WOMMA
While reading Work of Mouth 101, several questions entered my mind. First and foremost, what happens when you have unhappy customers? In my experience, the only time I ever hear about any business or nonprofit for that matter is if someone has something really good or really bad to say about it. How does WOMMA account for the unhappy customers? WOMMA mentions several times that word of mouth is “a natural, genuine, honest process,” so if an unhappy customer is very actively participating in the blogosphere, for example (just because I like that word), do they engage in damage control or just let those happy customers counteract the negative?
To go in a different direction, it seems to me that word of mouth marketing has always been the primary method for nonprofits with ailing budgets. It just makes sense; however, WOMMA has done an excellent job of taking word of mouth to the next level. Yet, why would any nonprofit really need WOMMA? Couldn’t nonprofits engage in every single type of word of mouth marketing listed by WOMMA independently? Maybe I just don’t understand the concept of WOMMA…
On page 7 of Word of Mouth 101, WOMMA makes the claim that “word of mouth marketing cannot be faked.” I disagree and believe that it can easily be faked and often is, even though it is highly unethical. I agree with WOMMA that we should strongly oppose any practice that tries to fake word of mouth, but how do you know when it’s being faked and who is responsible for controlling it?
To go in a different direction, it seems to me that word of mouth marketing has always been the primary method for nonprofits with ailing budgets. It just makes sense; however, WOMMA has done an excellent job of taking word of mouth to the next level. Yet, why would any nonprofit really need WOMMA? Couldn’t nonprofits engage in every single type of word of mouth marketing listed by WOMMA independently? Maybe I just don’t understand the concept of WOMMA…
On page 7 of Word of Mouth 101, WOMMA makes the claim that “word of mouth marketing cannot be faked.” I disagree and believe that it can easily be faked and often is, even though it is highly unethical. I agree with WOMMA that we should strongly oppose any practice that tries to fake word of mouth, but how do you know when it’s being faked and who is responsible for controlling it?
posted by Brittney Mills @ 3:39 PM
1 Comments:
At 9:16 PM, January 28, 2008,
Tanesha said…
I really enjoyed the Word of Mouth article because it discusses one of my favorite ways of advertising from a marketer’s perspective. I find that when it comes to trying out a new product or services I rely heavily on the comments and suggestions that friends, family and coworkers make. That’s why I find it hard to believe that word of mouth advertising can be faked. Granted there is always a company that encourages (read “pays”) certain people to go out there and tell people about a product that they haven’t necessarily tried. However, I think the true beauty of word of mouth is that most people don’t want to sell those close to them something defective so eventually the fake advertising dies out as the backlash occurs.
The company would definitely get some heat for having the gall to try to psych the public out. For example, when people found out that certain bloggers were getting paid to tout certain opinions to their readers there was a great virtual outcry. The whole point of word of mouth advertising is that people are willing to try a product because someone they trust uses or endorses it – which is the power behind the throne. Therefore, I think that this form of advertising and marketing is one of the more incorruptible – because eventually the truth will come to light if it is not!
Post a Comment
<< Home