In the old days, companies created marketing campaigns, set up focus groups, etc. without really engaging after the consumer's needs after-purchase, beyond the standard customer service protocols. Now, the world of conversational marketing has changed this setup. Companies have to be responsible for the quality of the product and how it is serviced once sold, or else the world of bloggers will tear the brand name of the product up and chew it for dinner. I see this both as on offensive approach to marketing and a defensive approach.
The defensive approach to marketing is finding certain conversations on the internet that are potentially harmful to a brand and trying to turn that particular person or persons views around so it doesn't spread like wildfire. The offensive approach is basically treating conversationalists on the internet like royalty to help promote the brand before any bad commentary is started.
Take for example the unique world of Yelp that my girlfriend has engaged me in. She started off as blogging about particular restaurants around town and before you knew it she had been invited to places for free vodka tastings, happy hours, club openings, etc. just because she was part of this massive network of reviewers. In an effort to promote a certain place (restaurant, event, etc.), these establishments will go all out to make these bloggers rate the places well enough so that the marketing takes care of itself.
For me personally, I know I will probably go on certain review sites and rate places badly if I do not feel like it was a great experience. But even I know there can be survivorship bias in some of these review sites...meaning that a lot of sites go all out to screen comments/blog posts in an effort to make a certain product look better than it is, causing the fairer comments to survive, and the more critical ones to disappear. (TripAdvisor.com/Hotels.com to name a few). So be aware, just because you feel like one site is being conversated in a great light, be sure to check around to compare.
I like how you broke marketing down into offensive and defensive strategies. Defensive marketing might also be called "damage control"
ReplyDeleteTweetDeck, that tool that Tom from Kodak told us about, might be a useful tool for companies to be able to filter out and address tweets (both positive and negative)that are floating around. If people are tweeting about something, they might also be blogging about it, giving the company a forum to address kudos or concerns.
"But even I know there can be survivorship bias in some of these review sites...meaning that a lot of sites go all out to screen comments/blog posts in an effort to make a certain product look better than it is, causing the fairer comments to survive, and the more critical ones to disappear. (TripAdvisor.com/Hotels.com to name a few). So be aware, just because you feel like one site is being conversated in a great light, be sure to check around to compare."
ReplyDeleteThis is a salient point, and there are debates going on from both angles. Take these two listings as an example:
Yahoo: http://local.yahoo.com/info-12677067-ana-visage-day-spa-great-falls;_ylt=ArHhGSGV0DD9rIFSSokzytCHNcIF;_ylv=3?csz=Ashburn%2C+VA+20148
Yelp: http://www.yelp.com/biz/ana-visage-great-falls-2
One site has a listing of dozens upon dozens of reviews. The other site offers less than ten.
Is there a clear way for lay users of the internet to distinguish what is and isn't authentic/biased?
In your opinion, what is more meaningful, for a reviews site to show all submitted content, without any filtering based on suspected source of the content, and any associated biases? Or should review sites be attempting to apply some level of filtering in order to present more trustworthy content from engaged users? Why?
Cheers,
-Kevin L, Yelp DC CM