerFay/BzzAgent report charts, its reported that between 9 and 16% of agents suggest they talk about products in "chat rooms or blogs," versus 99% who talk face-to-face.  The latter is irrefutable, but the former seems to betrays 90 million MySpace pages, 50 million blogs, 10 million LiveJournal accounts, and more online Skype accounts than the average person can count.  Every day, I see product recos, explicit reviews, and de facto brand-centered buzz across the gamut of online venues, and the numbers, if broadly distributed across the population, beat the 9-16% number hands-down.  Which begs some very important questions:

• Definitional Scope: Is our definition of WOM too narrow?  I'm obsessed with the term consumer-generated media (of which I consider WOM to be a subset) because I believe it speaks to a bigger tent of consumer expression, inclusive of "familiars" but well beyond that. 
• Solicited Omissions: Do consumers have a precise handle on what they actually recommend or tell others about when you ask them directly?  Do we as marketers even know how to ask the question in the right way? What are the right questions?
• Recommendational Parameters:  What constitutes a recommendation or an endorsement, especially in the age of social media. Most of us are walking billboards for products and brands, often without even knowing it.  It's especially common online where photo and video imagery allows us to capture a more complete picture of who we are, what we buy, and even the values we wrap around those attributes.  I call this "indirect product placement." Is this word-of-mouth?
• Incidental WOM: How do we account for the indirect or incidental effect of WOM, especially via search engines.  Most offline and online rumors are turbo-charged at the moment of search.  Search results reinforce and "affirm" hunches and suspicions or curiousity-triggers, and the fact that the validation expressed in search results comes from consumers (i.e. more trusted than advertisers...even though we no earthly clue who these folks are) makes it even more powerful.   Is this part of word-of-mouth?
• Quantifying Latency:  Related, what's the "Net Present Value" of buzz that's permanent -- not fleeting or ephemeral.  Just think about Jeff Jarvis and Dell. The power of that incident is the "latency effect" of the negative experience.  The incident continues to create media...almost in perpetuity.  How do we account for that?

So What's Next:  Anyway, it dawned on me a couple days ago after having a rather petty ("Dude, you're WRONG!") e-mail back and forth with my friend Dave Balter on this topic that we need to break open a fresh new conversation (a meme perhaps?) on this topic.  Just to make it interesting -- dare I say, engaging -- I went ahead and registered the domain "WomWars.com" so we can really focus this debate.  This is a really important conversation. If you agree, let me know, and I'll include you in the follow-up.  Thanks for listening!

The Science of "Talk Value"

Heidi Cohen hits the hammer on the nail with a very good piece entitled "Customer Feedback, or What I Learned on My Summer Vacation."  Drawing from travel insights from a recent trip to Italy, Cohen notes:

It's important marketers determine when aspects of their offerings cause customers to comment online, to enhance features that cause delight, and to fix those that are negative.

Her piece offers a series of succinct and useful tips for both capturing and then analyzing consumer feedback.  In my view, this is what the new marketing is all about.  Feedback isn't simply an exercise that makes consumers feel more important and empowered (which in turn can nurture or cement loyalty); equally important,  the feedback process of gathering opinion (whether directly from consumers or indirectly via CGM) can significantly sensitize the brand decision making process.  As I've noted before in previous articles and posts, brands in search of favorable CGM (which essentially amounts to free or low-cost advertising) need to understand the triggers of "talk value."  In the wireless industry, screwups with billing tend to unleash high volumes of negative CGM across boards and blogs; in the hotel industry, by contrast, small (and inexpensive) acts of kindness like putting a piece of chocolate on the pillow can results in suprising levels of positive buzz.  The good news is that there's enough evidence in the CGM space -- billions and billions of consumer comments -- to begin measuring and understanding the relationship between experience and expression.  Gathering feedback is a good place to start.  Are you listening?

