Word-of-Mouth Campaigns: Poisoning the Grapevine

Article Tools

Image Gallery

Print

E-mail

Comments

RSS

The idea that a neighbor could be surreptitiously selling us a new type of deodorant or toothpaste in return for free goods is inherently repulsive. But like the bugs that lodge themselves in the corners of our television screens, word-of-mouth marketing has spread without much objection from mainstream media or society at large. The consensus seems to indicate instead that we ought to get used to it or tune it out. If 7 percent of the mothers in the United States are members of Vocalpoint, it's troubling to consider how nonmembers distinguish between a genuine Pampers recommendation and an incentivized pitch. Dissembling to promote diapers is not a concern for most of us, but if secretly promoting products to friends and neighbors in return for coupons and free goods is legal, it's imaginable that word-of-mouth could become increasingly commonplace.

Seventy-six percent of consumers cite word-of-mouth product recommendations as their primary sources of information for making purchasing decisions.9 As these channels become more polluted with marketing, that number will fall. As it does, it will act like a social barometer, tracing the falling level of trust and goodwill in our culture. It's easy to imagine where this will lead: progressively more jaded consumers will become wary of the slightest hint of ulterior motives, real or not. Consumers will gradually come to view all but their closest friends as possible salespeople. Lacking the ability to trust each other, we will become increasingly isolated and lose a fundamental faculty for forming strong communities.

From the book Obsessive Branding Disorder by Lucas Conley. Reprinted by arrangement with PublicAffairs ( www.publicaffairsbooks.com), a member of the Perseus Books Group.

Copyright (c) 2008.

RSS | Comments | E-mail | Print