The Difference between Paid Media, Earned Media and Word of Mouth

There has been some renewed discussion online lately about the ethics and best practices surrounding the concept of "sponsored conversation." First of all, that name is misleading.It evokes images of a cocktail party where I have supplied the cranberry juice (I sell cranberry juice for a living, let's say) and said "oh, just keep talking about whatever interests you..."

• Jeremiah Owyang's recent summary of blog discussion on topic

• His discussion about one particular practitioner

• Forrester's recommended approach from their own survey of different practitioners

What Brands Want

Brands want bloggers to talk positively about them. They want to do this because they know other consumers will read their words/see their video or hear about them and this may influence those consumers. Word of mouth is the most trusted source for information across many categories in many markets around the world. Or some marketers just want to fill up search engine results with as much positive about their brand as possible.

In all of this discussion about whether it is ethical to pay or incent bloggers to write about you, marketers are overlooking the huge difference between paid media and word of mouth marketing. 

Quick aside: the Word of Mouth Marketing Association (member) has had a rock solid ethics policy in place for the past 5 years that established the idea of FULL DISCLOSURE of the relationship between blogger and marketer in this case. That is part of the Honesty ROI which is the foundation of the WOMMA ethics policy. No one except WOMMA has added any better approach to ethics. In WOMMA's case, we are releasing a new ethics policy tomorrow that is the product of online and member discussion to respond to changes in the marketplace. Keep an eye out for that as it will serve as a foundation for all of us going forward.

The New Earned Media

Word of Mouth Marketing is the new "earned media." That phrase - a cornerstone of the best public relations practices - means what it says - that you have done something to earn the attention and engagement of your media and publics. You cannot buy word of mouth. You can buy media. There is a further difference around what you can do to try and earn the attention of bloggers in this particular discussion. All of this must happen with full disclosure of the marketer and the "advocate" - that blogger who may or may not choose to talk about you. You can:

• Incent them to participate by offering them a product or service experience

• Offer some 'social capital' like first information, interesting multimedia reserved for them

• Give them a way to engage their readers via a giveaway of something (e.g. a blogger may encourage readers to send in comments over the week on vacuuming stories and the blogger gives away cleaning product to the best story)

• Invite a collection of bloggers to the corporate campus to have a behind the scenes experience with the brand while the brand pays for modest travel expenses.

Cash Doesn't Make Word of Mouth

Can you outright pay 'cash' to a blogger even if you fully disclose, they "fully" disclose and all parties understand they will say what they will say - positive or negative?

That is not word of mouth marketing. It is not earned media. It is paid media. Is it evil? not really. I don't think it is particularly good marketing. Paying bloggers to write about your product or service is a demonstration of your values. It says that you value "media" and the more positive media units you have in Google search results the better your business will be. It suggests that you do not believe your audience distinguishes or cares about the distinction between authentic word of mouth and media coverage (albeit in this case "new media" coverage). I have to wonder if this approach to paid media may someday infect and undermine the best of word of mouth marketing just as aggresive email marketing and search engine spamming (e.g. link lots, et al) have ultimately weakened those disciplines.

Can we simply let the consumers decide what is valuable and trustworthy information? Sure but let's bend over backward making sure they can easily see the difference between paid media and authentic word of mouth. This requires a rigorous approach to disclosure including how that disclosure is communicated. At the end of the day, a brand must question the value of a blog post or product review emblazoned with a caveat above-the-fold that says. "I was paid by the brand that I am talking about to write something about product X..."

Word of mouth marketing is different.

Comments

[laurent]

Well said, all marketing campaigns needs capital. Advertising's capital is $. You keep throwing $ at it and it keeps going. You stop and it stops. Companies have to understand that the type of capital they need to throw into social media to get coverage is people's time and expertise and not money. The incentive should be to wow bloggers (or to be less bling bling, to interest them) and not buy their influence.
Now it's harder and it's different from throwing $ in an advertising campaign, it requires a change in how companies operates.
From where I seat, high tech seems to me where the shift is happening with 1000s of people blogging at sun, microsoft, adobe...may be because high tech products are easy fit for social media.

[Sean Corcoran]

Hi John,

As the author of the "sponsored conversation" research I completely agree that sponsored conversation is a form of paid media. Earned media is typically much more effective and I advise marketers to go that route first and foremost to create true WOM. However, there are times where the world of paid media and earned media meet. There are several examples of this such as celebrity endorsments, Refer-a-friend programs, WOM agencies (such as BZZAgent), product placement and product samples. Sponsored conversation (i.e. fully disclosed blog posts) fit in this model. It's a way for a marketer to provide an additional incentive to influentials to start a conversation about their brand. What's key, as you mention, is that they are fully disclosed so readers truly know the difference. Then smart marketers will listen and engage the conversation that is created by the community. It may not be as effective as pure earned media but it sure can be more effective then forms of traditional paid media.

Thanks,
Sean Corcoran

[Weave]

Great post, John. Thanks for pointing out the distinctions.

[Paul Chaney]

John, WOMMA's code of ethics is an admirable standard, but, can or should it apply across the breadth of the social mediasphere? At present, it is only applicable to WOMMA members and not everyone sees themselves as a word of mouth marketer. Technically speaking, we all are I suppose, but I think most see it as a particular discipline or form of marketing.

But, again, given that it's an admirable standard, how do we move it outside the ranks of WOMMA and into the larger landscape?

[John Bell]

@sean - getting people to "care enough to share" about a brand or issue requires understanding what is important to them. Some folks just want to share on a topic they are expert at. Some want some sort of social capital they can share with their audience. Some want the respect and recognition they deserve and that comes with offering them the vacuum cleaner to try out or the flight to Omaha to meet the designers and talk about next features. Inviting people into "sponsored conversations" like that can be a powerful driver of word of mouth. How do we scale?

Not by paying cash. We scale by creating a bigger conversation and inviting more influencers in. we scale by layering on paid advertising that promotes the conversation by driving content down through the ad channel.

[Jeremiah Owyang]

Thanks John, you bring light to the topic at hand

It gets dicey and gray when you compare cash vs products.

In the case of Kmart/Brogan, for example, Kmart doesn't have any 'products' of their own, so they provided them with a $500 shopping spree. If they had a product, likely they would have given them that.

Where does the line start and stop when it comes to giving consumers products vs giving them cash?

In the end it doesn't really matter as long as in either case, it's authentic and transparent.

[Pam Pugmire~Idaho Real Estate]

It's great that you brought up the distinction between media and word of mouth.
The more transparent this platform remains, the more trust we will enjoy from the public, and therefore, the longer this will be a trusted and sought-after medium.
Kudos to WOMMA for taking a precautions to avoid a huge backlash later!!!