Isabel Walcott Draves

Are You Husband Material?

Funny how the same people who persuaded us it was OK to switch brands are now pissed off that we're switching brands!!  Talk about karma.

There's been a groundswell of complaint from Ad Agencies and the BigCo's they work for that America's customers are losing brand loyalty.  Some JWT genius has coined the term "sluts" for those who change brands flexibly, probably because greater than 80% of all household purchasing decisions are made by women.  Including those you wouldn't necessarily expect to be made mostly by women, like 66% of computer purchases, 62% of online purchases, 70% of ringtone purchases, and 74% of all NBA and NFL apparel.

Well, what if we just haven't found Mr. Right yet?  As some folks (like Howard Greenstein) have pointed out, what if we're really looking for marriage?  Are you husband material?  Good Word of Mouth Marketing campaigns are about establishing a relationship with your customers.  Bad ones are about trying for a one-night stand.

Getting it Right

A.G. Lafley has been CEO of P&G since 2000. We know P&G gets it to some extent, because they copied SmartGirl.com when they started their teen-girl community.  They also have Tremor, doing sampling and word-of-mouth marketing with the teen community.  But who knew that they "get it" all the way up at the top?

Lafley talks about stakeholders, not shareholders. Just as I recommend!  And the Wall Street Journal called him on this (The CEO as Global Corporate Ambassador). "What does this mean exactly? Who isn’t a stakeholder? What about the shareholders?" Etc.

I don’t know much about Lafley, but this article made him into a star in my eyes. He recognizes that the company is about its employees, its customers, and the communities it pollutes or offends or assists or just interacts with. In short, Lafley recognizes that everyone matters, even if they don’t hold the purse-strings… because ultimately, they do hold the purse-strings.

The arrival of the Internet has given stakeholders a loudspeaker, and allowed them to broadcast opinions that can impact the bottom line. What used to be simply ethically correct or just the "right thing to do", like helping those displaced by Hurricane Katrina or meeting face to face with animal rights activists, has become essential to running a good business. If you want long-term, loyal customers and free advertising (read: good Word of Mouth)

Steven Milloy of the "Free Enterprise Action Fund" doesn’t get it. He thinks it’s a conflict of interest for the CEO of Goldman to be board chair for the Nature Conservancy (because protecting the environment is not in the best interests of the companies they invest in!). He’ll attend GE’s annual shareholder meeting to take the company to task for acknowledging global warming. "The role of these companies is to increase society’s wealth by generating shareholder wealth," Milloy claims.

Yeah, but companies make money by building a customer base. America is built on choice—remember the anti-trust laws? If we don’t like what one company is doing, we can shop elsewhere. Finally, thanks to the Internet, we can tell each other which companies are doing good; and everyone can do their part to make sure that companies that do bad also do poorly. Either Milloy doesn’t recognize this, or he is in denial about the power of customers. We’re not your hostages anymore!

Milloy probably thinks of himself as a great patriot, protecting American ideals. When you think about what America is really about, though, it’s Lafley who gets it right. America is not about making money at the expense of your customers. Long-term, a company that works for all its stakeholders is going to do better for its shareholders, and likely to have more of them as well.

Insert Foot in (Word of) Mouth

I was fortunate last night to be invited to a small meeting of the trustees of the Wang Center in Boston.  The Wang Center is far more than the Wang and Shubert Theatres, lovely as they both are.  They have community art programs, dance lessons, and all kinds of things going on that more people need to find out about.  Someone suggested I come up with a tagline for them that describes what they do in a nutshell, so here it is.  Culture: it's not just for snobs anymore.  I don't think they'd like it, honestly!  But it's true, that's what they're doing.  More power to them.

Anyway, so there I was at this lovely cocktail party, and the topic of Word of Mouth Marketing comes up, and a lovely trustee asks me if I have heard of, what's it called, BzzAgent?  Now, the truth is that BzzAgent is doing a great job spreading the word of mouth marketing meme, and they have some amazingly successful campaigns.  They've also been working really hard to dispel the notion that they're covertly turning your friends into walking advertisements, by pushing openness and so forth.  You could say tons of good things about them.  I would recommend them to a client, certainly.

But what do I pick to bring up?  The New York Times Magazine article, The Hidden (in Plain Sight) Persuaders, which I called "negative" and, I said, led several companies to refuse to do business with them.

Before I knew what hit me, the elegant woman I was speaking with was defending BzzAgent with a passion, and I was left sputtering cluelessly in her passionate wake.  And then, and then, after an eternity, she said she was Dave Balter's mom (he's the founder). I felt myself getting dizzy and blacking out... the next thing I knew, I woke up and it was all a dream.

