Viral Marketing for the Real World and The Theory of Big Seed Marketing -- A Critique

Ok, I've been away for a while but I thought a good post to resume with would be to review a recent article on the theory of "big seed marketing" written by Professor Duncan Watts, Jonah Peretti, and Michael Frumin. A version of this appeared in the Harvard Business Review, but my critique will focus on the version available at the Columbia University web site (which provides more detailed results and is referenced in the HBR article).

First, let me provide a quick summary of the article's main points, and then I'll discuss what the "news" is here, why this article could be helpful to organizations wanting to better understand marketing communication, and three limitations of the article.

Let's start with the summary:

The authors start by pointing out that viral marketing is seductive and often presented as a panacea: you just need to pick a small number of people to seed an idea and watch it go "viral"; oh, and by the way, all of this can be done on a small budget.

But, the authors caution, for as many viral marketing successes out there, there are just as many, if not more, failures. It's just plain hard to consistently create media that will "take off".

The alternative, the authors contend, is Big Seed Marketing (which I'll abbreviate as BSM). BSM "combines viral marketing tools with old-fashioned mass media in a new and creative way." Its purported benefits are risk-reduction and greater predictability than just viral approaches.

To explain BSM they start with a distinction between mass marketing and viral marketing. Mass marketing can be summarized by the formula n = pN, where n is the number of conversions (positive behaviors or attitude formation, such as purchasing product or forming a favorable impression), p is the probability that exposure to a the ad will result in a conversion, and N = the number of people exposed to the ad. To get more conversions, a company either increases the number of people to which they expose the message, or increase the probability of conversion (for example, by making a better -- more informative, interesting, memorable, etc. -- message).

In contrast, viral marketing starts with a small number of seeds who will then share the message with their friends, who will then share with their friends, etc. (I'll discuss below how this definition actually conflates "influencer marketing" and "viral marketing", but we'll work with this definition for now). Expressed as a formula, viral marketing is R=Bz. R is the "reproduction rate," or the rate at which new converts are generated from existing ones. B is the probability that a WOM transmission occurs (which can be based on a number of factors, including the number of times a person needs to hear a message before passing it on, memory, etc.) and z is the number of people told.

The whole theory of viral marketing is based on epidemiology, or the study of how diseases spread (or don't spread) throughout a population. If the reproduction rate of a disease is greater than one (R > 1), more and more people are infected at each generation, or degree, removed from the initial person infected, and the disease spreads. If less than one, the disease eventually peters out over time because fewer than one person at each degree is infected. Applied to marketing, a reproduction rate greater that one means that more than one other person, on average, is told (R > 1). If that reproduction rate continues at each subsequent generation, then an idea will go "viral" because one person tells more than one person who tells more than one person, etc.. If R < 1, then the message will decay, over time. R = 1 is the threshold; anything above 1 and the message will spread over time, while anything below 1 and the message will decay over time.

But the authors point out a "fundamental flaw" when applying the viral analogy to marketing -- specifically, diseases, unlike many large organizations, don't have have the resources to use the mass media as a way of seeding the message to large numbers of people.

So, the idea of BSM is to start the message with a large number of people and provide tools for people to share the message with others. Even if the reproduction rate is less than 1 (again, meaning that the person who experiences the message passes it on to less than one person on average), a large number of people will still be reached as the message will take a while to decay).

The authors present examples from different campaigns (for a gun control initiative, the Katrina Benefit, P&G's Tide Coldwater Challenge, and an advertising campaign that built in pass-along functionality). Each campaign reached more people than it would have by providing some type of technology platform that allowed people who initially experienced the message to share it with others.

OK, there's my summary. So, what's the news here as it applies to marketing communication?

First, the article is helpful to the extent that it reveals the limitations of viral marketing as an analogy -- companies and diseases are different. Companies can start their story with a lot of people, or a small group of people, while diseases typically start with one person and then spread to others.

Second, the article offers a metric -- the reproduction rate -- that can be used when quantifying and reporting the reach of a marketing program.

Third, the article presents interesting examples of companies using technology platforms that helps to amplify the spread of a message. One of these, which I would encourage people to learn more about, is ForwardTrack. This platform augments tell-a-friend functionality by incorporating geographic and social network tracking. The platform tracks the spread of messages from one person to the next and maps it, with the idea being that if a person can see the impact they are having on the spread of the campaign they will be more likely to increase their involvement. There are some important limitations to be aware of with ForwardTrack (for example, it tracks forwarding of messages only in an online environment, and not the content of what's said or other potentially rich details about the WOM episode), but it has a number of promising applications. I'll likely discuss more about this in a future post.

Why would this article or theory be helpful to organizations wanting to better understand marketing communication?

First, it shows how organizations can combine older and newer media to maximize the reach of their marketing initiatives. This is important because organizations shouldn't feel like they have to through the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.

Second, it provides one way for companies to measure the relative value of their marketing initiatives using quantitatively.

Third, it offers solid evidence that organizations, especially large companies with considerable resources, can limit their risk associated with a marketing initiative by starting with a large number of initial seeds.

What are some of the limitations of this article or theory?

First, the article seems to conflate two types of WOM marketing strategies: influencer marketing (starting with a small, select group of individuals with certain characteristics) and viral marketing (creating informative, entertaining, or otherwise engaging messages or experiences designed to be passed along to others, often via online means). See definitions provided by the Word of Mouth Marketing Association. According to these definitions, there's no reason why you can't use a viral marketing strategy and start with a lot of seeds. In fact, this is one way companies who want to use viral marketing strategies can reduce their risk -- seed the experience with more people. Further, the authors don't present evidence, at least in this paper, that starting with certain people who may be more well connected or have other characteristics (popularly known as "influencers"), might generate higher reproduction rates (though see Watts' work on "accidental influentials").

Second, I worry about the "uptake" of this article and theory by companies. Here's what I mean: depending on your philosophy of WOM marketing, "big seed marketing" could be considered a relatively "conservative" approach. That is, it seems to assume the best way to engage people is through a consistent message sent to large audiences. It would be an unfortunate result if companies came away thinking, "Phew, thank goodness! Now that I see these numbers I realize we can just proceed with business as usual but with a little twist: we'll keep creating advertisements, add some cool new tell-a-friend functionality, and we're set. We've now figured out this whole web 2.0, empowered consumer, networked world idea." Now, please don't misunderstand. I'm not implying that the authors of this article think this way or intended this. My point is that I think this is one prominent way this article will LIKELY be taken up and discussed in MANY companies. And if so, it would be a shame, because it misses out on the importance of more interactive ways of engagement between companies and their stakeholders: dialogue, listening, co-innovation, etc.

Third, and this is a more technical point, I question the value of reporting the reproduction rate as a final, or total value, rather than at each degree (see Table 1 and Table 2 in the article). Remember, the reproduction rate (R) is the number of new people converted based on existing people. So, rather than saying the reproduction rate for the whole campaign was x, I think it's more valuable to say the reproduction rate between the first degree seed to the second degree person was x. The better value to report as a total value is the "gain," or the multiple of new people reached (so, a "gain" of 2.0 means that if you started with 10,000 people, you reached 20,000). The authors do report the gain as a final value, but the confusing part is why the R is computed as a final value.

