Public Relations Commentary

Increasingly, public relations pracititioners have to know not only how to write for the Web, but also how to manage and respond to blog postings. This blog was created to use in my public relations courses to help my students prepare to blog and learn how to respond to others in a virtual yet professional manner.

Monday, January 28, 2008

example of using word of mouth marketing

When reading the WOMMA article, a program that my office (NCSU Study Abroad Office) runs came to mind. We have set up a program where we train volunteer students who have recently returned from studying abroad to give presentations around campus about study abroad in general and about their experience specifically. Other than the time it takes us to train these presenters and the money we spend making photocopies of handouts, this is a free marketing tool and one that we think is most effective. Other students on campus are more likely to find their peers a credible source than a staff member. Also, the enthusiasm of a returned study abroad student is much more powerful than the broken record message they get from staff. The way I see it is these students are going to talk about their experiences anyway, but if we train some of them, we are using them as a marketing tool because even though part of their presentation is personalized, they have been guided and so we have influence over what they say. We never sit in on presentations, so this truly is an honest form word of mouth! Other universities that run a similar program do supervise the presentations, but the way I look at it, the presentations are more credible if there isn’t a rep from the office sitting in on it.

In contrast to the post below, we have the mind set that any publicity is good publicity, so that even if the students focus more on the social aspect of study abroad rather than the academics, at least our name is out there and student interest is being sparked. I agree that it is scary to think people are talking about your organization and they could easily be saying negative things. But I do believe that having your organization talked about, even if it’s negatively, promotes awareness about your product, service, or cause. Hopefully the person who hears the negative message will be curious about your organization, visit your website, take the time to education himself, and form his own opinion. I think this places more responsibility on organizations in certain areas: providing excellent customer service, researching what others are saying, providing an environment for customers to spread the word and making sure others are there to hear, etc. As with the program run in my office, word of mouth marketing can be relatively inexpensive, but it does take efforts from the organization to be successful!

2 Comments:

  • At 8:11 PM, January 28, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I disagree with the 'any publicity is good publicity' train. I think non profits are especially susceptible to dismissive actions and any amount of negativity associated can be a detriment to their success. In an age of over-abundance and over-stimulation, most people will not take the extra time to find out the truth or form their own opinion based on fact.

    I think people are so easily influenced by another idea or opinion and generally take that to word.

    Non profits are usually fighting for dollars from the same sources. They are often fighting another organization of similar size and scope. The average donor goes on gut feeling and word of mouth. Donors also have limited funds in which to give and will typically give a moderate sum to one or two rather a little to three or four. The organization with that "negative publicity" will often lose out.

     
  • At 11:07 PM, January 28, 2008, Blogger Jessica said…

    I agree that publicity is good whether its good or bad, especially for an organization that is just beginning to get its name out. People will respond to organizations they have heard of. Say there is an article in the paper about a non-profit organization, but the writer uses a negative angle to point out the organization’s flaws or mistakes in the past. Chances are, if you are approached a month or two after the article was written, and are asked to donate money between non-prof A (the one with the ‘bad’ publicity) and non-prof B (no publicity), you will donate to A because you have at least heard their name. At this point, unless the organization is being investigated for something like fraud, you will have forgotten about the bad publicity it received a month ago. While good publicity is better than bad publicity, bad publicity is better than none.

    I also agree that word of mouth publicity, when done properly, is a very important tool. The difficult parts of this method are trying to find people who have something good to say about the organization, and trying to find an audience that is willing to listen. In the case of study abroad, there are already lots of students interested in the programs. But I think this tactic would be harder for a new organization, or a non-prof that people do not relate to in any way. How do you get over this obstacle, especially with an organization that can only really afford word of mouth marketing?

     

Post a Comment

<< Home