I wish!  No, it really happened... and here I am, new in town and all, hanging out my Word of Mouth Marketing shingle at all the hotspots.  Why wasn't I thinking that BzzAgent was a Boston company?  Why wasn't I looking more closely at her nametag?  Turns out Mrs. Balter was leading the trustee's meeting, too.  Sigh.  I wonder if she will ever forgive me.  Your son's company is awesome, Mrs. B!  You should be really proud of him!  I really mean it.  Damn.

We finished out the evening attending a reading of Tennesee William's Night of the Iguana at the Shubert.  Absolutely incredible, on so many levels.  Too bad that was the only performance, or I would buzz it.

A Great WOMM Campaign

I was so excited to see a Word of Mouth Marketing campaign that really resonates.  Hershey's "Take 5" candy bar campaign started last year with a $17M TV blitz that brought in $28M worth of sales (sounds like pretty slender margins to me, especially once you give 50% to the retailers).  Researchers discovered that people liked the candy, but not the DDB ads.  Step One of a good WOMM campaign: A product people really like.

The Take 5 brand switched to a new agency, Arnold, that could offer traditional and "nontraditional" marketing techniques - read, marketing that leverages a many-to-many network instead of relying on broadcast communication.  Hopefully Arnold is up to the task; they seem to have done great this time.  Step Two of a good WOMM campaign: marketers eager to leverage the network effect.

Arnold brought in 69,000 BzzAgent evangelists to pass out free samples.  Step Three of a good WOMM campaign: knowing when you need to call in the experts.

Hershey is also recruiting evangelists on its own Take 5 website, running ads on major websites to attract traffic, and passing out samples at movie theatres.  They have a cool "crane game" on their website that is actually fun.  It's smart of them not to rely on BzzAgent for their evangelists; but it also looks like they are sending their own evangelists to BzzAgent; I wonder who "owns" them and if they have established a dependency on their vendor.  Step Four of a good WOMM campaign: leveraging all aspects of your network.

I was thrilled to see that Hershey is also inviting fans to create their own 60-second commercials, and their website visitors will choose the winner.  This really creates a relationship with their customers, because it suggests that Hershey doesn't just view them as "consumers" with gaping mouths and bulging wallets, but as human beings with intelligence, creativity, and decisionmaking skills.  Hopefully this is actually Hershey's attitude... but even if they are just faking it, it's a step in the right direction.  Step Five of a good WOMM campaign: including an open-source marketing initiative.

Finally, the Take 5 website itself is responsible.  In obeisance to COPPA law, it lets kids know when they are leaving for another website, when information is about to be collected, and when something is an ad, and it does this in a clear, no-nonsense way.  Step Six of a good WOMM campaign: respecting your customer relationships.

Unfortunately, the Take 5 website only works if you have Flash, which is a way of insisting your viewers do things your way.  This is a mistake; those without full web capability should not be turned away at the door.  It violates step six.  And how hard is it to create a non-flash version of your website?  There's no excuse for this.  Next Time: Universalize your website.

If done right, this broad initiative is likely to be cheaper and more effective than last year's ad blitz.  Not-so-ironically, the only part of it that rings false to me is Arnold's TV ad campaign, "six 15-second spots humorously depicting how far consumers might go to get a Take 5 bar".  I haven't seen the ads, but if they are integrated with the website game, it sounds like a copy of "Harold and Kumar go to White Castle". 

Considering that the rest of the campaign is giving them away for free, for awhile they might be all over the place.  You might go to a friend's house and see 15 of them on the table, and the friend might invite you to "take as many as you want, they were free".  You're not exactly putting yourself out to acquire the candy bar when someone at the movie theatre presses it into your hand.  I highly approve of the sampling, but it should be paired with a campaign that, at minimum, makes sense taken in conjuction with a sampling initiative.  Next Time: integrate your broadcast campaign with your network campaign.

Meditation on Frosted Flakes

A recent $2 billion lawsuit brought against the Kellogg company for marketing sugar-laden products to children is reminiscent of successful suits against alcohol and cigarette companies, but may not pack the same punch due to the lack of scientific evidence of addiction.  The addictive quality of sugar is a topic not adequately explored in medical studies and popular culture, despite much research of alcoholism which must be similar in nature. 

According to a story in AdAge, Kellogg's cereal was invented without sugar, and then modified to include it, which appears to have greatly boosted its popularity.  As with the addition of nicotine to cigarettes (or caffeine to soda) the manufacturer presumably acted on clear signs that adding sugar to cereal would make it sell better.  Unsurprisingly, Kellogg's lower-sugar versions of Frosted Flakes and Froot Loops have languished on supermarket shelves (especially since they have nearly the same total calories and carb content).

