In my previous post, "P&G's "Stealth Division" Corporate Ad Speak", the terminology, jargon, or semantic of "Buzz Marketing" was used. I look at that term as an overall concept that can, but not necessarily, encompass ethical Word Of Mouth Marketing, or even unethical Stealth Marketing (aka "Undercover Marketing").
However, there is much confusion over the meaning and use of the term "Buzz Marketing". This is due, in my opinion, to many articles like this 7/30/01 Business Week Online one, and online definitions like this one. On 5/17/05 an author on this subject published "Five Common Misconceptions About Buzz Marketing" in which he says: "If you're confused about the terminology of word-of-mouth marketing, I have a little confession to make: sometimes I get confused about it myself." All this serves to make many people mistakenly and automatically equate "Buzz" with "Stealth".
But, "Buzz" can be ethical and serve a very positive, non-deceptive purpose for the consumer. Without going into too much detail for now, the "devil is in the details" when it comes to how "buzz marketing" is implemented, encouraged, facilitated, and followed up on. How "The Influentials" are chosen, educated, motivated, facilitated, and directed, especially when it comes to appropriate DOWNSTREAM DISCLOSURE of HOW THE VIRAL MESSAGE STARTED throughout the entire "pass along", "relay", or so- called "downstream" process is crucial, IMO.
I like WOMMA's news article entitled "WOMMA Opposes Stealth Marketing" which has as its first point: "1. Word of mouth/buzz marketing is not stealth marketing. = Word of mouth is listening to the consumer and giving them a voice. Stealth is tricking people. Honest marketers oppose all forms of stealth and deception. We never pay people to say things, or ask people to misrepresent who they are or who they are working for."
Again, my take on the definition is that "Buzz Marketing" is an OVERALL CONCEPT. Stealth Marketing is definitely unethical, in my opinion, which I think everybody agrees on. But, I like the first five words of the definition of "Word of Mouth" (without the word "Marketing" attached) as specified in this Glencoe Online Marketing Dictionary = "An UNPAID form of promotion..." The reason is that usually, without compensation of any kind entering into the equation, ethical marketing has a much better chance of happening. Don't you agree? Keep in mind that "compensation" or "payment" can take many forms ("cool inside information", "points" toward redeemable rewards, prestigious peer recognition, and being discovered as a trend setter).
5/4/06 Postscript: If people of influential and non-influential natures are both equally given smaller sized, clearly marked as "SAMPLE" products to try the product and pass on to others with no restrictions attached on ANY KIND of negative opinions, this old style "TEST MARKETING" could be viewed as a "samples compensation" method, but would generate a more ethical, but still viral "buzz", because downstream disclosure is built right into the more obviously "marketer manufactured" sample size (clearly and conspicuously sized and marked as such) vs. the possibly misperceived "consumer purchased" regular size. This along with wiping out "message board seeding, and fake blogs, and 'bar leaners'" (from the CEO of Nielsen BuzzMetrics blog post entitled "Opening the dialogue on WOM ethics ") would help the Word of Mouth Marketing industry, IMO.
Comments