Word-of-MouthTrickles Offline and Online
A recent NOP World release, “Word of Mouth Ain’t Just Blogging,” stated that in-person conversations are much more likely to be the source of word-of-mouth than electronic communications such as e-mail and blogging. The trend observed in the general population is even stronger among influentialsSM who shape the masses’ purchasing decisions by advising them on what, how, where and when to buy. The sound research follows a legacy of decades of ongoing surveys among public opinion leaders. And NOP World is correct in recommending companies not to “put all their eggs into one marketing basket [and] develop integrated plans that mediate all media.”
As a researcher interested in investigating the Internet’s role in the communication flow, I see a clear path to advance the body of work about word-of-mouth and marketing: Consider online influentials as a distinct breed of consumer, not simply a segment overlapping with the traditional group of influencers.
My view is based on Burson-Marsteller’s online influencer (or e-fluentials®) studies, ongoing since 1999. We modeled the e-fluentials after NOP World’s definition of influentials and learned that electronic communications are just as viable for e-fluentials as traditional word-of-mouth channels. In other words, these Web-savvy public opinion leaders are equally comfortable telling a story over e-mail or sharing it in-person.
This year’s study, focusing on e-fluentials who use high-end technologies (i.e., tech-fluentials) showed the same trend. For instance, tech-fluentials who actively blog are almost as likely to pass along a story about a company by talking in-person/over the phone (77%) as they are by forwarding an e-mail (82%). Their ease in spreading the word about companies by posting to discussion boards (55%), writing to company Web sites (50%) and sending instant messages (50%) suggests that these tech-fluential bloggers are multi-channel consumers.
Content also affects tech-fluential bloggers’ choice of communication channels when they would like to spread information to their networks. They pick communication channels depending on the tone of their message:
--Tech-fluential bloggers are just as likely to spread a negative story (76%) about a company in-person, as they are to share a positive story (77%).
--However, they are more likely to relay negative stories than positive ones on company Web sites (63% vs. 46%), discussion boards (58% vs. 51%) and opinion Web sites (53% vs. 37%).
--They are more likely to send e-mails (84% vs. 79%) and instant messages (54% vs. 46%) when talking about their positive experiences with companies, than when mentioning their negative interactions.
Thinking of the communications process in separate silos (e.g., online vs. offline) may work well for measuring the returns on a media plan. However, everyday conversations about companies, brands and products flow over a much more complex and intertwined set of channels. Public opinion leaders may start telling a story in-person and continue informing their networks online, and vice-versa.
Before weighing one communication channel over another,
marketers need to:
-understand their audiences’ affinity with technology
-determine the tone of their discussions
-prioritize between the online/offline channels to reach consumers
As seen in the example of tech-fluential bloggers, online forums such as blogs, company Web sites and discussion boards may be the places to tune into their conversations and take notes about how public opinion is shaped online and offline. Indeed, checking online postings and comments sent to company Web sites can help companies develop relations with key stakeholders, catch issues before they turn into crises and implement cost-effective marketing tactics. Word-of-mouth is not limited to blogging and other forms of online chat. Yet, we must not ignore that Web-based conversations can provide just as valuable--and more traceable--feedback about products and services than do offline conversations.
----Idil Cakim
Director, Knowledge Development
Burson-Marsteller
Posted by Idil Cakim at May 31, 2005 06:54 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.guidewiregroup.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/54