I corresponded with Professor Watts via e-mail about this point and learned the reason R was computed as a final value, rather than at each degree or generation, is due to the simplifying assumptions made in the paper (which, to their credit, the authors explicitly point out). One of the simplifying assumptions was that they assume the reproduction rate is constant across each degree of separation from the initial source (though, to their credit, they point out ways to make this more realistic). Further, they knew they were dealing with cases where the reproduction rate was under 1 at each generation anyway. But where this became confusing is that it makes it appear as though the formula for computing R is as follows:

Final R Value = "Bonus" Number of New People Reached/Total Reached (whereas a different formula for computing R [R = Bz ] was used earlier in the manuscript).

That is, the number of additional people reached due to the pass-along/viral effect divided by the total number reached. When computing it this way the final R will always be less than 1 (because you can never reach an additional amount more than the total amount since the total amount is computed by adding the initial number of seeds and the number of new people gained). I would suggest that further research computes the reproduction rate at each distinct degree of separation from the source, and not as a final value. I'll have more to say on this point in a future post.

OK, in sum,I definitely recommend that people read this article, but hopefully keeping in mind what I see as some of the limitations. I'd love to hear what anyone else's thoughts are about the article and their theory.

Also, as a teaser, I'll be reporting some really interesting research soon that will be even more interesting when considered in light of the Watts et al. article. More to come!

Thanks to Professor Watts for his generosity in responding to my inquiries!


-->
Tags: WOM word of mouth Word-of-Mouth Marketing buzz marketing viral marketing marketing communication big seed marketing

Reflecting on Your Own Word of Mouth Communication Practices

I'd like to draw attention to some of the work my undergraduate students have been doing here at Northeastern.

As part of a class assignment I asked students to record, via a web-based survey, three conversations they had about an organization, brand, product, or service. They then wrote a 500-word essay about any patterns they noticed in their own WOM communication practices.

I have received permission from each of the students to post their brief essays (in alphabetical order):

Kait Falconer
Andrea Manners
Anne McGrath
Holly Jackson
Taslim Sidi

Feel free to comment on their essays!

-->
Tags: WOM word of mouth Word-of-Mouth Marketing buzz marketing viral marketing marketing communication

Interview with Publicity Club of New England

A few weeks ago, myself, Dave Balter (BzzAgent), Lois Kelly (Foghound), and Jim Nail (Cymfony) participated on a panel about word of mouth, buzz, and viral marketing for the Publicity Club of New England (moderated by Laura Tomasetti of 360 Public Relations). As a follow-up to that panel I was interviewed for their newsletter, the Bellringer, by Lindsay Flaherty of Solomon McCown & Company, Inc.

Here's the link to the article in their newsletter. Due to space constraints Lindsay had to shorten some of my responses so I've included my full responses below:

***
How has WOM marketing changed the way we communicate?

It's probably easiest to start with a definition of WOM marketing as communication about organizations, brands, products, and services shared between consumers. So, I assume by "we" you are referring not to consumers but to companies. I think many smaller businesses have known about WOM marketing for a very long time because that is what they have had to rely on almost exclusively. I think some larger companies have changed the most because they have created distance between themselves and their customers and have relied on advertising to do the communication work for them, and have not prioritized listening and feedback. So I think companies who have lost sight of the importance of paying attention to their customers or clients (or other stakeholders) will have to change the most. Many of them have moved from being "oblivious" about WOM to paying some attention to it, perhaps by "monitoring" WOM. The smarter companies are the ones who will see that they need to do more than just be aware of the WOM about their products and services and monitor it, but that they need to actively listen to it, be responsive, and proactively seek to engage their customers in dialogue about the company's offerings. But if by "we" you meant consumers then I think we feel more powerful (whether we really are or not is a matter of debate) because we can amplify our opinions and thoughts due to various communication technologies (but don't give all the credit to the technologies because our communication practices are all still motivated by our desire to be recognized by others and have them confirm our view of the world and our place in it).

How did you come to be interested in WOM marketing and build your career in that area?

I started with an interest in how people talk, carry on conversations, and establish, maintain, and sometimes destroy, our personal identities and relationships. I began to notice that brand-related topics came up very frequently in people's everyday, mundane conversations, or chit chat. So I wanted to understand this form of "everyday" WOM. I then learned about companies who were seeking to actively organize and harness consumer WOM. One such company was BzzAgent, based here in Boston, and I wanted to see how this more "institutional" or organized form of WOM compared to the everyday WOM that seemed to happen randomly and without direct or conscious intervention from companies. Through comparing these two broad kinds of WOM I wanted to see what principles organizations could learn to leverage the power of WOM to the mutual benefit of companies and their stakeholders. I then became involved with the Word of Mouth Marketing Association and have conducted a number of studies in the area, publishing both academic articles and industry white papers.

How do you think the WOM marketing field is going to grow from here?

I think more companies are going to move through the phases of being oblivious, to monitoring, to listening, and to a stage I call "joining in" (playing the role of an interesting conversational partner). I see more firms seeking to tie key performance indicators to customer WOM. I see them attempting to engage their "ambassadors" or "evangelists" when they realize what these customers can do for the organization. Unfortunately I predict the majority of firms will screw up the opportunity they have now by not really wanting to invest the resources in making better products and services that meet their customers needs, not really listening to customer feedback, and doing silly stunts to try and generate short-term buzz as a replacement for long-term advocacy.

What is a typical day like for you?

I wake up, stretch, listen to NPR, take the T into my office at Northeastern, read some blog entries from others in the WOM industry or trade publications, respond to student emails, teach class, have office hours with students (though more and more this is done via e-mail exchanges), work on some research projects, more e-mail, more research, take care of some service responsibilities for my academic department, and head back home.

What are two ways that we could all communicate better?

How about three? Mindfulness, dual perspective, and balancing creativity and constraint. These are three principles of human communication. Mindfulness is about being more aware and being centered in the present moment (very Zen). Accomplishing dual perspective is taking the other person's perspective and then your own. And balancing creativity and constraint is a principle of both human and organizational communication. Individuals and groups are in continuous tension between balancing needs for control with creative expression. Understanding the need for both of these to co-exist and dance together at each moment is how individuals and organizations can become successful. Kind of abstract but in class I illustrate it with concrete examples :-)

What do you teach your students about communication that everyone should know?

When designing initiatives to leverage WOM, focus on relational networks of people rather than individuals or demographics. Demographics don't communicate and individuals only communicate in the context of their social and relationship networks.

Identify "structural holes" in organizational networks. These are places where there is no channel of communication between two people or two groups. Understand why these exist and what you can do to facilitate communication across these holes.

Act in ways that are relevant to others. Provide people with opportunities that make them look good in the eyes of others. These are two tips for generating exponential WOM communication.

What is your greatest achievement?

Professionally speaking, I was very proud when I completed my dissertation, or maybe I confused pride with just relief. Either way if felt good to finish it :-) Otherwise I consider it a great achievement everytime I remember to trust my instincts and follow my passions, because I think people often forget to do the former and never fully realize the latter.

Is there something in your career that you would change?

Having to grade. I love giving students feedback but I hate grading.

