There is a general perception that advertising is thoroughly scalable and that public relations is not. But how about social media-based word of mouth programs?
You can develop a $5m, $10m and $100m ad program. You will get increasing "returns" for your investment. Reach and frequency can both go up. There are limits but they are pretty out there. It is predictive and incremental. The media relations side of PR can only be dialed up so much before traditional media shuts down on additional coverage for the same brand & message. Now, there is a lot more to public relations that just media relations. The value of public relations goes beyond (yet includes) short term marketing goals to include enduring brand reputation. It seems that PR's role in supporting short term sales such as a new product launch is more limited than the scalable "burst" of awareness available via paid advertising. PR's impact on reputation is almost infinitely scalable. But we are now talking about word of mouth and social media-based word of mouth.
Scalable: Reach
At WOM University, we held a roundtable discussion on the scalability of WOM programs. Keep in mind, my position that most social media-based programs are ultimately WOM programs. The table's focus fell on both online and offline programs. Walter Carl of Northeastern University and Chat Threads presided over the table. He introduce the group to his measurement model which, while complicated, suggests a method for understanding overall performance and then being able to dial it up or down accordingly. Walter modeled out his generational pass-along effect which I will call the 'multiplier effect.' A recent Fast Company article on NING rechristened this a "viral loop." I am not sure that new definition adds anything to our understanding. The multiplier effect tells us how many people we will reach and convert into "relayers" once we give Gen '0' something to talk about. Walter can match back G0 and G1, for instance, to verify that G0 actually passed along their story to 6, 8, or 12 people. It is the same logic he used to support BzzAgent's impact and make it meaningful to the media planners of the world (who rely on scalable "channels").
It's great stuff but a little complex. It speaks to the "reach" capacity of a WOM program. I need to simplify the issue to make it useful in my daily life. If there were predictive models for the multiplier effect, that might help.
Scalable: Frequency vs. Multiple Voices
Walter's model is a great way to understand the reach of a WOM program. The problem is that it remains very complex and requires a self-reporting procedure itself needing an incentive to motivate participants ("Tell us who you talked to and you might win an iPhone or we'll give $5 to charity or...").
The best value of a social media-based WOM program is scaling through time combined with the slower growth of more relevant reach. "More relevant reach" is a loaded phrase. I am suggesting that one's 'social graph', is a more powerful channel than the audience of a particular media property (TV channel, show, magazine, newspaper, etc...). I also assume that when I hear something from a colleague, friend, or "stranger with expertise," it sinks in without the same need of message frequency that we expect with advertising (i.e. need to hear something 3-5 times for it to be memorable, never mind actionable). My client, Gerry, recommended a reasonably high-end coffee maker a few weeks back. I Will eventually buy that coffee maker without any other input save for some model-browsing on the Web.
There are plenty of purchases or decisions that I need to make where the number of 'promoters' matter. On most book purchases, I will scan the reviewers to make sure there are more positive reviews than negative. I scan the negative comments quickly to see if the complaints resonate. But I don't let a few negative comments dissuade me from purchase. There is a name for this behavior which I don't remember. I'll call it a simple 'disaster-check.'
It takes fewer positive voices to drive me to purchase consideration and even purchase than the number of ad impressions it takes to persuade me. In fact, beyond direct-response offers, no advertising really gets me to the same deep level of consideration. This begins to speak to WOMs place in the "funnel" - the deeper end of the purchase/advocacy decision.
If I spend $100K more on my WOMM program, what do I get?
Classic marketer question. Will you get more reach? Will you get more brand/product advocates? Will you get a deeper bond with a select group of enthusiast influencers? And the kicker: will it sell more product?
The answer to all questions is yes, yes, yes and yes. The problem is that I need 30 minutes of your time to explain how. If you intuitively believe in the strengths of WOM and the sales impact of a great Net Promoter Score, you will give me that 30 minutes. If all you care about is a proxy metric like site traffic (i.e. cpg brand marketers online), than you will glaze over right after I tell you this is a different measure than traditional advertising.
You can use Walter's model to answer the $100K question. But I have to ask is that model practical and itself, scalable?
We need simplicity based upon reasonable and shared assumptions. How do you show that WOM is scalable?
Relevant Links:
Recent Comments