cgm

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!

Defensive Branding 101

Is a good brand defense the best offense?  This is the critical question I probe this morning in an article entitled "Defensive Branding 101 - The Role of Search," which probes whether Search Engine Optimization (SEOs) and other search experts are dedicating enough attention to targeted search advertising against negative search queries.   At a time when consumer-generated media (CGM) is unleashing an unprecedented digital trail of negative commentary and opinion that re-circulates to ordinary consumers through search, its surprising that few brands are acquiring "balance the story" shelf-shelf space through targeted search advertising.

Speakers and Seekers:  The attached chart underscored the role of search as a CGM targeting vehicle.  Vocal consumers with good or bad experiences act as "Speakers." The create vast quantities of indexed content on search engines that find curious "seekers," most of whom are simply ordinary (dare I say "typical") consumers doing straightforward product research.  Bad buzz, I write in my article, "spreads not simply because consumers hear about it for the first time, but because initial buzz is solidified by the presence of reinforcing evidence. A quick search on bad buzz, a rumor, even gossipy innuendo can trigger a tipping point in consumer perception."

"A consumer who hears Mazda has warranty issues will immediately seek counsel from Google and type in "Mazda complaints" or "Mazda safety"...This is where SEM (define) misses the mark. It obsesses with acquisition and shrugs defection. Media planners and SEO experts avoid negative inventory like it's the black plague inside a no-fly zone.

Defensive Branding: What's needed is a new form of ad targeting grounded in what I'd call "defensive branding."  Under this model, Mazda would consistently have an ad presence in negative search results, always attempting provide deeper context around the issues at hand.  If the brand has nothing to contribute, rebut, or challenge, it should clearly avoid this, as this simply risks creating even more consumer cynicism.  But in most cases, brands already have content, FAQs, or corporate information addressing to help explain, or wrap perspective, around these issues.

Blog Spam - The End of CGM Innocence?.

This morning I logged into my gmail account and found a big fat pile of "blog spam."  Two years ago I started writing a blog dedicated to my new Honda Civic Hybrid.  Until about a month ago, I enjoyed a steady stream of excellent comments (even critical pushbacks) from various readers about hybrid car experience. Now I'm swimming in blog spam.  Yes, I had heard growing warnings from my work colleagues at Intelliseek, especially those who managed BlogPulse, that blog spam was posing a growing threat to the blogophere.  But it didn't really sink in till one of my own blogs was subjected to an avalance of meaningless, irrelevant do-anything-for-a-damn-click spam.  It's been truly disheartening to say the least, and I can't decide if my reaction is borne of naivette or just being a hopeless romantic about the power and potential of the internet.   I can't be the only one feeling such dissonance. The blogophere is bursting at the seams with blog passionistas  -- we'll see a ton of them next week at BlogOn -- but blog spam represents a significant "chink in the armor," so to speak.  Not insurmountable, but a real challenge,and certainly an issue bearing on the ultimate "trust" scorecard for CGM.

Blog Spam Characteristics:  Spam bloggers are masters at finding a creative or contextual hook for arresting eyeballs around a given message.  Once clicked, they barf up irrelevant, self-serving and useless garbage.  It's classic bait-and-switch, but most of it is automated.  Many of the same techniques that search-engine optimization firms tout to increase search engine page rankings for brands or companies are put on steroids in the blog-spam space.  Just about every blog platform is vulnerable, but some appear more vulnerable than others, especially Google's Blogger platform, which is where I'm receiving an almost endless flow of "no one is accountable" garbage.

The Road Ahead: Some of my work colleages such as Sundar Kadayam, Natalie Glance, and Matt Hurst have been applying advanced text analytics to fully "dimension" the spam issue.  Expect more news on this soon.  In the meantime, let's keep the faith and hope for a light at the end of the tunnel.   

 

The Missing Story Re: Google & BlogSearch

Last week I fielded predictable set of questions from the media about the impact of Google entering the blog search space.  Shankar Gupta's MediaPost piece nicely captured my (and Intelliseek's) general take on the issue, especially around the implications for Intelliseek's BlogPulse, but that's hardly the driver behind this post. What's surprised me most about all the Google+Blog Search coverage is that the most obvious point was all but neglected.  Traffic to blogs is likely to surge as a result of Google actively promoting the blogophere, and many sites will see two to three times increases in overall traffic, that's a very big deal.  I frankly think that's a conservative estimate. 

Google Mushrooms Blogophere? For perspective, Google is not only the world's biggest search engine, but it's web's most impactful traffic cop.  As soon as it starts prominently featuring a blog search button on the home page, expect to see no less than 5-10% of incremental traffic directed toward blogs.  A good reference point here is to look at Google traffic stats on Alexa.   Here you can see that 20% of all Google traffic goes to Google content areas other than basic search: images, for example, receives 7% of all traffic.  Given growing global curiosity over all things blog-related, couple with Google front-page promotion, I can't image blogs receiving any less on the search front than Google Images. 

Speakers versus Seekers:   Since writing my first white paper on CGM,  I've maintained that CGM has the greatest impact thanks to search engines.  Most CGM content, in fact, especially blog content, is discovered via search.  Outspoken CGM-creators ("speakers") create content that ultimately finds targeted reach among curious users of search engines ("seekers").   This content ultimately competes against "paid" advertising on the search results.  What Google is essentially doing is turbocharging the "Speakers versus Seekers" marketplace, acting as marriage broker between consumers with unmet needs ("I seek") and targeted blog results.   On the marketing front, this will create both opportunities and challenges for brands.  Indeed, the jump from general web content to blog-only content when conducting a search can be both humbling and humiliating for some brands.  Bloggers, on the other hand, will rejoice in being discovered and recognized by millions of new websurfers.  Some bloggers are already detecting increases. 

Speakers and Seekers

CGM content feeds into search engines, meaning it is easily found by consumers who use the Internet to research products and services. Hundreds of millions of archived consumer comments, some of them rich in specific brand or service experiences, are redefining the notion of the "audit trail" and are raising powerful new standards of accountability and real-time measurements for marketers. Suppose one million consumers search for your brand every month on Google. And suppose the second result is a hostile comment by a consumer whose horrific experience was made worse by an alienating customer service representative. The bottom line? Your brand will suffer. Traditional researchers often struggle with this concept on the premise that CGM-creating consumers are not "typical" or "representative." But vocal consumers armed with high-tech megaphones are having an unmistakable impact, especially considering the high levels of consumer-to-consumer trust.

And the sheer volume of CGM—nearly one billion archived comments, and growing at a 30% annual growth rate—makes this form of high-reach and high-impact media impossible to ignore.