What is the WOM Marketing Association and who should be/can be a member of it?

WOMMA is an industry association dedicated to advancing the field of WOM in its many forms. I think anyone who wants to learn more about WOM and be around interesting, passionate people who love to do the same should join. Plus, you'll look smart to your boss. :-)

Give me a three sentence description of your latest research on word-of-mouth marketing.

Let me tell you about three different projects, each in one sentence: I am refining a methodology that measures the conversational reach and outcomes of marketing initiatives designed to generate "talk value." I am also working with a colleague on measuring the value of customer WOM to the firm. And I am studying conversational trajectories of WOM episodes (that is, how people sequentially and inferentially move in and out of brand-related topics in the course of their everyday conversations).

How are universities teaching about WOM marketing today?

By saying that WOM is the most powerful form of marketing there is, and then devoting less than half a percent of the time talking about it. I actually calculated this one day to win a bet. My colleague though it was 1% of the time and I wagered that it was actually less. I took the most popular marketing textbook, counted the number of pages devoted to WOM and then divided by the number of total pages. But not every university is like this as there are some notable exceptions, such as Robert French at Auburn University who is doing some very neat things with WOM and social media. And there is more attention to WOM research now at the graduate level (see the WOMMA Academic Advisory Board members). I get about an inquiry a week from international students who want to study WOM so I think they're on top of it more than the US students. When I presented in Turkey last month there were two doctoral students who drove 7 hours to Istanbul to attend the first WOM marketing conference in that country.
***

Thanks for the opportunity to share my thoughts Lindsay!

-->
Tags: WOM word of mouth Word-of-Mouth Marketing buzz marketing viral marketing marketing communication

WOM Marketing for Higher Education and Studying Overseas -- Call for Resources

Another request for resources, this time from a postgraduate student at Edith Cowan University in Perth, Australia. She is doing her thesis about WOM as a factor in persuading students to study overseas (specifically, for higher education).

If anyone knows of any research or information regarding this topic please include them in the comments or let me know and I'll put you in contact with the student!

By the way, folks interested in WOM, Social Media, and Higher Education should check out the HigherEdBlogCon website.

Thanks!

-->
Tags: WOM word of mouth Word-of-Mouth Marketing buzz marketing viral marketing marketing communication

WOM Marketing for Visual and Performing Arts -- Call for Resources

If you're reading this and you know about examples of WOM marketing initiatives for the visual and performing arts please let me know.

I've been contacted by a graduate student at the Wisconsin School of Business, UW-Madison, Jennifer Post Tyler. She is with the Bolz Center for Arts Administration and is doing research on WOM marketing and the arts. She is especially interested in case study data for nonprofit or governmental arts organizations who have implemented programs to understand and harness WOM.

We've discussed a few resources, but if you know of any in this area please reply as a comment to this post or contact me via e-mail and I can put you in touch with Jennifer.

By the way, there is also a student at Lumsa University in Italy who is working on WOM initiatives with museums, so if you're also studying in this area I can make introductions so everyone can collaborate and share resources.

Thanks for your help!

-->
Tags: WOM word of mouth Word-of-Mouth Marketing buzz marketing viral marketing marketing communication

What's The Score -- More Coverage of NPS in UK-Based Research.

I was interviewed some time ago for an interesting article about the Net Promoter Score that appears in the March 2007 edition of Research, a UK-based trade publication serving the market research industry. The thrust of the article is that NPS is becoming an industry-standard in many companies but its academic grounding is hotly contested.

There's a neat timeline of events on page 36, which I'll summarize as follows (since I have commented on a number of these before I'll include links to my blog posts where the events intersect):

2003 -- Fred Reichheld's "One Number You Need To Grow" article in Harvard Business Review was published (hadn't started my blog yet!)

2004 -- Researchers Neil Morgan and Ron Rego offer early criticisms of NPS in a letter to the editor (this wasn't mentioned in the Research article but it should have been; I summarized their critiques here)

2005 -- Study by Paul Marsden and others at the London School of Economics (LSE) reporting results that seem to validate NPS as predictor of growth

2006 -- Reichheld's best-selling book The Ultimate Question was published in March.

Study by Alain Samson at LSE introduced the Net Advocacy Score arguing researchers need to better account for negative WOM and actual behavior (not just intentions). Robert East from Kingston University has also offered developments about actual WOM behavior rather than just intentions (details to come about that)

Interesting article in AdAge about NPS becoming an industry-standard metric (July 2006 -- not mentioned in the Research article). There was also an article done in Business Week in January 2006 about this too.

In September, the Morgan & Rego article in Marketing Science was published arguing NPS had little to no predictive power.

But later Morgan & Rego was criticized, on my blog and in academic publication (Keiningham et al.), for not making an "apples-to-apples comparison"

Riechheld responds to critics on his blog with an entry entitled "NPS does not work" -- the intersting point here is that there is a shift away from the statistical correlation between revenue growth and the NPS and towards linking revenue growth to individual behaviors

Article in Australia's Business Review Weekly cautioning those who adopt NPS to be aware of the limitations of reporting just one number (there have been a number of blog posts offering similar criticisms for a number of years before this). For this and other articles about the Net Promoter you can visit the "What They're Saying" section of Net Promoter site hosted by Satmetrix.

2007 -- Article to be published in Journal of Marketing that criticizes the predictive ability of NPS, but this time making a much better apples-to-apples comparison. There was also an important story published in the Wall Street Journal about this forthcoming article and mentioning other researchers who are seeking to advance the study of the role of word of mouth, loyalty, and the power (or lack thereof) of recommendation intentions and behaviors.

First annual Net Promoter conference held in New York City, sponsored by Satmetrix (one of the companies associated with the development of the Net Promoter metric)

Stay tuned for much more in 2007, on both the academic and industry fronts!

The final thing I'll note about this article is that it does a good job of raising the issue of whether or not the Net Promoter Score is good for the research industry or not. One the pro-side, Paul Marsden is quoted as saying that it allows researchers to have the ear of those high up in the executive food chain and that it "speaks the language" of key decision-makers in companies. On the con-side, there's a sense that executives and clients will get used to simplistic measures and forcing metrics to do what they are not designed to, or can't do.

A further criticism is that it could reduce the credibility of researchers. That is, if a metric doesn't do something its proponents said it could do, then how much faith will key decision-makers have when the next new metric comes along? Will it limit adoption of that new metric?

From my conversations with folks in the industry and readings, it seems the value of the NPS is not the score itself, but the institutionalization of a customer feedback system across organizational units that people actually pay attention to. To accomplish this it seems you need something that is relatively easy to communicate and that people at various levels have the time and patience to get their heads around. Time will tell if NPS becomes that metric, or part of a package of key performance indicators, for the long-term.

Ultimately, the gold standard for any metric is how well it allows people to make timely and responsive decisions that allow an organization to achieve its goals, and there are many innovative researchers in industry and academia seeking to answer that "ultimate question."

ADDED: Here's a post by Alain Samson about the same article, and his thoughts on the pros and cons of using the Net Promoter Score.

-->
Tags: WOM word of mouth Word-of-Mouth Marketing buzz marketing viral marketing marketing communication

Beyond Buzz: The Next Generation of Word-of-Mouth Marketing

What's all the buzz about? According to Lois Kelly, this isn't the most important question to ask.

