Measuring Word-of-Mouth Marketing
July 1, 2008
There is an online debate in the marketing world related to measuring word-of-mouth marketing. The online and offline buzz surrounding a brand or product has been nearly impossible to measure accurately, but the Word-of-Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA) is trying to do just that by developing a standard metric system to accurately measure the success of all word-of-mouth initiatives.
Some marketers and brand managers argue against creating this type of metric saying that true word-of-mouth is earned by spending time, money and effort in building a relationship with customers. I have to concur with that theory, but at the same time, with the explosion of viral marketing and social media marketing, both of which lend themselves perfectly to word-of-mouth marketing and generating an online buzz, there certainly is an abundance of new opportunities to connect with people through the social web. Read more
If you're new here, and have enjoyed what you've read, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Green Without Sustainability
July 1, 2008
Once upon a time, on the edges of Fangorn Forest, Gimli son of Glóin grasped the haft of his axe and eyed up the tree next to him.
He was in full flow about this “horrid, dark, dank, tree-infested” forest when a threatening rumble from the forest itself brought him up short.
Suddenly the dwarf realised the trees around him were in fact “charming, quite charming”, and in all likelihood avoided the environmental disaster of a-branch-dropped-on-the-head as well.
So the tension between dwarf and tree was interpreted by Peter Jackson in his film adaptation of JRR Tolkien’s “The Two Towers”.
It appears a similar rumble is starting to be heard amongst investors and those who serve them, the index companies. The most recent response comes from FTSE, who have just launched a new “Green Index”.
Read more
7 Steps of Advertising Success Drive Word-of-Mouth Marketing
June 27, 2008
I’ve been talking over the past week about emotional involvement in brands and how that type of connection to a brand can lead to deep customer loyalty. What comes from customer loyalty aside from repeat purchases? Typically, loyal customers are also very vocal about the brands they love and generate a great deal of free word-of-mouth advertising for those brands. 
Earlier this week I wrote about the 3 S’s of Customer Loyalty and how to create an emotional involvement to your brand by focusing on those 3 S’s. Today, I’d like to share my 7 Steps of Advertising Success to show you how your advertising efforts can lead prospective and existing customers down the path to loyalty and word-of-mouth marketing. In other words, with each tactic executed as part of your overall branding and marketing plans, you’re moving people through the 7 Steps of Advertising Success as follows: Read more
Primark — The Ethical Debate
June 26, 2008
Wile E Coyote, the famous Warner Brothers’ cartoon character, always managed to get himself stuffed full of cactus spines whenever he tried to catch Roadrunner.
Approaching the issue of Primark’s use of child labour, and their consequent dropping of three Indian suppliers, is equally painful.
The story, for those unfamiliar with it, is as follows: the BBC Panorama programme did an episode focussing upon whether the ethical trading claims of Primark, an Ireland based clothing retailer, were as strong as they claimed.
The sharp end of the programme was the revelation that certain garments, sourced from Tamil Nadu in India, had been worked upon by children.
As part of the programme’s production the BBC approached Primark for their response. The business conducted its own investigation and concluded that three suppliers had broken it’s standard, dropping them with immediate effect.
Primark issued a Right To Reply statement, stating:
“It is NOT acceptable for children to produce or work on garments … under any circumstances whatsoever.”
The suppliers in question regularly outsourced their garments to home based workers for the finishing sequin work. In one particular instance they outsourced to some refugees from Sri Lanka, in an attempt to help them gain a proper financial foothold.
The refugees, in order to make as much of this opportunity as possible, allowed their children to work on the garments. In extreme poverty, where there is no guaranteed employment or state education, there is little alternative.
Decisions Decisions
So to be clear, there was no forced child labour. No sweatshop conditions or kiddies being shoved down mineshafts. In fact the organisation in question was trying to improve the lot of some of the poorest in its region.
Labour Behind the Label, a group which campaigns for better working conditions throughout the UK’s clothing supply chain, Labour criticised Primark’s action, saying:
“When companies respond in this way what they are really saying is that if workers speak out about their conditions they will lose their jobs.”
LBL goes on to contest that if Primark was genuinely interested in working conditions, it should do something to help alleviate the problems of poverty, not cut off those who are affected by it.