Striking World Cup Buzz With CGM

Increasingly, brands are stepping up the plate to participate in so-called "conversations" with consumers.  Often, they are using major "events" as the catalyst and context for this new form of dialogue.  Big events rarely reflect the cookie-cutter mold of marketing 'best practices" -- especially against today's rapidly evolving marketing landscape -- and therefore serve as ripe venues for experimentation.  The FIFA World Cup, officially starting in a few days, is one such event where, like the recent Winter Olympics, we're seeing important forms of branding experimentation, especially those involving the active enrollment and participation of consumers (or, if you really insist....users...or...citizens).   Two very good examples (although it's too early to hoist the "victory" flag) involve Coke and Nike.  (Full disclosure: both are clients in my "official" job at Nielsen BuzzMetrics, although I had no direct association with these campaigns.)

Coke Blogger Flat, Not Coke Blak:   Coke, if you'll recall, pushed the envelop a bit during the Winter Olympics with brand sponsored bloggers in the form of "Torino Conversations," which attempted to bring a broader scope of "global" story telling around the Olympics.  As I noted in an earlier ClickZ column,  the exercise brought a "refreshing level of informal conversation to an otherwise highly promotional Web site platform."   Most brands websites, especially the expensive ones, are impenetrably inflexible, and lack the agility and flexibility to groove with the conversation; they not only lack "interactivity" but also any sense of identity, or even -- dare I say -- a "soul."  The Torino experiment was a very good step in the right direction.  This time Coke is sponsoring an even more ambitous effort, and although it's "sponsored by Coke" it appears a bit more liberated from the constraints of "site within a site." The brand is essentially creating an entire program around a community of bloggers and a site entitled WeAllSpeakFootball.com   They have recruited a diverse group of bloggers to blog their hearts delight about their experiences around the FIFA World Cup.  Moreover, they have sponsored a 220 square meter flat (with killer view, the bloggers claim) right smack in the center of Berlin for use by "live" bloggers (and their friends, presumably).   Interestingly, they've enrolled some leading "Vloggers" in European circles, among them Gabriel McIntyre & Gabe Bauer (xolo.tv), Anil de Mello (Mobuzz.tv), and Katharina "Lyssa" Borchert (Lyssa's Lounge).   They are also encouraging anyone interested to fill out an application form to particpate.

Promising, But Too Early To Tell:  Content so far is sparse -- in fairness, the World Cup has yet to "officially" kick off --  but the model looks extremely promising, and the stickiness (and hence CGM potential) of the exercise will depend in large measure on how well the blog "recruits" both mirror what's truly happening in Berlin and strike (pun intended) meaningful conversation among others.  Accepting "comments" around the blog posts seems to be strong focus, and that's clearly a good thing.  The deliberate focus on vlogging is an a very important direction, as the blog has the potential to serve as a de facto TV station for both news and "Reality TV' junkies looking for deeper perspective on unrivaled global event.  While I suppose there's always some danger of what I call the  "Tahoe Regression" (e.g. CGM content sliding outside the brand's intended "acceptability" parameters), the entire context for "WeAllSpeakFootball" feels like a reasonably safe bet.  Looking ahead, what will be interesting is how well the brand leverages the content on an ongoing basis.  Will the content, for example, become the basis for future ad copy, or will it prime the pump for the next big event Coke sponsors. CGM experiements are never easy to predict, and sometimes backfire, but the learning along the road has critical value.

Nike & The CGM Kick:   Nike has kicked up a decent amount of buzz around another World Cup related program, in this case a collaborative "group kick fest" of sorts.  While the brands has a host of promotional programs on the NikeFootball.com site, the one that really caught my eye was Nike's effort to create the "world's longest football video."    Works like this: as with the process on YouTube, users visit a special Nike site and are invited to upload a 15 second video of them kicking or juggling a soccer ball.  There's a catch of course: you must kick from left to right so the long-play video looks like one continuous hand-off.  (Surprisingly, this works to very good effect.)  So far the brand has integrated over 140 "kicks" (from all the world, I might add), the long-play video -- overlayed with a pulsating beat that makes you want to rush to iTunes for immediate song purchase -- is pretty darn engaging, and -- dare I say -- tempting to watch from start to finish.  There are parallels here the value of Wikipedia content. The content seems to improve with each additional kick.  Most importantly, this is a classic user-participation.  It's not "pure" or "unaided" consumer-generated media -- and the brand appears to have editorial discretion over content inclusion --- but it clearly moves toward the "engagement" promise around "the co-creation of meaning."