Lois has written a new book called Beyond Buzz: The Next Generation of Word-of-Mouth Marketing. In her book she writes that companies need to focus more on making meaning with their customers (or other stakeholders) than in generating buzz.

"Making meaning" can sound awfully abstract but she provides a practical, how-to guide for marketing professionals so they can figure out the best way to navigate this new world of conversational marketing.

We hear a lot these days about how companies need to "get into the conversation" but her book makes this very concrete and tangible, peppered with examples from actual companies who have done so successfully (or not so successfully).

My favorite chapter is "Building a 'talk' Culture" (Chapter 8) which goes into how companies need to rethink how they organize themselves. The table on page 167 "New Functions, New Competencies" is especially interesting. It lists eight functions that are needed to do conversational marketing, what the traditional roles were, and what the new competencies are.

Most of all, she shows how communication and conversations are central to the lifeblood of organizations, and that it's essential to develop the requisite skill sets for people throughout the organization.

Lois is on the Industry Advisory Board of my academic department at Northeastern University and we have worked on a number of projects before, including a study about influencer relationships between commercial real estate developers and key environmental, governmental, and community influencers. I love her energy, passion, and engaging style.

Becuase we worked together before I had a chance to read an early draft of the manuscript and write a blurb for the back cover. Here are the four blurbs I wrote for the book (I couldn't decide which one to use so I asked the editor to choose; she picked the first one):

#1: The Cluetrain Manifesto was a call for corporations to wake up to the global conversations about them, and potentially with them. In Beyond Buzz, Lois Kelly gives corporations the practical tools to answer that call.

#2: Many companies mistakenly think that word-of-mouth marketing is only about creating buzz for a product or service. Lois Kelly shows why this view is too narrow and that what's really needed is meaningful dialogue with customers, employees, shareholders, and community members. If you're struggling to get beyond buzz, and want a step-by-step guide for doing so, then read this book.

#3: Lois Kelly offers a lucid, step-by-step guide for companies to not only survive, but thrive, in a world of conversational marketing.

#4: Lois Kelly gets the point that word-of-mouth marketing is not just about creating buzz for a product or service, but that it's about engaging in meaningful dialogue with customers, employees, shareholders, and community members. Read this book so you can get the point too!

On a side note, I love the cover and it reminds me of my recent trip to Istanbul where I learned about "cumbas" (pronounced djoombas). Cumbas are covered balconies, usually very close in proximity to one another, where people (typically women) would talk and share stories with one another. In short, a cultural venue for word of mouth!

Best wishes with your new book Lois!

-->
Tags: WOM word of mouth Word-of-Mouth Marketing buzz marketing viral marketing marketing communication

From Superman to Super Talk

Today I'm in Las Vegas at the Bally's Hotel and Casino for the "From Superman to Super Talk" conference hosted by Icosystem, an innovative company based in Cambridge, MA. This day-long conference is poised to advance the art and science of WOM marketing measurement and modeling, especially through the use of complexity science to model complex human processes like consumer behavior.

After some opening remarks by Paolo Gaudiano, Chief Technology Officer at Icosystem, I lead off a series of presentations. My talk is entitled "State-of-the-Art Research Efforts in Word-of-Mouth". I'll be talking about three main topics: 1) how WOM and social media are being tracked and measured, 2) how to measure conversational reach and outcomes from WOM marketing programs (I'll be providing a sneak peek at some research from one of my latest projects -- stay tuned for more), and 3) the opportunities and limitations of using likelihood to recommend measures as an organizational discipline and to tie to key business outcomes.

I'm very excited to hear the other presenters as well. The CEO and Chief Scientific Officer of Icosystem, Eric Bonabeau, will be presenting, as well as folks from GSD&M Advertising, Humana, BzzAgent, and The Monitor Group. The final session is a panel discussion on existing solutions for WOM marketing, facilitated by Ken Nicholson, the former CEO of Veridiem. Definitely check out the agenda for details.

-->
Tags: WOM word of mouth Word-of-Mouth Marketing buzz marketing viral marketing marketing communication

WOMBP: March 2007 Update

The latest version of the WOM Marketing Communication Bibliography Project (WOMBP) is now uploaded. You can access it at my download page.

Here's the background of the project and details of the contributors.

Below are new entries in this version (these aren't necessarily new studies, they just weren't included in the last update):

Barber, B. M., C. Heath, et al. (2003). "Good Reasons Sell: Reason-Based Choice Among Group and Individual Investors in the Stock Market." Management Science 49(12): 1636-1652.

Heath, C. and D. Heath (2006). "The curse of knowledge." Harvard Business Review 84(12): 20-23.

Heath, C. and D. Heath (2007). "Finding just enough of that sticky stuff (Book Excerpt)." Brandweek 48(1): 21-25.

Weiner, M. and D. Bartholomew (2006). "Dispelling the Myth of PR Multipliers and Other Inflationary Audience Measures." Institute for Public Relations.

-->
Tags: WOM word of mouth Word-of-Mouth Marketing buzz marketing viral marketing marketing communication

First WOMM Conference Turkey (& My Presentation Slides)

Kudos to the MediaCat team for hosting the First Word-of-Mouth Marketing Conference in Turkey. It was truly impressive. The conference was well organized and the meeting room was impressively designed and branded (per the picture above). The lobby outside was chock full of vendors, even with a booth giving away free cigarettes (very odd to see this being from the States).

The room was packed full, with some people standing in the back of the room (though later someone pointed out there were a few seats available so they could sit down). I don't have the final count but 400-500 were expected and given the room was full I would assume the numbers were somewhere in the range.

Representatives from a number of the major brands in Turkey were present and at various levels of the corporate food chain. There were also two invited bloggers chronicling the event -- I'll try to find links to their pages***. And, there were even a couple of PhD students who drove 7 1/2 hours just to see the presentations.

A PDF file of my slides are posted at my download page (after the registration screen navigate to "Presentations").

If this conference is any indication, Turkey is definitely ready for WOM!

Download My Presentation


*** Here are the links to the Turkish bloggers at the event: Alemsah Ozturk and Alper Akcan Here's their presentation. Thanks to Hilal Betin for providing these links!

-->
Tags: WOM word of mouth Word-of-Mouth Marketing buzz marketing viral marketing marketing communication

Merhaba from Istanbul!

Hello from Istanbul, Turkey! I am here for the First Word of Mouth Marketing Conference in this country's rich history. The conference is taking place at the swanky Swissotel Istanbul European banks of the Bosphorus and hosted by MediaCat.

The conference starts tomorrow and will feature three speakers from the U.S. (Dave Balter, George Silverman, and myself) and then two people from Turkey (Dr. Yanki Yazgan and Renan Tavukcuoglu). My speech will focus on WOM measurement (the three key points will be social media analysis, tracking conversational reach and outcomes, and the pros and cons of using likelihood to recommend scores to measure advocacy and ROI). Speaker bios are here. The organizers are expecting 400-500 [[UPDATE: 500-600!]] people and it's received quite a bit of press coverage here.

