What's the difference between snake oil salesmen and word of mouth marketers? In many ways, they are the same. When a snake oil salesman first entered a town, he selected a few individuals to cultivate into true believers. Once the group was properly groomed into a loyal following, the healing power of the potions was aggressively promoted. If anyone dared to question their effectiveness, the charlatan's followers passionately defended him and his products.
Word of mouth marketers also cultivate people into true believers who passionately and aggressively defend their leaders against anyone questioning their theories or positions. The similarities end there. Snake oil salesmen are smarter than word of mouth marketers because they never made claims that could be validated. They used the power of suggestion to convince people that their potions have healing power.
And, most of the time, it worked because the power of suggestion created a placebo effect where symptoms were altered due to the individual's expectations. But, even if it didn't, who could quantify how well someone feels? It was easy for the salesmen to spin the results. By the time people returned to their senses, the charlatans hawking the healing products had moved to another unsuspecting town.
Word of mouth marketers routinely provide data that is extremely persuasive to prove the validity of their arguments. Andy Sernovitz's "15%" post that challenges an article in DM News provides a perfect example:
From Direct Marketing News:
In a survey of engineers and industrial professionals, only 15% of respondents indicated that they have a Twitter account and more than half of respondents indicated that they are not at all likely to sign up in the future. Those figures don't exactly scream "we need to be in social media today." Wow. That's some bad advice, and a bad read on the data. With Twitter: You could get 15% of prospects to follow you and get DAILY updates. For free. With direct mail: You pray for a 2% response to a direct mail piece, which you can send maybe quarterly, and it's incredibly expensive. |
If you don't stop to think about it, his argument is viable. A 2% response rate to a direct mail piece that can only be sent quarterly hardly compares to 15% of prospects following you for daily updates. If this were the case, anyone considering direct mail over social media is a fool. Unfortunately for Mr. Sernovitz, there are few facts that get in the way of his argument. I'm sure you have already spotted them, but let's break it down anyway:
"With Twitter: You could get 15% of prospects to follow you and get DAILY updates."
This presumes that 100% of the people in the target market would follow you and read every posted tweet. We know this doesn't happen in the real world but perhaps Mr. Sernovitz has a unique Twitter following. Let's do a quick check of his numbers (@sernovitz). He has 16,797 followers but only 3,952 (23.5%) have tweeted within the last day. Now, that might simply mean that the 12,845 other followers are resting a day or two from sharing information but are still reading every tweet he posts. That theory is doubtful when you consider that 4,345 (25.9%) haven't tweeted in the last ninety days. Interestingly, more of his followers are missing than active. If he doesn't have an audience that is 100% engaged, why the expectation that a company will be able to do it?
"For free."
Using Twitter is free as long as you don't value the time you and/or your marketing team invest in planning strategy, posting tweets, monitoring responses, and managing the community. Twitter participation requires time and time is money.
"With direct mail: You pray for a 2% response to a direct mail piece"
Technically this is true because a 2% response rate is profitable for a well managed campaign. It is also part of the delusion because response rates are a measure of the number of orders in relation to the size of the mailing. In other words, responses mean money deposited into the company's bank account. If anyone has found a bank that accepts followers as deposits, please let me know.
"which you can send maybe quarterly"
Direct mail pieces can be and are sent at any time. There are no external limits to how often a company can mail. The determining factors are product lines, customer behavior, seasonality, and profitability. It varies by company, but there are very few direct mail participants that mail quarterly or less.
"and it's incredibly expensive."
Expense is relative. A direct mail piece that generates sales and profits while acquiring new customers is an investment. All costs are offset by the return. Participation in a social media platform without a significant representation of your target market is expensive.
"Wow. That's some bad advice, and a bad read on the data."
Right sentiment. Wrong placement. If it had followed Mr. Sernovitz's commentary, it would have been spot on.
The "15%" post is a perfect example of how word of mouth marketers manipulate data to support their weak arguments. Fortunately for us, their theories can be validated or disputed with some logical thinking and fact checking. Hopefully, the social media fairy tales will disappear soon and we can focus of the real benefits of this new channel - connecting with customers in one-to-one relationships on the platforms of their choice.