The Ethical Trade Initiative (ETI), of which Primark is a member, supports this position, stating unequivocally:
“If a company discovers that children are involved in making its products we expect them to … secure their urgent transition from work into good quality education.”
ETI go on to suggest that companies should get involved in programmes to provide that education where it is unavailable and improve their policies so that adults are paid enough to support the whole family.
So in the light of LBL’s observations it is difficult not to wonder whether Primark’s overriding concern in axing the three suppliers in question was to protect its brand and income, not advance ethical standards.
A More Painful Future
Primark’s situation was undoubtedly unenviable. Do you stick rigidly to the letter of the standard which you have adopted, or do you give yourself more flexibility to allow you to adhere to its spirit?
A business, according to the current definition, has to make money. However the principle has been established that the financial, environmental and social aspects of its operations ought to be considered with equal gravity.
So a businesses caught on the hook of a similar situation ought to look deep inside itself and ask whether it can improve the lot of those in greater need than its customers by relaxing some of its financial constraints.
This kind of painful dilemma is likely to arise more often as sustainability takes hold as the commonplace business practice.
The Primark picture is further muddied by allegations in the Indian Press that the situation was misrepresented by an NGO seeking to “garner foreign funds” for itself.
Whether true or not, this serves as a timely reminder that sustainability is not a pure area free of wrong, rather that we all need to beware of those who would turn it to their own particular advantage.
It would have been interesting to see Primark make a go of it, acknowledge that their supply chain had fallen below standard and then embark upon a programme to bring it back into line.
In the meantime, the space remains open for a business to take the principled road out of such a dilemma, attract customers’ spending and so prove to investors that ethical business practices truly are less risky.
News Evolution
June 25, 2008
Opinions and News Converging Into One Source
The Internet has opened a myriad of sources where news can be delivered. People access their in-boxes daily to find out what the latest business news is, what the economy is doing, which way the real estate market and gas prices are leaning and even what the latest Britney Spears gossip is! The search for the news is unquenchable and consumers are finding more and more creative ways to satisfy their editorial thirst.
There are so many ways that one can absorb the news that there is not necessarily a “right” way or a “wrong” way to get current events. With so many venues available for sharing, it is not uncommon to receive news via Internet, radio, print and even in public forums.
News and Expectations
Fine journalism warrants that the reader will be enlightened and possibly even take action after having absorbed, digested and pondered on the food for thought by the writer. Effective news sharing dictates that information is shared that is not readily available or even easily attainable and which will be informative to the reader. Quality is of the utmost importance since many rely heavily on the printed word to get their fix of news happenings. Facts outweigh opinions, but opinions give the reader entertainment. But where does that fine line end between opinion…and entertainment?
The media has a large responsibility to play in how news is received and perceived by the masses. Even in light of our current political climate, news is slanted for or against the candidate of choice in hopes that this will sway the reader and give the candidate an advantage. This method actually does work on some, however, those who are skilled in the techniques of the news media know that it can be a deceptive technique and should be looked at very closely
Accurate Assessments
In order to fairly judge news sources and scrutinize media publicity, all one has to do is to analyze the source from which their news is derived. This would give a person a complete understanding of what the underlying motive is (if any) and whether or not the source can be trusted. Does that mean we should more readily trust a source from the New York Times than we should from a local, low-circulated news press? Absolutely not.
Analyzing media sources for accuracy and journalistic ethics requires us to simply look at the history of the source, the quotes or information that it offers and compare it against what others sources are saying. For instance, if several media outlets cite the same source for the same information, it is usually an outlet that can be trusted as well as its source. Likewise, a news outlet who claims that they have the “spoof” story is almost always one that has incorrect facts, questionable information and stories that cannot be confirmed. Although there are journalists who can get the first-hand story account, they have been in the business for a while and have developed relationships and a reputation in the industry for having the edge on their journalistic approaches.
The media is responsible for shaping much of what consumers view as news and what they form their individual opinions on. This is a power that no one can deny that they do have nor can they really rival it when it comes to delivering news that is accurate and emotional. The media desires to sway the opinions of the reader and will do almost anything to have the story go in the direction that benefits them the most. Aside from unethical practices, media outlets can make the news say just about anything they want it to. Shading and coloring the facts are considered harmless if the outcome is positive to all involved. But, just because no one is hurt, does that make their responsibility less effective? Or, does that mean it’s just good journalism?