For example, this morning (Monday) I was interviewed for a business show that airs on CNN Turk called "Business Lunch." I was asked to explain what WOM marketing was, how it can be measured, and what companies in Turkey need to know about it. I hope to get the video as it was my first live TV interview (the last TV interview I did was for the Chronicle and I had the opportunity to ask "Can we try that one more time?" -- live TV is much more of a rush).

Here's what I have learned about WOM and social media in Turkey thus far, mainly from a representative from the UnitePR agency who made arrangements for the CNN interview:

- Traditional hotbeds of word-of-mouth activity are the marketplaces, such as the grand bazaar, and across the streets from balcony (cumba) to the next.

- Turkish people pride themselves on their rich historical traditions of being passionate storytellers (think Homer and Herodotus).

- On the social media front, blogs are around though they seem to be used much for discussing news items and politics. WOM seems to be most amplified via e-mail chains and groups. (Spam apparently used to be a problem here but due to the companies responsible realizing it really wasn't that effective, and better filtering technology, it's not such a big deal anymore.) Apparently there are some discussion forums that are popular discussing the issues of moms and kids. There don't seem to be any firms currently analyzing social media in Turkey now, at least to my knowledge (Nathan Gilliat hasn't identified any here yet). But I think it's only a matter of time.

- Rumors about certain companies seem to be especially prevalent, and most often spread through e-mail chains.

I hope to learn more especially from the Dr. Yazgan and Ms. Tavukcuoglu. Looking forward to tomorrow!

-->
Tags: WOM word of mouth Word-of-Mouth Marketing buzz marketing viral marketing marketing communication

Responding to the Contributions of Citizen Marketers

In my class on Word of Mouth, Buzz, and Viral Marketing Communication I was fortunate to have Jackie Huba visit. Jackie and Ben McConnell, her co-author, are on tour discussing their new book Citizen Marketers: When People Are the Message. A fascinating part of our discussion during her visit was about the role of social media and how companies should respond to citizen marketers (those who generate their own content and advocacy for and about companies).

Jackie believes the true power in social media lies in its ability to foster long-term loyalty and advocacy between companies and customers. While shorter-term campaigns that accomplish strategically important goals have their place in the mix, she feels that ultimately social media and the contributions of citizen marketers is a long-term process of engagement and dialogue. This is what lies behind, at least in part, the following statement in their book: "Social media is the antidote to campaign-based thinking" (p. 172).

Another fascinating part of our discussion was how companies should respond to the contributions of citizen marketers. I set the context for the question by giving the example of how McDonald's has responded to the contributions of McChronicles (a blog that was discussed in the Citizen Marketers book). I then asked Jackie if there were any guidelines she could offer companies about if and how to respond. She said that each case comes with its own set of opportunities and constraints but that there were at least two principles that could be generalized.

First, find out if you have citizen marketers and what they are saying and doing (most companies are surprised to learn of their advocates and detractors actively working for or against their brands).

Second, if you do (and most companies do!), consider reaching out to them, say that you saw their contributions (for example, it may be a blog or podcast), thank them for their contributions, and ask them if there's anything the company can do to help them with their efforts (or, to address concerns if there are detracting comments). Sometimes the company may not be able to help the citizen marketers in the way they might want (for example, certain legal matters might restrict them), but some times they can. And sometimes the citizen marketer expects nothing.

For example, according to my brief e-mail interview with the author of the McChronicles blog at the end of January 2007, the author responds to my question of what type of response he is looking for from McDonald's, if any. He writes:

I expect nothing. I hope only that the voice of the faceless, average fast-food consumer is heard. I feel that what we want is simple - delivery on the promise. We don't go to McDonald's for tire balancing or for exceptional table service. They have never promised either. What we want is Quality (in the realm of fast-food), Service (in the realm of fast-food), Cleanliness (in the realm of known and standard sanitary practices), and Value (when compared to all the competition). Why? Becasue QSCV is McDonald's mantra - they taught us to expect this.

I think this is precisely Jackie's point about social media. Any social media efforts have to be part of a broader effort of long-term loyalty and advocacy which is fundamentally about a social contract between companies and consumers (and other stakeholders I might add, such as community members affected by what the company does).

The two points Jackie raises about different ways of engaging in customer conversations fit very nicely into an informal model I've been developing, with the help of others, about different levels of engagement and involvement with social media. I invited those interested to read and comment on that post as well.

This post is derived from a post on my teaching blog.

-->
Tags: WOM word of mouth Word-of-Mouth Marketing buzz marketing viral marketing marketing communication citizen marketers engagement

WOM Program Planner: A Tool for Organizations to Align WOM Initiatives with Objectives

In addition to my academic research and teaching I really enjoy working with organizations of various kinds in a consultative role. In one particular engagement where I was presenting about the WOM and social media industry I learned that someone wanted to develop a guide or check-list that could be distributed throughout the company to aid the planning of word of mouth initiatives (kind of like a "if you want to accomplish x, then do y" guide).

My first thought, though I didn't mention this to the person at the time, was that anything like that would ultimately be too much like a recipe and "cookie-cutter," resulting in uninspired use of the various WOM techniques available to companies. I still think this is a danger, but I also liked what this person was saying: that people, especially those trying to get a handle on WOM (and especially in a large, global company), could use a helpful framework to get people up-to-speed quickly. The Word of Mouth Marketing Association (disclosure: advisory board member) has done a good job with their WOM101 guide, but I'd like to take up the challenge of providing a quick primer that could be used as a planning tool that matches objectives with techniques to accomplish those objectives.

(By the way, another reason I did this was because a common myth about WOM marketing is that it's only used for promotion or for the launch of a new product; I wanted to provide a range of objectives for which WOM techniques can be used).

I offer the following as a work in progress. I'm sure there will be some disagreement about what I've done here, and I've probably erred on the side of making this too simplistic, but it's a start and I would appreciate people's feedback. Here's what I did:

Download WOM Program Planner (PDF)

I placed the more common objectives of WOM programs across the top row, and listed some of the more common techniques down the left column, resulting in a grid. These aren't exhaustive, but I could only fit so many on a PowerPoint slide!

Common Objectives for WOM Programs:

- Customer insight and innovation
- Generating awareness and pass-along
- Crafting favorable brand perceptions
- Engendering purchase intentions and driving sales
- Diminishing impact of negative WOM

Common Techniques or Initiatives for WOM Programs (see WOM101 for more details):

- Conversation Tracking (monitoring and tracking brand-related conversations in online and offline venues)

- Community Creation and Management (providing people with like-minded interests a platform for dialogue and belonging with one another and the company)

- Brand Advocacy or Evangelist Programs (mobilizing loyal, passionate customers to advocate on behalf of the brand)

- Managing Service Experience (providing superior customer service and service recovery)

- Blog Marketing (managing a company or product/service-related blog and/or engaging others in the blogosphere or other online venues)

- Influencer Marketing (identifying people who are especially influential within social networks and engaging them)

- Viral Marketing (making it easy for people to spread the word on behalf of a brand, especially in an online environment, and especially using content this humorous, provocative, or otherwise entertaining)

Then, I can match and rank the relative value of each technique for each objective. I used "Low" (not particularly useful or not commonly used to achieve that objective), "Medium" (a pretty good fit), and "High" (optimal fit).