Ex-Spot Marketing:  In an effort to deepen user "engagenent" and create sticky content, both marketers is drawing from emerging new media tools and publishing formats to nurture more meaningful "conversations," or (let's strip away the idealism for a moment) a digital trail of commentary that indirectly rewards or credits the brand.  It's not overt advertising, and in this case, it's not cookie-cutter sponsorship either; it's "blended" or "nudged" CGM.  Both brands are also seeking (wisely) to exploit what I've referred to as the "Ex-Spot" -- that "moment of experience" where consumers (or in this case, soccer fans) are best positioned to articulate or speak out about something.  Half the game in marketing is about piggybacking momentum, and Coke's blog experiment appears to be capitalizing on the "It's happening NOW, right HERE in Berlin" Ex-Spot. Nike is embracing almost unstoppable "passion" around the game of futbol.  Both brands are also creating alternatives to "traditional" online content.  While the World Cup FIFA site is loaded with excellent content (and unquestionably will receive more hits than any other site), it's overall presentation is somewhat predictable, and lacks a "man on the street" perspective.  There's little to no community on the site, and while it loudly promotes mobile services for score updates, there's no use of RSS for basic content.  The site features plenty of "credentialed" photos from earlier World Cup events, but nothing that even mirrors user-generated FlickR content related to soccer (surprising, since Yahoo is a co-sponsor of the site and leader in social-networking tools).  In effect, the lack of "informal" content has opportunities for sponsors and non-sponsors alike to connect and bond with fans in new ways.  Not to suggest such offering will not unfold over time.  The games are just about begin.  Stay tuned for more commentary and analysis.  - Pete

(Don't forget about the upcoming word-of-mouth marketing conference (WOMMA) in SF later this month - June 20-21. Sign-up details here.) 

The Daily Buzz Factor

This morning in ClickZ ("Skype Nation") I take a closer look at what's happening around the "Skype Revolution," including my own (warranted) seduction into this latest social media storm.  My reflections here were precipitated by my colleague Max Kalehoff weaning on this free phone service (largely for selfish reasons) as well as an invite to participate in what was billed as one of the first-ever Skypecasts. I end with a very important question, which I believe get to the heart and soul (and yes, I'm talking about "emotional" needs) behind the explosive word-of-mouth activity around Skype:

"Is the bigger aha around Skype that it's revolutionized communication or that it's created tens of millions of heroes?"

What I mean to suggest here is that word-of-mouth and consumer-generated media emanates, in part, from a genuine desire to improve the lives of others, and in the process, take credit for the "change."  Skype has proven so truly "remarkable" (as Seth Godin so commonly puts it) that millions are banking "credits" through the active recommendation of this product...even before, I suspect, it's been put to the full torture test.

I also quote Dr. Walter Carl, a professor of Northeastern University and active research leader with WOMMA, who notes:

"Although the recommendation of Skype to a friend benefits the person making the recommendation, this isn't just a selfish act. That is, there's a huge relational component as well: the recommendation benefits both people or all members of the social network, because it allows them all to be connected to one another."

Carl, by the way, has launched a very important blog discussion on the topic of offline versus online word-of-mouth.

And now...Consumer Generated Mkt (CGMkt)

PR blogger Kevin Dugan, who also lives here in the consumer capital of the world (Cincinnati),  just penned a thoughtful and well synthesized article describing a variation of CGM.  Consumer-Generated Marketing (CGMkt), he argues, "represents the utlimate in authenticity."  Excellent use of links to "examples" of CGM in action.  His thinking here further confirms my suspicion that "PR" folks have an edge of "ad agency" folks in penetrating key insights around this fundamental issue -- and challenge - of consumer control.   Again, here's the link.

