Archive for March, 2008
Our own Daphne Kwon ran a panel at SXSW this week and the topic was Word of Mouth and Video Advertising. She did a good job (if I say so myself) drawing the crowd into the conversation. A friend noted afterward that the audience’s participation had the consequence of exposing that everyone has their own “rat hole” issue about what is a horrific violation of the rules of engagement on Word of Mouth. And that to me is the point of the presentation. So when some media source jumps all over a marketer, or blogger, for violating word of mouth ethics, let’s all remember that these rules are being developed every day, and nothing is black and white.
Why is there so much uncertainty? Because only now is the web actually impacting word of mouth. Word of mouth for decades before the internet had been limited to only people you actually knew. That’s why online text reviews were actually separated by Nielsen from “recommendations from other consumers” in a survey on sources of product information. Online text reviews are structurally anonymous, and with that there is little incentive to disclose a reviewer’s potential bias or any outside motive (a notable exception would be epinions, which tried hard to get you to know their reviewers). Therefore, online text reviewers were quite distinct from any traditional conception of the more personal “word of mouth”. See slides from the powerpoint presentation here. But the new “socially networked Facebook world” now lets you make those personal connections, and word of mouth has exploded online.
In an attempt to help define attributes that should guide whether or not something can be an authentic word of mouth piece, the audience helped develop four key questions to ask yourself as a content contributor, from bloggers to community members:
1) What is the level of personal familiarity your audience has with you? This is what makes anonymous text reviews so ineffective. A personal knowledge of who you are will go a long way in building trust of your point of view on the world.
2) are there incentives structurally that might bias you? Even disclosure doesn’t overcome certain structures like being paid by marketers to say something. Is your content affected by something other than your true opinion?
3) Is the publishing platform one where other opinions could be heard? Is it built to be open and honest? Or is it built to publish only one opinion (yours) and no other voices?
4) Was everything disclosed? Any relationships, and bias, any incentives?
This last point seems more like a desperate request than an actual attribute of word of mouth. (For example, just because you disclosed being paid and scripted by marketers obviously doesn’t turn it into word of mouth.) I think by listing “disclosure”, users just want to be able to judge individually whether there’s anything that, in their personal judgement, might affect the authenticity of your opinion. Not everyone agreed where that boundary was in the audience on each of those points. One person said that you had to have bought and paid for a product to be an authentic review, another said a review of a gift from mom was perfectly fine. The beauty is, upon full disclosure, we can each judge for ourselves.
March 12th, 2008
Here is another fabulous article in the Collision of Commerce and Media space & it also comes from a digital agency. In this article, Frank Kochenash of Avenue A / Razorfish makes the most forceful argument we’ve seen around compensating community members on social networks. It’s not just a good article, but it’s a brave article because not only does it go against what people have been indoctrinated to believe, but it questions (to a degree) the business models that a lot of “Web 2.0″ sites are pursuing. Hope you enjoy it: http://www.jefflanctot.com/2008/03/11/fair-trade-an-argument-for-rewarding-users-on-social-nets/
March 12th, 2008
We’re hitting up the Home Show in Chicago next week to get the scoop on the latest home & houseware products. We’ll show you the coolest & newest home & garden products out there, from Black & Decker blenders to dinnerware to major appliances like refrigerators. Everyone’s going green these days so we’ll find out about energy conservation products that you can start using in your own home — like GE energy efficient dishwashers. Check back next week to watch our videos from the Home Show.
March 11th, 2008
antho - for her review of 2007 Saturn Vue
 This member loves her new wheels from Saturn! See a thorough
tour of this car from a mom’s perspective - both inside and out.
Plenty of features are demonstrated in this awesome review.
Click here for more antho reviews.
______________________________________________________
Kermity - for his review of iRiver 20 GB MP3 Player
Detailed knowledge and quirky edits make this review a must-see.
If you’re looking for an alternative to the ubiquitous iPod, learn
about all the unique features offered by the iRiver.
If you like this, check out more Kermity reviews.
_______________________________________________________________________
ksglaser - for her review of Hamilton Beach Brewstation Plus Coffeemaker
On the hunt for a multi-cup coffeemaker? Check out this review of
a sturdy model that keeps drinks hot for hours and even offers a
flavor plus button - for those who like an extra jolt from their joe.
To watch more reviews from ksglaser, click here.
|
March 10th, 2008
This ClickZ post by Digitas’ Christine Beardsell is so good, there’s really nothing to add, except to say that it is a really good sign for 2008 that agencies, and hopefully even their clients, are starting to demand that we look to the next thing. Enjoy! Christine, I’ll definitely keep reading your stuff and hope we get to meet some day!
March 7th, 2008
We’re going to crank this part of the blog back up & while this isn’t exactly happy news for the “space”, it’s definitely news that NBCU backed Firebrand has tossed in the towel after only a few months. The new splash screen (obituary?) on the site (don’t know how long this will be live…) kind of says it all, “its never easy when art meets commerce”. Given that someone there understands at least that much, the disappointing part was that they gave up so quickly. I wasn’t impressed with Firebrand and frankly I’m not impressed with Honeyshed so far (probably none of them were impressed by us, either!). But I do respect that what they were trying to do is hard and different and the first steps are unlikely to be all that amazing. So the shame of it all is the timing. This was over so fast that we didn’t learn anything. There was no innovation phase, there was no iteration. Is it really a surprise that just throwing up a bunch of high art commercials didn’t immediately go viral? That it didn’t immediately lead to double digit sales growth for the advertisers? Did anyone really think that reconstructing the value chain between manufacturers and consumers would be that easy? I think it calls into question (again) whether or not big media companies can really play a meaningful role in innovation in the space (I think the exception at the moment is Viacom, where Mika Salmi appears for the moment to be playing the intrapreneurial role extremely well. I hope it lasts.) vs. simply M&A (where I’d give high marks to Quincy Smith). I’m really optimistic about 2008. I love what we’re doing at ExpoTV and I love what a lot of other people are doing in video, in commerce & in the spaces in between. But make no mistake, it isn’t going to be easy to remake a media landscape where some big edifices have been built over a long period of time. Just like there’s no way to go through a maze in a straight line, no one is going to get it right on the first go.
Update: AdRants has written the definitive post on the downfall of Firebrand here. Beyond the merciless de-construction of the premise, the comments are interesting, including one from Shari Leventhal, Firebrand’s former CMO.
March 7th, 2008
Next Posts
RSS Feeds