It's difficult to reasonably blame companies for selling popular products when everyone knows they're unhealthy.  Suing Kellogg for making parents buy Frosted Flakes for their kids doesn't make much more sense than suing parents for giving Frosted Flakes to their kids.  Kellogg does offer healthier alternatives, so if you simply chose the right selection of Kellogg products and ate in moderation, you'd be fine.  So why do we have a lawsuit (aside from the standard fiscal motivations)?

Perhaps it's the duplicitous nature of Kellogg's advertising and the attitude some folks in the marketing, advertising and PR industry maintain.  A recent Kellogg press release trumpets, "Kellogg's Frosted Flakes Supports U.S. Olympic Hopefuls".  The marketing campaign features Olympic athletes (snowboarders, skiers and speedskaters) on cereal boxes and includes incentives to entice youths to visit the website.  The Frosted Flakes marketing campaign, we're told, aims to "raise kids' awareness about the importance of keeping fit". 

Who could argue that keeping fit is important?  Except... eating Frosted Flakes doesn't lead to fitness.  And that's not what the campaign is really for. It's to get people to buy and eat more Frosted Flakes. Sugar cereals are frequently advertised as being "part of" a "healthy" breakfast when eaten in conjuction with a number of other food items (of course the breakfast would be healthier if you skipped the cereal and just ate the other items).

Let's detour momentarily to explore the nutritional value of Frosted Flakes.  To eat one serving of Frosted Flakes, fill a teacup 3/4 full of Flakes.  Wait a minute... we all know we eat cereal in cereal bowls, not teacups.  Let's more realistically assume we use a teacup as a scoop and put two heaping scoops of Frosted Flakes in our cereal bowl.  That bowl now holds three servings of Frosted Flakes, which is 36 grams (9 teaspoons) of sugar.  That's how much sugar you'd get eating 1.25 Snickers bars.  (This doesn't even count the second bowl you might crave when the sugar letdown from finishing the first kicks in.)  Even if you did just have 3/4 of the teacup, it would hold double the sugar of what nutritionists recommend.

Purchasers are now less willing to tolerate the manipulation that has been common in the advertising industry for years. As mentioned often by Jerry Michalski et al, the very label "consumer" exemplifies companies' urge to use as opposed to cooperate with their customers.  The power of the customer is rising; we have begun to organize to reject "messages" that aren't presented in good faith.

If you ask me, advertising Frosted Flakes with a fitness campaign is more likely to drive negative consumer sentiment than defuse it. To their credit, Kellogg has started a potentially impressive "Earn Your Stripes" initiative to encourage youth fitness; but linking it with Frosted Flakes detracts from the integrity of the program and makes the whole thing look like a con.

WOMMA Spaz

Well, I'm back after a holiday hiatus.  And the event that inspired my return to the screen was today/s WOMBAT missive from WOMMA, that is to say, the email newsletter sent out by the Word of Mouth Marketing Association.

So, they have a little instruction sheet telling folks "How to Sell WOMM Internally" - seeing as it's so new that many companies are not yet on board in recognizing its importance.  This is a good idea, and -- a caveat from me -- I greatly appreciate WOMMA and what they are doing. I'm just giving them a playful tweak here.  Because number one on their list of how-tos is:

"Declare and promote yourself the WOM expert.  At large companies, in particular, nobody yet thinks of word of mouth as a practice. If you declare yourself the expert, nobody will challenge you."

I just had to laugh.  I mean, this is half of the problem with innovation in America today, is that people who don't know what they're doing call themselves experts whenever something new and exciting comes along.  Nobody knows any better, so they'll fall for it!  I agree that the strategy of becoming the WOMM go-to guy at your large firm is good for your career, so the advice isn't bad.  I just would have made point number one "Make it your business to learn as much as possible about Word of Mouth Marketing."  Read the literature, participate in some open-source marketing intiatives, attend conferences and watch word of mouth happen about the sessions and showcased companies, hobnob with the WOM stars who have made this discipline their career for the past ten years or more, and express your deep interest and commitment to the discipline to your colleagues.  In other words, become an expert, don't just say you're an expert.  Sheesh!

While I'm at it, as a consultant in the practice, let me also point out WOMMA's final directive: "Enlist the experts (but don't lose control)."  The explanation for this point ends with the line, "If you give up the sense of expertise to the practitioner, you run the risk of being eliminated as the expert within the company."  So now we're advising non-experts (who call themselves experts) not to defer to the real experts, for fear of missing out on possible career advancement?

