Among the most popular applications on Facebook today are those that allow people to identify themselves in terms of their taste in movies or books, or their similarity to a Harry Potter character or a Disney princess. These applications provide a creative and fun way of sharing information and creating a sense of connection.
According to one of the Disney applications, I’m Mulan. I guess if you have seen the Disney movie, you now know something about me. And that, I think, is the attraction of social networks. They allow us to create communities that stretch across geographies and time zones. It does not matter whether a friend is in New York, New Zealand, China, Italy or Mexico; the News Feed provides a way of staying in touch.
Of course, staying in touch was a lot easier when all your "friends" resided in nearby locations. As a member of a neighborhood or village, you knew people by sight, and you knew their history and family connections. It was easy to get together, shoot the breeze and seek advice. You knew who you were talking to and whether their advice could be trusted.
In today’s online neighborhoods, that is definitely not the case. We may "know" many people online, but the strength of our connections with these people is relatively weak, unless we also know them from the offline world.
That is what amuses me so much about the new interest in word of mouth (WOM) in the world of marketing. Just because we can now see the interplay of ideas and opinions online and measure the number of times a brand is referenced for good or ill, we assume that word of mouth is gaining in importance. But really, it has been there all along. It has just been hidden from our sight. Word of mouth may actually be losing power, not gaining it.
After all, if the medium is the message, how much can you trust your online acquaintances? My current Facebook photo is a Wood Frog. Would you trust a frog’s opinion on topics such as hotels, cars or wine? Word of mouth was probably a much stronger influence when the people involved knew each other from the "real" world, not just from a Web page. When they knew, or at least could see, the friend, colleague or salesperson they were talking to, they did not have to guess at the veracity of the advice being offered.
Earlier this year, my colleagues Matthew Angus and Judith Kapanga from Millward Brown South Africa drew my attention to the fact that people in Africa were far more likely to offer advice on everyday products such as detergent than were people in Europe. A little more research revealed that the same is true for carbonated soft drinks and mobile phones. People in developing economies seem more likely to be willing to recommend brands. It made me wonder if this was a cultural difference, or if being behind the curve in terms of Internet adoption makes it easier to ask someone for their opinion than to search for information online?
And that in itself is an interesting thought. What if the ubiquitous nature of online search means that we are losing the inclination to ask other people for advice? After all, we can just look it up, right? Rather than gaining power, maybe WOM is actually losing it in the Internet era, in the same way that our community affiliations, once defined in terms of the schools we attended, the sports teams we supported, and social groups we belonged to, have been reduced to a quick quiz of Facebook.
So what do you think? Is online communication of necessity a "weaker" form of communication, or is it just different? Is online WOM really weaker in developing economies, or is that weakness due to cultural differences? Is search undermining the power of old-fashioned, i.e., personal, WOM? I would love to hear your thoughts.
Tags: Millward Brown, Nigel Hollis, word of mouth, online word of mouth, advice on brands
(5 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Loading ...
May 11th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
You’re becoming a hero of mine, Mr. Hollis. Great post.
I do a section about WOMM in my presentations and when consulting. There’s a new slide about you and the recent WOM PDF. I’m tossing in another one based on this post.
And … I’m not kissing your or MB’s you-know-what. I spend lots of time saying not-so-nice things about one of MB’s research firms - and the ad campaigns for their major client.
May 11th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Hi Chuck, I really appreciate your comment…and keep the criticism coming. Feedback is always good, even when it is bad.
May 11th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
I would think each case of WOM can be plotted against a background of heuristics in human decision making. Before purchasing my Playstation3, I conducted my own online survey considering the quantity of good and bad comments (heuristic of number) - the proliferation of ranking sites makes this ever easier. However, this information probably assumed less importance than in my decision-making to buy a Sony Bravia TV as I believed the reviewers to be partial (heuristic of bias) - PS3 vs. XBOX360 fanboy culture is a great example. In addition, my heuristic of number was also compromised by my brother (heuristic of trust) recently buying an XBOX360. A key factor then was my perception of how well he understood the topic (heuristic of expertise).
So..to the questions…In terms of a general trend, I think we have to say “search” is undermining the power of old fashioned WOM simply via the fact there is an additional information source. For the last question, I don’t think we can say online communication is necessarily weaker although certainly it can be. I guess this makes the point - while the increased complexity brought to WOM by online makes it interesting and relevant to create frameworks for understanding, in the end esoteric knowledge must be applied.
May 11th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
We should never underestimate the power of weak links on the basis that we have already used all the strong links and don’t know whats in the weak network.
I am from South Africa and if you are right that people are more likely to make recommendations here often they are less connected if not powered by social media.
Trust may be an issue but so is reach.
Check out http://twurl.nl/cc0q7v as well.
May 12th, 2008 at 2:04 am
Hi Nigel, great thinking. Judith and I tend to maintain that it is a combination of both culture and technological circumstances, but that is based on very little exposure to the developing world outside Africa. What we really need is some insight from markets with similarly low technology penetration to compare our African data with. What’s interesting is to see what’s happening to WOM as the digital communications revolution hits the African bush, which is happening at an astounding rate in some areas. If WOM is declining in response to this then its probably mainly a question of circumstances. There’s a fantastic ad I’ll show you when you get here that really touches on this evolution.
May 12th, 2008 at 6:08 am
Thanks for the comments.
Interesting you should mention heuristics Chris because it is a subject I have been giving a lot of thought to of late. It also may relate to Walter’s comment. Failing to find any differentiation on “important” attributes a person’s purchase intent might be swayed by relatively trivial “information.” So even a Wood Frog could have some influence. However, I suspect that online advocacy and feedback is often used to eliminate contenders for purchase rather than selection.
Hi Matthew, we ought to be able to pull something out of the database on this. Let’s discuss when we meet.
Cheers, Nigel
May 12th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Is there a possibility that WOM is not weaker, we are just consuming it differently? Malcolm Gladwell spoke about ‘Salesmen’ (powerful persuaders), ‘Connectors’ (those who bring people and ideas together), and ‘Mavens’ (information specialists). The internet era seems to be putting a greater emphasis on the ‘Mavens’ especially the vocal minority. About.com is a perfect example. So-called ‘product-experts’ are weighing in on everything from vacation destinations to parenting methods. Consumers are much less skeptical about the message since it’s not coming from the primary source, and grant these sites/blogs the credibility that markets are always seeking. Do marketers then need to shift a greater emphasis to this group??
May 12th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Hi Nigel,
On contenders vs. selection, I would question your assumption. Indeed, in many cases a linear model may not be appropriate - that’s certainly my experience of restaurants/hotels/electronics etc.
An interesting question is what moderates these relationship. As two examples already mentioned, I appreciate Walter’s comment on reach and would also mention that the failure to find differentiation on “important” attributes could be a result of a lack of ability/confidence as well as a “real” lack of differentiation. I would think factors such as these can be teased out by the kind of cross-category and cross-market research you mention. I look forward to seeing what you find…