So, let's run through a couple of easy examples (view WOM Program Planner):

- Viral marketing tends to be really useful for creating awareness and stimulating pass-along, but there is a danger of the resulting communication to be about the campaign itself and not about the brand (see WOM creationist for further details). While there may be instances where viral marketing drives sales, this is less frequently the case and often times not the primary goal. Whereas, for example, advocacy programs and influencer programs may be especially well-suited for generating intentions to purchase or use the brand.

- Private, branded communities are especially useful in generating customer insight and innovation. Tracking WOM episodes in online and offline venues can be especially helpful for this, in addition to identify trends and identifying who is particularly influential on a topic.

- Managing the customer service experience and service recovery is an excellent way to manage negative WOM. It's not necessarily designed to stimulate pass-along across many generations of people (even if we're really satisfied with the customer service experience I may tell a friend about it, but what's the impetus for that person to pass that message along as well?).

- Blog marketing and engagement can be especially robust in accomplishing a number of objectives (see Naked Conversations for a helpful overview).

- Identifying and reaching out to influencers (one of the classic WOM techniques for many decades is especially helpful in stimulating pass-along and generating purchase intentions. I ranked it "low" on diminishing negative WOM not because it can't be used for these purposes but because it often isn't (it tends to be more of a promotional activity to stimulate positive WOM and/or as part of a seeding initiative). However, a way that it could be used to diminish negative WOM is in a crisis containment and recovery scenario. For example, when Kryptonite was trying to to damage control after the whole "Bic pen" crisis, a representative from the company's PR department, Donna Tucci, identified a number of influential bloggers and online community members to engage them and explain the company's response (see this interview, for example). This was helpful in curtailing at least some of the negative WOM that was spreading about Kryptonite's response.

A less helpful way to use the WOM Program Planner is as a set of "answers"; a more useful way is to facilitate discussion about possible avenues. For example, what are the pros and cons of using technique X? Or how can technique Y be used to accomplish our objective Z?

As I mentioned above, I'd be interested in constructive criticism from those experienced in the ways of WOM and those trying to get a handle on it, so that this tool can become more useful to individuals and organizations.

Download WOM Program Planner (PDF)

-->
Tags: WOM word of mouth Word-of-Mouth Marketing buzz marketing viral marketing marketing communication WOM Program Planner

Predicting the Future of Connected Marketing

Along with a number of other folks, I've been contacted by Justin Kirby, co-editor with Dr. Paul Marsden of Connected Marketing: The Viral, Buzz, and Word of Mouth Revolution, to comment on whether or not the predictions for the future of connected marketing he made at the end of that book were right or wrong or have come true or not. He made the following 10 predictions in 2005 (my thoughts on each below):

1. Connected marketing will become more strategic, with the focus shifting from promotion (creating remarkable campaigns) to innovation (creating remarkable products).

I believe that CM will become more strategic. Some early companies seemed to experiment with WOM initiatives, especially more on the promotion end, because they may have had some extra money around from a media buy that wasn't spent. Other companies had a very intuitive sense of the role of WOM and factored this in to their strategic decision-making but weren't necessarily very formal or explicit about it. Now, however, I see much more thought going into how WOM initiatives are part of an integrated program. I would say that since companies may have experimented with promotional strategies early on that more money will be shifting into the insight and innovation aspects, but I think that smart companies will figure out that insight, innovation, and promotional goals are all important, at various times and to various degrees. Of course, my empirical base of information on this is anecdotal because there isn't yet continuously-tracked industry data about this. I'd love to see the Word of Mouth Marketing Association track the resource allocation of this, perhaps in concert with other industry associations.

2. ROI metrics will be mandatory for viral, buzz and word of mouth campaigns. ‘Advocacy rates’ and ‘sales uplift’ will become important parts of ROI metrics, displacing traditional measures such as campaign reach.

Indeed, that's definitely a take-away message from the second volume of Measuring Word of Mouth (published by WOMMA; disclosure: I edited the volume). There is increasingly more demand for accountability and ROI metrics. I still think campaign reach will be a factor, though, because companies will want ways to compare their WOM initiatives (especially more of the "promotional" variety) with other media and marketing channels and initiatives (and old habits are well ingrained). I think what you'll see is a metric that provides a sense of the relative value of a conversation versus another kind of media impression. I do agree with you that sales uplift will definitely be important and I think increasingly we'll see agent-based models used to help assess the role of WOM relative to other media and marketing channels to assess that. Further, we'll see greater refinement of advocacy metrics, especially those related to intention to recommend and actual recommendation behaviors.

3. Word of mouth tracking will become a key metric in brand tracking market research.

Yep, absolutely. And yep, we're seeing this as companies like Nielsen BuzzMetrics, Cymfony, BrandIntel, Keller Fay, etc. see their client lists grow. See Nathan Gilliat's blog for more details.

4. Buzz, viral and word of mouth marketing will be merged into the wider marketing mix, with online viral marketing adopted and integrated within advertising, word of mouth within promotions and buzz within PR.

Yes and no. I think buzz, viral, and WOM will be merged into the ongoing operations of the firm, across many different areas. Yes, online viral marekting will be integrated within advertising, but I think even more traditional advertising messages will need to take into account the pass-along effects of WOM in order to calculate their true value (there's a great article by Hogan, Lemon, and Libai on quantifying the ripple effect of advertisements and tying it to a customer lifetime value approach). But I wouldn't limit "word of mouth" to just promotions (I guess it depends on definitions here as you use "connected marketing" as the umbrella term and I use "WOM" as an umbrella term). For example, I consider WOM to also be a source of innovation and customer insight. I think PR will take up buzz strategies but equally important is figuring out ways to engage their stakeholders in a variety of environments, such as discussion groups, blogs, online and offline communities, etc.

5. Managing and avoiding negative word of mouth, online and offline, will be an increasingly important area in connected marketing.

Yep, absolutely. And not enough attention has been paid to managing NWOM. A good bit of this can be done in managing the service recovery process but also in tracking and learning from existing WOM, especially regarding innovation.

6. Online branded entertainment (advertainment, advergaming, alternate reality games) will be used more as key brand touch-points for entertainment brands.

I think so, but we're seeing it used beyond entertainment brands as well. Check out some of the case studies on the websites of PodDesign and M80 for example.

7. Techniques developed in connected marketing initiatives will be adopted for change management and internal communication.

Yes, indeed. Internal blogs can be a great knowledge management tool. Enabling and empowering employees (principles of WOM) is important so that they have the tools and skills to create effective relationships with customers and other stakeholders (though see Chapter 6 of the book Loyalty Myths [pp. 153-168] for some important cautions about the relationship between employee performance and customer loyalty and profitability).

8. Techniques developed in viral, buzz and word of mouth will be increasingly adopted in CRM programs as both retention and acquisition (turning buyers into advocates) tools.

It would be great to use CRM programs in this way. It's especially important to think about segmenting customers appropriately and designing CM initiatives that are tailored for them.

9. Cell phones will develop rapidly as an important medium for spreading connected marketing promotions, such as mobile invitations, SMS barcode discounts, etc.

