• Thinking about Sustainable WOM

    Posted on March 25th, 2008 by and currently 9 commenting.

    When terms get used and abused to the extent they lose some meaning, it forces me to reevaluate how I define the word. For example, SUSTAINABLE. Over the last couple months I’ve seen marketers throw around this word in ways I don’t feel are appropriate.

    To think sustainable, I think you have to start with a point of view, a goal that is not related to the transaction…but to conversation. RAGE was successful during unfunded times due to empowered, educated teens that really believed in their voice. We knew that RAGE funding was not guaranteed, we would be lucky to have funds for two years in a row. We used to say our goal was that if Brains on Fire got hit by a bus RAGE would continue on tomorrow.

    IMO many marketers shout sustainability but they really are still talking tactics. The beauty about true, deep insight is it begins relationships internally and externally. These conversations lead to conversations out of the original circle, which is a nice side effect. Compare this to the problems we see happening out there right now. People are using ‘influencer models’ that continue no conversation online or offline. It’s just people clicking buttons on a survey.

    And now they have a problem of expectations. A super fan is a super fan because of the experience they have with a brand. And when a ‘community’ created by a company doesn’t match the real experience, then there is a huge disconnect and that super fan could care less about that community.

    I believe this is key to building sustainable WOM movements. Sustainability comes down to the marketer and brand not having to keep interrupting the customers to get the message out. This comes from building relationships. Building venues for the conversations. And empowering the community. The true test comes when a brand has a hiccup.

    Sustainability is real when the community (or in the case of RAGE and the Fiskateers) can continue without having to stimulate conversation and the overall movement with continued funding to stimulate conversation. RAGE has had funding hiccups from year two to present. The Fiskateers actually had funds cut in the first three months but still over performed and sustained itself quickly.

  • http://www.brandidentityguru.com/wordpress BIG Kahuna

    They killed Jericho again. I hate them!

  • http://brainsonfire.com Geno

    Scott, I can’t even talk about it :-(

  • http://xybedublog.blogspot.com Christy

    Is it fair to say that movements don’t work for every product?

  • http://brainsonfire.com Geno

    Yes. I would say that is true. As marketers we have to be disciplined to not force. I’ve came into many projects with creative prejudice.

    I’m better about that today,but I’ve been told I’m a community purist. Maybe I could turn that into a party.

  • http://www.biltmore.com Sherida

    Philosophical question, but why do some marketers have an obsession with tactics and “clicking buttons on a survey”? I have a hard time understanding why these boxed-in and dated tactics seem less risky than real conversation with your fans. Does it come down to differing point of views between “numbers” and “creative people,” or is it bigger than that?

  • http://www.brainsonfire.com Justine

    Great question Sherida. I know some marketers who value the conversation. A former CMO of Coca Cola told me once that he would rather have 3 at length conversations with customers than focus groups or surveys.

    Having said that, there is comfort in numbers. I think marketing unfortunately too often trades quality of information for this sense of comfort – a way to justify quantitatively the decisions they make (that understandably are often expensive ones).

    I for one believe there is a place for surveys – depending on the question you want to ask. But I also believe you can’t know people through paper. Putting people in a “test taking” mode immediately biases the kind of information the brain is going to respond with.

    Geno raises an excellent point about market research and consumer insight being an opportunity to not only learn from your customers, but also start a two-way conversation. Maybe if more marketers put a face on the consumer – they’ll see them as people to develop relationships with and not just consumers to transact with.

  • http://www.biltmore.com Sherida

    Thanks, Justine! That’s some great insight.

  • http://brainsonfire.com Geno

    I’m glad I didn’t try to answer that question ;-)

    Justine it’s an interesting set of words people and paper. Real People’s faces are everywhere now, YouTube, blogs, and message boards. If you don’t have an organizational structure to respond to the people already talking, I guess it makes sense that it would be hard for brand X to value people over paper.

  • http://www.brainsonfire.com Justine

    Another good point Geno. Talking to people does require that as an organization you can invest the time and resources to do so. Currently, many organizations just aren’t set up to do that.