Is buzz illegal?

Andy's assertion seems almost Kant-like in its moral certainty. This is fascinating given that all the scientific research relating to attribution theory and the like would seem to suggest otherwise, i.e. incentivised word of mouth is not credible and therefore not effective. Perhaps this is cultural because you can call someone a good salesman in the US without there being any sense of irony or sarcasm.

But it's the Kant-like moral certainty surrounding disclosure which interests me because business in general seems to be more Utilitarian, i.e. morality is based on its consequences not on any categorical imperative.

Maybe we shouldn

... does anyone know of a nice, short and sweet, my momma could understand it, defintion of each?
I'd like to know the difference between BUZZ and WOM, if there is one.

Well, the very wise Dr Paul Mardsen once said that buzz, viral and word of mouth are all the same thing, namely network enhanced word of mouth or what the Japanese call 'Kuchi-Komi'.

If you want to talk of nuances then:

... viral has tended to be used by those dealing with online networks
... buzz by those who exploit media networks (PR-ability)
... and WOMM by those who harness traditional social networks.

But it's all network-enhanced word of mouth. Simple!

see more here

Let's not bring Kant into it and make it all academic and boring...

At the heart of it, word-of-mouth marketing seems like a good idea since we trust a fellow human being more than we would an advertisement. If a friend came to you and extoled the virtues of his new Volvo, you'd be more likely persauded by his salespitch than that of a car salesman, since your friend has no vested interest in talking up a Volvo.

Word-of-mouth marketing attempts to hijack this phenomenon by paying people to come off as sincere brand advocates...A decidedly stealthy move, no doubt.

But seriously, are you going to trust a stranger who's hawking some product or service? A friend has credibility because they are, after all, a friend.

Some random person in a bar who starts chatting you up and telling how smooth his vodka tonic tastes is plain and simply a freak. And most people will see the hidden agenda a mile away.

What's more is that any brand contact point (or person) should unmistakebly reflect the brand and its essence -- that's what all the 360 degree brand twaddle is based on, anyway. So for a brand not to designate itself as the brand in every media, and not to engage people in a likeable and suprising way, is just sheer stupidity. And a waste of money, to boot.

Clandestine, word-of-mouth brand agents do nothing to build brands, therefore. At best, they may stimulate trial. At worst, they represent the worst excesses of misguided marketing people and reinforce the public's hatred for marketing and advertising, which, in turn, makes marketers even more desperate to reach to people with even stealthier tactics.

Let's give this word-of-mouth thing a rest and go back to doing real advertising. It's hard and there're no short cuts. But when you do it right, it pays dividends...

Erm ... I think Copywhore maybe American because the citing of Kant et al is called irony.

Erm ... also not sure where she/he gets this idea that Word of Mouth Marketing is about paying people to spread the word.

The real point is that much advertising no longer works now and there are a whole load of reasons why like ad clutter, media fragmentation, ad avoidance, mistrust, etc, etc.

What has been shown is that recommendations rates are the only metric that can be pegged to business growth.

However, natural word of mouth may not be enough to help brands cut through the clutter. So brands need to help amplify and accelerate word of mouth and despite CopyWhore's assertion there's a whole host of techniques that can be employed to improve advocacy and the most effective ones do not involve any form of bribery. In fact, good advertising has a part to play, so it's not a question of Advertisng versus Word of Mouth but about developing marketing strategies (not just marketing communication campaigns) that optimise advocacy.

If that

Erm ... There's nothing remotely ironic about your citation of Kant.

Erm ... It seems like nothing more than an attempt at posturing as some kind of quasi-academic with the purpose of gaining credibility.

Erm ... You seem to have a quite a penchant for tossing 'round jargon and missing the real ideas.

From your last post: "recomendations rates" "cut-through-the-clutter" "marketing strategies (not just marketing communication campaigns)" "optimise advocacy" "unquantifiable brand awareness through advertainment"

Seriously, what in the hell are you talking about?

There's a bottom line with regard to branding: make people love you.

Suprise 'em; delight 'em; entertain 'em... It doesn't matter how. Everything else is bullocks (which, I'm assured, is a British euphemism for Bullshit...imagine: not every Yank tosser is a provencial, Nascar-watching, illiterate imbecil who fails to understand irony!)

Big wet slurpy kisses

As I said you must be an American and best of luck with the procurement department.

Snogs

Am I going to have to get you two a room? ;)

Not to brag about my bilinguability (hehe) but you UK:ers and US:ers truly speak the same langauge without understanding each other. It's rather funny. ;)

Does sernovitz not have two US cents to weigh in with?

Nice ad hominem attack there. I'd expect more from someone who goes around talking about categorical imperatives and such...

Well, you had said:

"There's a bottom line with regard to branding: make people love you."

Nuff said.

Right, I did say that. But I wasn't trying to rub everyone's nose in erudition by flinging around Kant and his philosophical jargon.

My point about your ad hominem attack is that I'd expect a more substantive retort from someone with such apparent scholarship...

sernovitz: From the WOMMA site I found this Word of Mouth vs Advertising. You don't honestly think it's an either or thing do you? In what way was AdAge.com's headline IS BUZZ MARKETING ILLEGAL? "inaccurate"? I'd really love to know.