(Here’s an op-ed column I wrote for PR Week, on the issue of buzz marketing.)
When I was in my 20s, I rented an upstairs apartment from a middle-aged couple. Not long after I moved in, they invited me down for a beer.
After a brief chat, they launched into a pitch to a) sell me home products; b) make me a salesman of the same products; and c) become a wholesaler myself.
It was creepy. So were they. I moved out quickly.
What bothered me, apart from the somewhat unsavory industry they represented, was their initial deception. They weren’t trying to be my friends. They were trying to sell me stuff.
This came back to mind as I read a recent story in BusinessWeek. It told of the campaign by Procter & Gamble, one of the world’s great consumer-goods companies, to recruit “buzz moms” as word-of-mouth marketers to their friends and acquaintances by engaging them in supposedly personal conversations. Why? Because surveys are clear that people trust personal recommendations more than advertising.
It was more evidence of a shift that is gaining velocity. Those who sell goods, services, ideas, and candidates must recognize that the world of TiVo, pop-up blockers, and increasing skepticism about traditional selling techniques requires a different way of seeing the marketplace. Which means, ultimately, that PR is the new advertising because conversation is the new PR.
But there is an honest way to have a conversation. As the magazine story noted, P&G didn’t insist that the moms disclose that they’re being rewarded for their efforts. In fact, the company said that it was somehow more in keeping with today’s style to let the moms make up their own minds about whether to disclose.
Reading this story made me less likely to buy P&G’s products, hard as they are to avoid. I don’t trust companies that try to fool people.
Buzz is great. Genuine buzz comes from those who truly care about something, not from corner offices.
I have news for the buzz moms and those who choose to be the corporate or political foot soldiers: If you are being compensated for this activity, tell me. A supposed friend who tries to sell me without such disclosure won’t remain a friend if I discover the deception.
Transparency is vital, not optional, in this new marketing relationship – and this is not simply about what’s ethical. Transparency is also smarter. You may never get caught pulling a fast one, but if you do, you will be punished.
I’m not saying advertising is dead, by the way. There will remain plenty of opportunities to sell things in the traditional ways for some time to come. Some buyers actually prefer to be passive consumers as opposed to active ones. And in highly targeted niche media, the ads can be as interesting as the journalism.
Meanwhile, the conversational aspect of marketing and image-making will continue to grow. PR folks will be helping their clients’ various constituencies in this way, and we’ll be relating somewhat differently to each other as time proceeds. It’s a messy process, true, yet also a valuable one.
It won’t work in the end, though, if the conversations aren’t open and honorable.
on Jun 9th, 2006 at 1:39 pm
This post reminded me of the time I spent working in music marketing. The standard online marketing practices at major record labels are fairly gross, which isn’t all that shocking, but when you witness it first hand, it makes you want to take a long hot shower.
Entire teams of interns were (probably still are) used to post fake, albeit fairly transparent, comments about particular albums and bands in threads. It’s not often all that difficult for a fan to tell the difference between a genuine post and an advertising post, however, the way readers have to sift through those ad-posts that clutter up the community is a major issue.
on Jun 10th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
[…] E’ una pratica da condannare? Da parte mia non c’è alcun pregiudizio e infatti ho risposto all’invito e sono entrato nella comunità. Di certo c’è che, qualsiasi cosa succeda, la cosa essenziale è mantenere un rapporto di trasparenza assoluta nei confronti del lettore, come sostiene Dan Gilmor a proposito di un caso di cattiva pratica successo negli USA con Procter & Gamble. […]
on Jun 12th, 2006 at 5:57 am
Hi Dan,
You’re right about transparency being integral to the new world of “buzz”….the problem that I’m seeing (in the latest round of conferences I’ve attended) is that people in journalism, p/r and advertising don’t understand how to be transparent. On the part of some, it’s an adversarial stance towards the public that keeps thier language stilted and inhibits transparency. On the other, it’s an inability to read the syntax of comments (and to comment back) as much as it is an inability to relate to people. With journalists, it’s interpretations of their ethical code that keeps them somewhat distanced from natural conversation. With p/r and ad folks, it’s a sense of superiority–sometimes that’s needed to get rah-rah about selling stuff people really don’t need. In the coming years, all three are going to need lots and lots of coaching to understand what it means to be transparent. Or they’ll simply end up like the folks from your past.
on Jun 12th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
> With journalists, it’s interpretations of their ethical code that keeps them somewhat distanced from natural conversation.
Tish, what’s your level of confidence that this is the reason?
(and what evidence supports this interpretation?)
I ask because I would have guessed differently.
on Jun 15th, 2006 at 11:32 pm
Hi Dan – you wrote:
“I have news for the buzz moms and those who choose to be the corporate or political foot soldiers: If you are being compensated for this activity, tell me. A supposed friend who tries to sell me without such disclosure won’t remain a friend if I discover the deception.”
I’ve been educating the network marketing community for 15 years about this problem – talking up products and not telling until they must, after the other person has given them their unguarded ear as friend. Like what happened to you. Ugh.
P&G, by sidestepping training their women to tell up front is causing all of them to degrade themselves just a little – if they talk up stuff without telling, that they were NOT talking up to their friends before. Obviously the stuff wasn’t THAT good…but for a case of soap…maybe it’s become good enough. Selling out to friends for coupons and soap.
I did a post entitled, ” What P&G can learn from network marketing’s biggest mistake” – it’s here.
http://kimklaverblogs.blogspot.com/2006/06/what-pg-can-learn-from-network_08.html
P.S. I have dogeared about every page in your wonderful and educational book, We the Media. 🙂