I’m calling for a moratorium. I want market research firms to stop releasing research statistics on consumers’:
- Channel preferences, and
- Trust in friends and family’s recommendations over advertising.
I could fill a couple of pages with links to these studies, but why should I? They all say the same thing: Consumers prefer the Web for a lot of interactions, the phone for others, and in-person for some things, too. What a surprise. So what should marketers do with this data? Stop providing services across channels?
And who would have guessed that consumers put greater trust in what their friends say than what advertisers tell them? (Is my sarcasm showing?) This is hardly a recent phenomenon. So should marketers stop advertising that their prices and service are superior to the competition’s simply because current customers might get the word out for them?
Marketers need research that helps them understand the interrelationships between elements of the marketing mix. That consumers prefer one channel to another isn’t helpful unless we know how the interaction of channels impacts customer satisfaction and buying behavior.
And telling us (for the gazillionth time) that consumers trust their family/friends’ recommendations isn’t actionable unless we know how often consumers get family/friends’ advice and how that advice is evaluated in the context of other sources of information.
The fact that their “insights” into customer attitudes are completely useless to marketers doesn’t seem to stop research firms (not to mention other firms who commission these studies) from releasing these stats. After all, it generates PR for them. I’m OK with that. I just wish the stats provided some new — and actionable — insights into consumer behavior and attitudes.
That’s why I’m calling for a moratorium. Are you with me?
Technorati Tags: Marketing, Market Research
Yay! I am with you. No more self serving research generally would be a good thing.
Most definitely with you.
This just in: children are more likely to expect their mother to pick them up from school than their father.
Random? Yes. But just as useful as the stats you’ve pointed out.
Stick a fork in ‘em.
Ron,
What I think most of these reports fail to mention is that yes, we trust our friends and family – but where do our friends and family get their information?
Ferinstance, a colleague called me about the phone service provided by the local cable tv provider. I told him that it had to be VOIP service and did he feel comfortable with that (I gave him th pros and cons). Then he asked me if I could let him know if I hear anything. Well who am I? I dont work for the phone company or the cable company. But, a friend of mine does work for the cable company. I trust him. He told me it was good and that he has had no down time in 6 months (not a great test period but its all I have). So I pass this information on to my friend. He seemed to be happy and has decided to purchase the service.
I got my information from the provider! This is no different than if I would have seen the ad on tv, read up on it online at the provider’s web site and passed that on to my friend. The recommendation was tainted by my own ignorance of the product.
Plus, how would I know that I wanted the new Pepsi Zero if I didnt see the print and television ads all over the place?
The problem with putting all of your eggs into the “family/friend recommendation” basket is that the friend needs to hear about it from somewhere…
Somewhere like tv, radio, print, magazine, newspapers, paid reviews, internet marketing etc.
Do enlargement pills work? My friend says they don’t. No one with any real sense of physiology knows that they don’t REALLY work. But the companies sure are making alot of money – through marketing.
Tony: Great points. I think there’s an implicit belief that a friend/family member’s recommendation comes from experience with the product.
What gets me is that this is hardly new news. Marketers have been using testimonials as part of their marketing forever. Why all this WOM research is passed off as earth shattering news is beyond me.
Okay — I think you guys are missing the point about WOM and why it’s “news”….because TV, radio, print, magazine, newspapers, paid reviews, internet marketing…….dying a slow death. Why?
People are sick of it! Sick of being screamed at. Sick of being bombarded, bored, and bamboozled. (okay, that was fun)
Starbucks did not use any of those mediums to grow. They didn’t have the budget. They focused on the experience. People had to walk in. On their way to work. Hear the music, smell the coffee, experience the ambience – THEN they went to work and told EVERYONE!! I know. I first experienced Starbucks in 1989. I was one of those WOM people. Told everyone!!
How did you find out about Google? TV? Billboard? Nope. Someone you trust.
The research is too much – I agree. It keeps saying the same thing over and over and over and over. WOM grows your business. We already know this. I think people are waiting for it to change. It won’t. It always HAS and always WILL be the best advertising. A real endorsement.
How you GET that REAL endorsement? That’s hard. You can’t put it in a research paper – you might have to read a whole book – or two – or twelve. I recommend you start with Ray Davis’ new book. Leading for Growth: How Umpqua Bank Got Cool and Created a Culture of Greatness!
Well, I guess I should just savor the time I spent agreeing with you on something, because those 12 hours are up.
You actually help make my point for me by indicating that you were doing WOM back in 1989. Today’s researcher/pundits are flinging out stats like this phenomenon was something new.
Second of all, you got one thing right about Starbucks. They focused on the the experience. What did they did NOT do, however, was go around asking “will you refer us?” “hey, Denise, how likely are you on a ten-point scale to refer us?” or “Hey, Howard — how many people said they would refer us this quarter, and how does that compare to last quarter?”
They focused on the experience and let the rest take care of itself.
I don’t think anyone disagrees with Denise.
But…
What did Starbucks do to get that first trickle of customers? Experiential marketing – (Music, smell of coffee). Burger King kind of does the same thing with pumping the exhaust of their flame broilers out onto the street. I really don’t like the taste of their burgers, but their neighborhoods smell like a perpetual BBQ – and it always makes me hungry.
Then, Starbucks branded their cups all white with a huge green circle and green straws – thats branding for product recognition. They actually became trendy because there was no television or radio spots (it was kind of an inside thing) – but now, I pass 3 billboards for Starbucks on my way home.
Positive WOM is the holy grail to be sure – but even SB who built a business on experiential marketing and positive WOM, has gone traditional.
And then there is Duncan Donuts – they are everywhere with their traditional marketing and enjoy incredible brand loyalty by its customers. And it is the #1 coffee retailer in the US even though it has fewer locations and is really an East Coast giant (not too many out here in Califorrnia.) They became #1 without going the Starbucks route. They blended message, marketing, branding and WOM into marketing gold.
Starbucks has a good gimmick – they made sweet coffee trendy, but I don’t think they have all the answers. It also may be an American thing – Duncan’ has branded itself as the”Unpretentious Alternative” to fancy schmancy coffee shops. Americans tend to like the “Keepin it real” point of view. I own 2 coffee shops and at least 5 times a day someone comes in asking “Can I just get a regular cup of regular coffee?”. They always sound frustrated like we are going to force a mocha on them or something.
So I guess my overall point is that not all marketing speaks to all people. Positive WOM is great if you know someone that knows the product. But like the telephone game – what if your message gets filtered incorrectly through the “Someone” and you lose a customer before you have a chance to earn their business?
There is a benefit to the “Horses Mouth” marketing philosophy. You can control your message and your image.
What I hear you saying, Tony, is that what works is a balanced combination of approaches. And if that IS what you’re saying — then I couldn’t agree more.
yeah – you got it. When my wife isn’t around, there is no one to smack me when I talk too much