In Defense of Consumer Generated Media

You know you've come up with something really really compelling and sticky when folks start to dedicate articles to its demise.  Such is the case with Henry Copeland's "out-with-CGM-in-with-'immedia'" argument in yesterday's MediaPost.  In one of his more memorable lines, he argues, "Calling blogs consumer-generated media is like calling sex the 'clothless generation of heat, musk and mucus.' The essential excitement and motivation just doesn't come through, does it?" After this fine-metaphor, he makes a case for rebranding the movement around a term called "immedia."

First reaction: Three cheers for anyone seeking to promote and brand the most profound and important landscape-shift in marketing history: consumers (or users, or individuals, or whatever) taking greater control of the message.  A couple weeks back, Burson-Marsteller dropped a release using the term "User Generated Media."   Edelman uses the term TrustMEdia.  Many other phrases and expressions have been used, but at the end of the day, we're all talking about the same concept!

Second reaction: I'm admittedly glued to the word "consumer," partly stemming from my P&G training, which I still credit for my continued passion for deep consumer understanding.  Yes, I buy CEO A.G. Lafley's "consumer is boss" mantra hook, line, and sinker.  It will take a small army to move me away from this critical positioning.   Broadly defined, the term "consumer" works, and the last thing we need is let marketers off the hook for not tatooing the word "consumer" --- in LARGE CAPS and bold face -- to their foreheads.  Copeland is offering us a well-intentioned "technical" reason for walking away from the term "consumer," as so many marketers attempt to do, and I just don't buy it! 

Third Reaction (plus some explanation): Here's some important historical backdrop on the term CGM.  I actually came up with the term CGM while in the shower one morning about three years ago.  Although I later co-founded  WOMMA, at the time I had real issues with the term "word-of-mouth," as this concept still seemed to came across to many marketers as touchy-feely, non-quantifiable, ephemeral, and even fleeting.   I had mixed feelings about the term "buzz" and the term "viral" had too many double meanings.   What seemed critical and urgent to me was establishing a term that marketers would easily remember and truly take seriously.  Moreover, it was critical to find a term that immediately synched with the current vocabulary of "media" buyers and planners, who in my view were significantly over-investing in "paid" media and conspicuously ignoring the unmistakable impact of "free" media.  This is the first time I've admitted this, but CGM actually stemmed from a desire to find something that rhymed with CPM (cost per thousand), which is a universally known metric of media buying. 

What I learned very quickly was that the core hypothesis proved correct: new names that anchor to industry "comfort zones"  make sell-through much easier.  So far the term has actually helped break down barriers in getting marketers starting to take word-of-mouth and consumer-generated content more seriously.   We're still in the early stages of the education process, but the industry is getting wiser. 

Last  Reaction:  On the "media" part, we're all in agreement, and I'm probably closer to Copeland (a very impressive advertising pioneer, I might add), on this point than some of my WOM brethren.  The fastest growing media is that which consumer shape and share themselves.  It's TIVO resistant, and presents long-lasting sources of influence. 

Ignore it at your peril. 

(BTW, Matt Galloway and Owen Mack beat me to the punch on some excellent thoughts here.)

CGM 101

There are two paths to getting quickly grounded in the exciting world of consumer-generated media.  If you only have a minute or two, you might consider skimming an article I penned for ClickZ entitled The Pocket Guide to Consumer Generated Media.     If you want a deeper perspective, I co-authored with Mike Nazzaro, CEO of Intelliseek, a white paper entitled CGM 101.  You can download this off the Intelliseek site.

Key Definitions - Astroturfing

I love this term!  This is when a supposedly grass-roots operation actially is getting help from a powerful think tank, governmental agency, or any outside source with an agenda.

Key Definitions - RSS

What is RSS?  RSS basically stands for Really Simple Syndication.  This is basically the technology by which blogs syndicate their postings throughout the internet community.  A more complete definition can be found on the Wikipedia.