Yes, I think we are starting to see this. I think it will be important to distinguish. though, how much of cell phones, as a medium, are being used in "push" versus "pull" programs.

10. Marketers will eventually be able to locate influencers by zip/post code, by which point they will be all chasing the same chosen few… Prepare for another paradigm shift in marketing?

Of course, influencers differ by product category, not just by zip/post code, but I think your point is that as methods to identify influencers become more "efficient" (from the firm's perspective) they may be overloaded with programs. I think what continues to remain important is providing programs that are strategically in line with the company's goals, relevant to the participants involved, and that leverage motivations for why people spread positive WOM (for example, altruism, status, personal and social expression after a delightful experience, reducing risk and uncertainty, etc.).

Interestingly I noticed that there were no predictions about any of the ethical concerns regarding disclosure, commercialization of chit-chat, and working with minors. These were hugely important issues for the industry, and will continue to be, so I'd add that in as well. I know you have a lot of thoughts on this so I'd encourage you to add it is as part of your assessment.

Good luck with your article. I'm anxious to see what others say and what your own reflections are!

UPDATE (2/13/2007): If readers of this blog would like to contribute their own thoughts on Justin's predictions then feel free to do so at the Connected Marketing site by contributing to this survey.

UPDATE (2/19/2007): My comment about the lack of predictions regarding ethics doesn't imply that Justin doesn't have a position on this important topic. Interested readers should read his final chapter in the Connected Marketing text where he addresses the topic of ethics and connected marketing programs. My comment was only pointing out that ethics wasn't mentioned specifically in the 10 predictions, not that Justin didn't cover the topic of ethics in his chapter.

-->
Tags: WOM word of mouth Word-of-Mouth Marketing buzz marketing viral marketing marketing communication connected marketing

How To Stay Out of the Limelight of a Marketing Controversy

I've been invited to speak to the Public Relations Student Society of America group at Emerson College tomorrow night to reflect on the Aqua Teen guerilla marketing program gone wrong and to speak about my work with the Word of Mouth Marketing Association.

The latest development with the Aqua Teen Hunger Force guerilla campaign is that Turner Broadcasting and Interference Inc have accepted full responsibility for the panic caused by the campaign and agreed to pay $2,000,000 for damages (about $1 million) and future emergency preparedness programs (another $1 million). I have to think Turner is gonna cover all of this.

On NPR tonight I also heard that the charges against Peter Berdovsky and Sean Stevens, the two individuals who placed the LED devices in Boston, will be "resolved."

Interference Inc has also put its website back online (it had been offline for a couple days, and then at one point, only included an apology in black lettering on a white background).

One of the charts I'd like to show in our discussion is the graph above from the DIY BlogPulse trend tool. There's a huge spike and then a significant drop off. Based on volume, Aqua Teen Hunger Force has definitely benefited (which should help for the release of the upcoming movie). Turner Broadcasting had much more attention than usual, but interestingly Interference Inc. has still stayed relatively out of a lot of the public discussion on this.

There is a fascinating parallel here to another controversial campaign with which Interference was involved: the Sony Ericsson Fake Tourist campaign (go to Interference's website and click on "case studies" and then "Sony Ericsson"). According to Interference's website, they created the Fake Tourist campaign on behalf of Fathom Communications. However, when you see the CBS 60 Minutes "Undercover Marketing Uncovered" show (2003) where this campaign was brought to the attention of many in the mainstream, Interference (or Fathom Communications) was never mentioned, just Sony Ericsson. However, in the Wall Street Journal article from 2002, Fathom Communications was credited for the campaign.

Both of the campaigns raise concerns about disclosure of the fact that there is a marketing campaign involved. Interested readers may want to check out Sean Carton's ClickZ article on lessons that can be learned from the ill-conceived Aqua Teen campaign. He was kind of enough to mention my research on the role of disclosure in WOM marketing campaigns and I've had people downloading my "To Tell Or Not To Tell?" report all day today.

I look forward to talking with the faculty and students at Emerson tomorrow about these issues and more!

-->
Tags: WOM word of mouth Word-of-Mouth Marketing buzz marketing viral marketing marketing communication

Psst, Marketers, Don't Mess With Homeland Security!

As I'm sure you've heard by now, a series of suspicious devices were found around Boston leading to concerns about a terrorist plot and the shutdown of major travel arteries, including "T" lines (Boston's subway system, the first in the nation), portions of Interstate 93, Storrow Drive (in my opinion, the essential roadway to know to navigate Boston), and even a portion of Charles river. The first device was found at Sullivan Square in Charlestown (since both Northeastern and Sullivan Square are on the Orange T line this caused a bit of inconvenience for folks coming into campus).

Of course, we now know this was part of a guerilla marketing stunt to generate buzz around the animated television series "Aqua Teen Hunger Force" which airs on the Cartoon Network (UPDATE: The show appears on Adult Swim which shares channel space with the Cartoon Network; Cartoon Network by day, Adult Swim by night). The devices were actually LED devices depicting a character from the show (flashing the middle finger, which is how they greet others; see these photos on BoingBoing).

Well, it worked to generate buzz (see the BlogPulse chart above), but perhaps not the kind that the marketing firm Interference, Inc., or its client Turner Broadcasting, were hoping for (NOTE: I believe I heard Interference was the marketing company involved on an NPR show this morning or in a newspaper article; could someone please confirm this?). According to the Metro, Thomas Menino, the mayor of Boston, called the stunt an "act of corporate greed" and promised to hold the executives accountable for the actions, including the $500,000 in public safety expenses it cost the City of Boston (from the Metro article it seems that the executives of Turner are on the hook and not necessarily the marketing firm). Two people have already been arrested, Peter Berdvosky and Sean Stevens, who are the two allegedly responsible for placing the devices in Boston. The penalty for placing such hoax devices is two to five years for every device found.

As a student in my class on WOM, Buzz, and Viral Marketing Communication stated, you'd think they would have notified the cities involved -- Boston, New York, LA, Chicago, Atlanta, Seattle, Portland, Austin, San Franscisco, and Philadelphia -- that they were doing this (though I wondered what the City's response would have been). Turner Broadcasting has apologized for the stunt.

The Boston Globe wrote an interesting story where they reported a generation gap in the perception of the suspicious devices. According to the article, a 22-year old design student clearly knew that it was part of an advertising campaign, but a subway worker at the Sullivan Square T station didn't know what it was and called the police.

I did a little searching and came across an interview from 2001 with the CEO of Interference, Sam Ewen. Here's an excerpt:

Q: Guerilla marketing has that obtrusive element that can hurt a campaign too. What's the trick to make sure it's appealing and not annoying?

If you put the effort into the campaign, it isn't obtrusive at all. Of course, there is good and bad marketing. The goal is not just to be there but to be there at the right time and in the right place.

If you're on your way to work in the morning and someone hands you a free cup of coffee with a promotional message, that's something can catch your eye. But, we're not going to give you free tickets to a comedy club at 7:30 in the morning. Good guerilla marketers target you for who you are and what you like to do.

The interview was July 25, 2001, which is pre the 9/11 concerns and it looks like guerilla marketers need to take this into consideration as well.