This is another problem with innovation in corporate America.  Some people prioritize maintaining control and establishing their political positions over considerations about what would be best for the company.  I have this how-to list for their bosses: promote people who work in the company's best interests, not their own.  And not so incidentally - do your best to make sure the two coincide. 

OK, that's the end of the tweak.  I do love what WOMMA is doing for the industry, don't get me wrong.  And a company that has conversations with its customers is better than one that doesn't, so if this is really what it takes to establish the practice, then godspeed.  You can see the entire list of how-tos here and sign up for the WOMBAT newsletter here.

Open-source Marketing

I've been discussing Open-Source Marketing -- or should I call it community marketing? -- with Jerry Michalski and some of our mutual friends.  Here's a snippet from an interesting post of his from August 2004:

"What if your Public Relations department became the Public Relationships department? What if its new mission were to help individuals and groups inside your company form better authentic relationships with their various publics outside?

To do this, your PR team would improve disclosure, increase transparency, train everyone, seek opportunities, make introductions and then get out of the way. They would be open-communication consultants, looking for places where your company is screwing up by behaving in less-than-credible ways, and helping heal the problems rather than buff them up and spin outsiders."

Go Jerry.  In the intervening year and a half the concept of "public relationships" has gained real traction in the best PR agencies, like Edelman, where I plan to finish up my WOMM consulting this month.

Open-Source Marketing

Matt Galloway's recent post compares open-source marketing to word-of-mouth marketing, wondering what the difference is.

Well, they don't "smell alike" to me, Matt.  They should be the same thing, yes.  But most companies are not ready to relinquish control of their marketing process to their customers, any more than most companies are ready to relinquish control of their information systems to some of the best programmers in the world.

Companies are ready to try WOMM because, to them, it seems like a great idea.  Get people talking about my product!  Yippee! Maybe we can make a cool cartoon that people pass around in their email!  But most of them don't realize what it means to really build great word of mouth.  Yes, getting customers participating not only in the marketing process, but actually in product development, is the key to real word of mouth marketing.  But try getting most companies to accept that.

Undercover Marketing Sucks

Walter Carl has done some interesting work regarding Word of Mouth Marketing and is on a kick to encourage journalists to refer to stealth WOM marketing, where the target doesn't know the sneezer is being paid to sell a product, as "undercover marketing" and not "buzz marketing".  Good idea (Note: Carl is compiling a list of WOMM-related videos at his blog).

He says many students he has spoken with don't care whether or not the person who is shilling a product to them is paid.  I have seen this time and time again.  People -- especially young people -- sometimes don't know when they're being taken advantage of.  Doesn't give anyone the right to do it.  Stealth marketing sucks, and I'm going on record right here to officially condemn it.

Years ago, when I was running SmartGirl, we were falsely accused of collecting kids' contact information to market to them on behalf of our clients.  Couldn't have been further from the truth, and the accusations made me sick.  Anything stealthy is the exact opposite of having valuable customer conversations, which are about listening to people's true feelings and acting on their recommendations. 

When I ran it, SmartGirl created a space for teenage girls to converse with each other about whatever products interested them, and conducted market research with anonymous respondents on behalf of corporate clients.  The girls took to the concept much more eagerly than the corporations did; most corporations are still blind to the possibilities of online word-of-mouth.

Forbes Gets It Half Right

The recent Forbes article (thanks to Robert Tolmach for the pointer) is angry and sensational, and the author clearly doesn't understand the blogosphere (it's just people talking, not edited journalism under a publisher's masthead, DUH!).   "Web logs are the prized platform of an online lynch mob spouting liberty but spewing lies, libel and invective. Their potent allies in this pursuit include Google and Yahoo." ??!??   I mean, really!

The criticism of Google is particularly off-base - that's like criticizing Excel when you don't like the way the numbers add up.  People won't get anywhere trying to fit blogs and search engines into the old boxes they are already comfortable with, like "newspaper articles" and "publishers". 

The threat of the "angry mob", though, is very real and does need to be dealt with.  The blogging platforms need to get together to create reputation scales where bloggers can be judged on their veracity by their readership. Sxip could help, and Dick Hardt has been getting around the speaker circuit lately at the right conferences, so hopefully we'll see some synergies emerge.

The real message of the article, though, is that people and companies with reputations to uphold can't ignore negative word of mouth anymore hoping it will go away.   Instead we must listen and respond (both in voice and in behavior -- is there any truth in the accusations?).  We must marshall our own WOM troops in advance of being defamed.   Companies need to create an online community of people who will take their side in a scuffle. 

As an aside, my client Edelman is well-positioned to help large entitites do this (In fact, their CEO Richard Edelman has already blogged about this article and totally gets it); Ed Vielmetti does it for smaller companies, as can I.