If you read MarketingBlurb regularly, then you already know I'm a big advocate of word-of-mouth marketing and social media marketing to leverage offline and online influencers in order to drive awareness and recognition of a product thereby increasing sales. With that in mind, when I hear an argument against the importance of influencers (particularly online influencers) in marketing and advertising, I have to debate that view.
Today, I read a post on the Wall Street Journal blog that talks about sociologist Duncan Watts and his belief (garnered from his own research) that mass marketing is more effective than targeted marketing to 'influencers.' According to the post on the Wall Street Journal blog (which cites an article by Clive Thompson in the February issue of Fast Company as its source), Mr. Watts believes that, "social networks are so complex that consumer trends are essentially random. Since it's impossible to know how one might start, advertisers have a better chance of succeeding by aiming at a broad audience than by spending money chasing highly connected people."
My response, "I disagree."
I propose two arguments against Mr. Watts' findings. First, I'll reference contradictory research that shows the importance of online influencers vs. traditional advertising in terms of the sources consumers trust (and look to) to help them make purchase decisions. I'll point to two posts from 2007 on MarketingBlurb that provide evidence from research by Bridge Ratings and Nielsen that is quite opposite to Mr. Watts' findings:
As an alternate argument against Mr. Watts' declaration, I'll cite a real world example - Harry Potter. The Harry Potter phenomenon represents a brand that skyrocketed to become a cult brand and later a phenomenon primarily due to word-of-mouth marketing and an online buzz. Is there anyone out there who hasn't heard someone they know talk about Harry Potter and say how great it is, "you have to read it" or something similar? I argue that the Harry Potter brand would never have gotten to where it is today had it not been for word-of-mouth marketing and influencers of all kinds driving its success.
What do you think? Do you agree with Duncan Watts? Is mass marketing to a broad audience more effective today than targeting influencers and leveraging word-of mouth marketing? Where do you plan to invest your advertising and marketing dollars in 2008?
This discussion turns on the definition of "marketing."
Typically, influencers need to be "sold" on supporting a new product through face-to-face, telephone, and personal e-mails. This includes private briefings of reporters and writers, community or industry leaders, and others who have a large audience.
Whether this is done by a PR person, CEO, or product manager, these conversations with influencers are what prompt them to later publicly support a product. So, is this sales activity part of marketing, or is marketing just advertising and promotions?
Posted by: Cliff Allen | January 18, 2008 10:28 AM | Permalink to Comment