This generational issue is pretty interesting to me. When I discuss various kinds of marketing tactics in class that many people (often 30+) seem to question (for example, some guerilla tactics or some stealth marketing tactics), many of my students (generally 18-24) are less concerned and suggest that "this is how things are" nowadays and "it's what you have to do to get noticed". This is clearly not a universal opinion among the students I've talked with but it's certainly not a minority opinion either.

This will certainly be a topic of discussion in my WOM, Buzz, and Viral Marketing Communication class tomorrow morning. It will be a great opportunity to distinguish "generating buzz" (a campaign designed to elicit talk about the topic of the campaign, but often the talk is about the campaign itself) from "word of mouth advocacy" (based on having a quality brand experience) which has been a topic of discussion in class and our readings. As I mentioned above, one of my students has already posted about this on our class blog. Keep an eye on it as students post their comments and other thoughts.

A couple other thoughts: if these devices were planted in nine other cities why didn't this cause the same concern in other cities? And according to the Metro, these devices may have been planted 2-3 weeks ago -- if this really was a homeland security concern, how come it took folks this long to find them?

UPDATE: Artists stage a protest in support of the two men charged thus far: Peter Berdvosky and Sean Stevens. Many suggest it's Turner, not the two individuals who were hired to place the devices, that are culpable.

UPDATE: Boston Globe reports that Interference Marketing Inc. told Peter Berdvosky to stay quite about his role in placing the devices because the campaign was inciting panic in Boston.

UPDATE: Read about how much faster individual citizens were in reporting the events relative to when mainstream media picked up the stories.

UPDATE: BBC News in the UK has picked up the story (hat tip to Justin Kirby).

UPDATE: Look at how much buzz Aqua Teen is getting compared to Turner and how little the marketing company is getting (Interference Marketing).

-->
Tags: WOM word of mouth Word-of-Mouth Marketing buzz marketing viral marketing marketing communication

WOMBP: February 2007 Update

The latest version of the WOM Marketing Communication Bibliography Project (WOMBP) is now uploaded. You can access it at my download page.

Here's the background of the project and details of the contributors.

Below are new entries in this version (these aren't necessarily new studies, they just weren't included in the last update):

Akande, A. and F. Odewale (1994). "One More Time: How to Stop Company Rumours." Leadership & Organization Development Journal 15(4): 27-30.

Archer, N. P. and G. O. Wesolowsky (1994). "A dynamic service quality cost model with word-of-mouth advertising." European Journal of Operational Research 78(3): 355-366.

Arnould, E. J. and C. J. Thompson (2005). "Consumer Culture Theory (CCT): Twenty Years of Research." Journal of Consumer Research 31: 868-882.

Athanassopoulos, A., S. Gounaris, et al. (2001). "Behavioural responses to customer satisfaction: an empirical study." European Journal of Marketing 35(5/6): 687-707.

Bond, J. and R. Kirshenbaum (1998). "Under the Radar: Talking to Today's Cynical Consumer."

Cooil, B., T. L. Keiningham, et al. (2007). "A Longitudinal Analysis of Customer Satisfaction and Share of Wallet: Investigating the Moderating Effect of Customer Characteristics." Journal of Marketing 71: 67-83.

Coulter, R. A., L. L. Price, et al. (2003). "Rethinking the Origins of Involvement and Brand Commitment: Insights from Postsocialist Central Europe." Journal of Consumer Research 30.

Creelman, J. (1992). "Word of mouth." Managing Service Quality 2(5).

Delgadillo, Y. and J. Edson (2004). "Narrative Word-of-Mouth Communication: Exploring Memory and Attitude Effects of Consumer Storytelling." Advances in Consumer Research 31: 186-192.

DeVany, A. and C. Lee (2000). "Quality signals in information cascades and the dynamics of the distribution of motion picture box office revenues." Journal of Economic Dynamics & Control 25: 593-614.

Dodson, J. A. and E. Muller (1978). "Models of New Product Diffusion through Advertising and Word-of-Mouth." Management Science 24(15): 1568-1578.

Donavan, D. T., J. C. Mowen, et al. (1999). "Urban Legends: The Word-of-Mouth Communication of Morality Through Negative Story Content." Marketing Letters 10(1): 23-34.

Feldman, S. (1994). "The Talk of the Town." Management Review April: 36-41.

Fisk, G. (1969). "Word of Mouth Advertising Review." Journal of Marketing Research February: 112.

Gelb, B. D. and S. Sundaram (2002). "Adapting to "word of mouse"." Business Horizons July-August: 21-25.

Hausman, A. V. (2003). "Professional service relationships: a multi-context study of factors impacting satisfaction, re-patronization, and recommendations." Journal of Services Marketing 17(3): 226-242.

Jain, D., V. Mahajan, et al. (1995). "An Approach for Determining Optimal Product Sampling for the Diffusion of a New Product." Journal of Product Innovations Management 12: 124-135.

Kleinfeld, J. (2001). "Six Degrees of Separation: An Urban Myth?" Forthcoming.

Kleinfeld, J. (2002). "Could It Be a Big World?" Forthcoming.

Kover, A. J. (1976). "Careers and Noncommunication: THe Case of Academic and Applied Marketing Research." Journal of Marketing Research 13: 339-344.

Kumar, V. and T. V. Krishnan (2002). "Research Note Multinational Diffusion Models: An Alternative Framework." Marketing Science 21(3): 318-330.

Langer, J. (1997). "What Consumers Wish Brand Managers Knew." Jounral of Advertising Research November - December: 60-65.

Lau, G. T. (Sophia Ng). "Individual and Situational Factors Influencing Negative Word-of-Mouth Behavior." Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences 18(3): 163-178.

Mahajan, V., E. Muller, et al. "New Product Diffusion Models in Marketing: A Review and Directions for Research." Journal of Marketing 54: 1-26.

Morone, P. and R. Taylor (2005). "Knowledge diffusion dynamics and network properties of face-to-face interactions." Journal of Evolutionary Economics 14: 327-351.

Preston, I. L. (1985). "The Developing Detachment of Advertising Research from the Study of Advertisers' Goals." Current Issues & Research in Advertising: 1-15.

Rao, A. G. and M. Yamada (1988). "Forecasting with a Repeat Purchase Diffusion Model." Management Science 34(6): 734-752.

Rosen, D. E., J. E. Schroeder, et al. (1998). "Marketing High Tech Products: Lessons in Customer Focus from the Marketplace." Academy of Marketing Science Review 6: 1-19.

Ryu, G. and L. Feick (2007). "A Penny for Your Thoughts: Referral Reward Programs and Referral Liklihood." Jounral of Marketing 71: 84-94.

Sultan, F., J. U. Farley, et al. (1990). "A Meta-Analysis of Applications of Diffusion Models." Jounral of Marketing Research 27: 70-77.

Taylor, S. A. and G. L. Hunter (2002). "The impact of loyalty with e-CRM software and e-services." International Journal of Service Industry Management 13(5): 452-474.

Warrington, T. (2001). "Book Review: The Secrets of Word-of-Mouth Marketing: How to Trigger Exponential Sales through Runaway Word of Mouth." Journal of Consumer Marketing 19(4): 364-366.

-->
Tags: WOM word of mouth Word-of-Mouth Marketing buzz marketing viral marketing marketing communication