For this week’s blog post, I chose to evaluate an article that I found to be very interesting. The article is titled “Networked Narratives: Understanding Word-of-Mouth Marketing in Online Communities” and is a research study done by Rober t V. Kozinets, Kristine de Valck, Andrea C. Wojnicki, and Sarah J.S. Wilner. This study evaluated the impact of seeded word-of-mouth (WOM) marketing in online blogging communities and how WOM marketing can be used and improved in similar communities.
First of all, the article gave a bit of WOM marketing history. The first WOM model, developed in the 1940’s, was called the “Organic Interconsumer Influence Model.” This model said that the buyer-to-buyer conversations were more influential than marketing communications when it came to influencing adoption of a product. It occurred one consumer and another without direct influence of the marketer and was motivated by a consumer’s desire to help, warn, or inform another buyer.
This model was said to occur naturally as long as marketers developed market innovations and effectively notified the public about their products through advertising.
The next model, developed in the 70’s, was called the “Linear Marketer Influence Model.” This model, unlike its predecessor, recognized that some consumers were more influential than others. Marketers then tried to directly influence these opinion-leading consumers through advertising and promotions so that they will spread the word. By doing this, the products would be advertised by “the friend who recommends a tried and trusted product” rather than “a salesman who tries to get rid of merchandise.”
The final model, and the model that was examined in this study, is the “Network Coproduction Model.” Similar to the model before it, it recognizes the influential consumers, but it is also interested in managing and measuring the effectiveness of WOM. The Internet has allowed this to happen. There are two main characteristics of this new model. First, marketers use new tactics to directly target influential opinion leaders; and second, marketers acknowledge that messages and meanings are exchanged among members of the consumer network—people make their own meanings and share it with others instead of just taking the marketers’ meanings.
Using this final model, the study wanted answers to three questions. First, how do communities respond to community oriented WOM marketing? Second, what patterns to WOM communicator strategies assume? Finally, why do they assume these patterns?
The method of this research was fairly simple. It studies a “seeding” campaign—a campaign where the product is given to influential consumers so that they can tell others about it. The campaign was to promote a new, camera-equipped mobile phone. The phone was seeded to 90 bloggers whose blogs had to have traffic of at least 400 unique visitors per day. The bloggers were not required to write about the phone, but were encouraged to do so, and 84% did so. It was found in a follow-up survey that a significant number of sales were influenced by the bloggers’ recommendations. The results focused on 4 blogs whose responses were representative of the overall findings.
The findings indicated that the character narrative of the bloggers forms the backbone of the blog content. The bloggers chosen to partake in the WOM campaign seemed to be flattered at the opportunity, but also threatened because they did not want to be seen as “sell outs.” Blogs help build a social network that is about more than just the sharing of information; they help build trust, friendship, and alliances. When marketers impose themselves into these social networks, they undermine these important communal ideals. In WOM marketing the chosen consumer must become both a consumer and marketer. Traditionally, marketplace relationships have been kept at a distance from community relationships, but by putting itself into the community, WOM marketing violates this traditional social contract. To lessen the tension created by this violation, WOM communicators try to transform the message from the persuasion-oriented message given by the marketer into a desirable, informative message that can be useful the their community. This message transformation does three things in the marketers’ favor. First, it communicates the marketing message. Next, it uses the communicator’s reputation and trust relationships on the marketing message. Finally, it converts the marketing message to “conform to the norms and expectations the community has developed.”
The four cases that were closely examined in the article, which were representative of the rest of the cases, were each examples of the four main types of communication strategies that were found in the WOM marketing campaign. The first strategy was called “Evaluation.” The evaluation strategy was used by Alicia, a 33-year-old stay at home mom and freelance writer, whose blog is mostly about her personal life and covers issues about being a mom. This strategy minimizes mentions of the WOM campaign and focuses more on the product (in this case, a phone). By ignoring the campaign and the moral tension of being seen as a “sell-out,” this strategy can sometimes backfire. This was seen in Alicia’s case when many of her readers reacted negatively because of her avoidance of the campaign’s moral issues.
The next strategy found from the study was “Embracing.” The embracing strategy was used by Carrie, a 23-year-old student whose blog was mostly about dating, drinking, and dressing. In this strategy the participant enthusiastically mentions both the campaign and his/her participation in it. Carrie used a self-interested justification to explain her participation, almost giving off a sense of entitlement. In some cases, readers find this open and honest approach to be refreshing, but in Carrie’s case, they saw her as a “sell-out” because the content of reviewing a phone was so much different than her normal posts.
Thirdly was the strategy of “Endorsement.” This strategy, used by Judith, a middle-aged nurse with a chronic illness, fully discloses the campaign, level of involvement in it, and acknowledges the tension it can create. In this strategy, the participant is fully aware of the marketers’ intentions and knows that these intentions may not be in the best interest of the community, but justifies participation with the argument of personal need. In Judith’s case, her illness acts as a ground for her justification of personal need and she is met with mostly support from her readers.
The final strategy is “Explanation.” Frank, a 27-year-old in the midst of several life transitions, uses the explanation strategy in his blog, in which he talks mostly about technology. This strategy openly discloses the campaign’s presence and analyzes the impacts of participation in it. Frank discusses the potential conflict of receiving merchandise to review for free, but demonstrates continued shared affiliation with the community. He uses the justification that it is better for people to receive honest information from a trusted source such as himself, rather than information from a paid celebrity or marketing company. The audience of this strategy either accepts it as a positive thing or is neutral to it.
In summary of the study’s findings is that in communities where norms are accepting or favorable toward the marketplace, embracing and endorsing strategies are viewed favorably. However, in groups where norms are more resistant to profit motives, such as tight-knit communities, an explicit explanation strategy is received more favorably.
Overall I found this article to be incredibly interesting, as it has to do with advertising/marketing strategies as well as new media and technology. Word-of-mouth marketing campaigns are not only effective, but they are also a great way for advertisers to find out how to better connect with their customers by observing the participants in the campaign. However, this article did provoke some questions on which I would like to hear others’ thoughts. Do you think that a participant in a WOM marketing campaign can remain objective when reviewing a product they were given for free? Also, if you loyally followed a blog, would you consider the blogger to be a “sell-out” for accepting money or goods that caused a change in their blog’s content?
The only way that a marketing campaign participant can remain objective when reviewing a product that was free is completely in their hands (in this case the blogger). If they take their role in the campaigning professionally, then they should give an honest review. This is not to say that the company they are reviewing a product for will take everything they say into consideration but as a consumer if they want to keep their end of the deal true, then you say what you think and risk if the company accepts it.
ReplyDeleteIf a blogger accepts money or goods that alters their blog’s content, usually I see this person as somewhat of a sell-out or a sell-out. Occasionally it seems that the blogger has a genuine interest in reviewing a product that is not normally connected with their blog content, but many times if the product alters the content of the blog then it seems more like a sell-out because why hasn’t the blogger written about content related to the goods before now?