Broaden/build

A blog devoted to the exploration of how ideas, information and behaviors spread

Experience-Driven Word of Mouth

The Keller Fay Group released a commission report detailing “factors that trigger word of mouth” communication. The primary trigger being, a consumer’s positive experience with a brand.

Some key points:

1-in-6 conversations among consumers are triggered by a positive experience (p.4).

Regardless of what started the conversation, 83% of all WOM about products involves someone who has had a personal experience with a brand (p. 6).

The research shows that for conversations based on a positive experience, over half lead to strong buy or try recommendations (p. 8).

Aside from what Keller Fay’s research has shown, much of the WOM reflects these findings. In Word of Mouth Marketing Sernovitz provides a great example of accounting software provider Intuit (Quick Books) leading with providing positive brand experiences. The ability to provide a community of problem-solvers for Quick Books users not only showcased the importance of service, but created a platform to track software problems and satisfaction.  

Two additional key points:

1) Customers that a firm acquires through WOM communication develop a stronger relationship with the brand and tend to propagate their positive experiences more frequently (Choi, 2009; Villanuva, Yoo and Hassens, 2008).

2) Customer generated WOM is more effective than firm generated WOM (Van den Bulte, 2010).

Negative word of mouth - bad buzz- spreads faster than positive buzz.

—

Mark Hughes - Buzz Marketing

This was pre Web 2.0. Similarly, Berger and Milkman (2012) explored why articles go viral. The researchers found that content, both positive and negative, went viral when they evoked high-arousal emotions.

Is TV's Most Powerful Ally Social?

The contrast between monitoring just Twitter conversation rather than all conversation is stark. When “Bluefin Labs tracked Twitter posts about the major broadcast network shows throughout the 2011-12 television season, it reported that Fox programs were the most social – garnering 16.8 million posts or comments, or 43% of the total. CBS was fifth out of five, with only 3.2 million or 8% of the total.

When we look at offline word of mouth, a very different story emerges. Fox shows earned 3.5 billion word of mouth impressions, or 25% of last season’s total – still a strong showing, but not enough to best CBS. CBS shows earned 5.1 billion word of mouth impressions, or 36% of the total. It went from last, when looking just at online social media, to first when looking at the much larger world of word of mouth.”

Measuring Word of Mouth

Watts’ critique of the influencer hypothesis:

“Retrospectively, one can always find influentials about which we can tell stories, and one can always ‘explain’ known outcomes in terms of these influentials. But these explanations only work in retrospect.”

Everyone’s an Influencer: Quantifying Influence on Twitter Bakshy, E, Mason, W. A, Hofman, J. M. & Watts, D.J. (2011) “…the most cost-effective performance can be realized using “ordinary influencers”- individuals who exert average or even less-than-average influence”

Everyone’s an Influencer: Quantifying Influence on Twitter Bakshy, E, Mason, W. A, Hofman, J. M. & Watts, D.J. (2011) “…the most cost-effective performance can be realized using “ordinary influencers”- individuals who exert average or even less-than-average influence”

How Does Content Effect Virality?

The effect of high/low emotional arousal on the propagation of messages.

Berger, J. & Milkman, K. L. (2011). What Makes Online Content Viral?

Social Advertising is less effective if the advertiser explicitly states they are trying to promote social influence in the text of their ad

As easy as it may be to believe that the visibility of personalized social endorsements via social platforms will increase clicks, research suggestions the consumer may not be as swayed. The overt usage of social endorsements was shown to have  negative effect on viewers perceptions of the advertisement.

Tucker, C. (2012). Social Advertising. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1975897 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1975897

Social Media is about sociology and psychology more than technology

Social media is about sociology and psychology more than technology

I truly believe in what Brian Solis is championing with his writing. It is in the same vein as Facebook’s Paul Adams. According to Adams social media has given birth to the social web. Due to fundamental shifts in how we communicate, Adams describes the future of advertising as being based around content that encourages many lightweight interactions over time.

The social web operates under three basic premises: 

  1. We are drawn to things that are popular
  2. We are more likely to develop connections based on similarity
  3. It is these strong connections with those who are similar, that may ultimately encourage influence

Popularity

The point is we are influenced by those in our networks. As a collective we are drawn to things that are popular either consciously or subconsciously. Consider a recent study on the social influence in cultural markets. Participants were taken to a website that had music samples from various unknown artists. As they were listening to each song, the participants were asked to rank the song. The participants in the study were assigned to one or two experimental groups. This first group was presented, in no particular order, the songs along with how many downloads had occurred. The second group was given the same songs, but this time in a ranked order according to the number of downloads. What this experiment set out to prove was that in a world where people make decisions independently, the unpredictability of popularity remains constant. As social influence is introduced, the unpredictability starts to lessen. The more information participants had (i.e. downloads), the less unpredictable the outcome became. Popular songs remained popular, while unpopular songs remained unpopular.

We Seek Out Those ‘Like Us’

Similarly, the desire to associate or connect with those who are alike extends to social platforms. It seems it is in our genes to seek out homophily. We tend to trust those in our network, because we have established a network with people who are similar. In Connected, both Christakis and Fowler extensively fleshed out why online networks can become new avenues for influence and social contagion. It seems that behavior can be influenced by up to three degrees. This is known as the Three Degree Rule. This means that influence can move through a friend of a friend. Social networks makes this process more efficient, because the ability to maintain long-range links is easier.

What these Open Graph apps do is take social influence beyond the “everyone is doing it” mentality and adds the element of inclusion and trust. No longer is diffusion a sheer numbers game, but can be influenced by driving individuals to take action through content that plays upon the two premises above and a third.

Transitivity May Build Trust

In the study of networks, transitivity measures the strength of one’s connections within their social graph. For instance, person X is connected to person K and it is through that connection that person Y is now connected to person X.

The stronger the connection among the individuals, the higher the measure of transitivity becomes. The higher the transitivity, the more interconnected the group becomes and the diffusion of information becomes easier. What these action links have created is a mechanism to strengthen the connection between individuals within their social network. In essence, these apps act as hubs and connects individuals to a certain action. Not only has the action become visible, but Facebook’s desire for connectivity kicks in and reveals who else has opted in. One could make the argument that as transitivity strengthens, so to does the level of trust among the group. Communicators and brands now have a concept  from which to build strategies around.

One such strategy may be to create content with “linking value” (Cova, 1997). The underlying theme of the above concepts, is the desire to seek affiliation- with what is popular and with others like ‘us’. Adopting the mindset, is to understand that we are constantly connected and the brand-person relationship is now a shared one.