A new report from Yahoo! and MediaVest describes the behavior of a group of consumers called “Passionistas.” With only the press release to go on, I’m assuming what sets these consumers apart from brand “evangelists” is overall involvement in an interest versus a specific manufacturer. The stats that they released are interesting:

While this speaks volumes about the value of aligning an image with a lifestyle segment, and the importance of psychographic targeting, it does not address the potential threat that this group can pose to a company. The study also mentions that this group performs over 100 searches a year related to their interest area and uses tools such as RSS to stay updated with related news and sites, implying that they are hyper-aware of related developments. This hawkish attention can result in teapot tempests around developments that would be considered minor by the general public - say an inattentive rep at an event, discontinuing distribution through a store, or a trademark dispute. All of these relatively trivial business decisions have caused real-life outrage among isolated groups in the past, as once fond consumers turned quickly on brands they had embraced. A high-profile example of this is the current iPhone unlock/bricking “scandal”, where a software update temporarily rendered a tiny portion of phones inoperable. But the small number that were affected are owned by the “Passionistas” of tech, who are the most vocal and connected. And though Apple has a stellar 20+year record of embracing its evangelists, the last two months (starting with the $200 price drop) have created an increasingly negative perception of a formerly “untouchable” brand. An extreme example, to be sure, but one that advertisers would be well served to keep in mind as they look to engage their customers through personal interests, and realize that the commitment needs to extend much deeper than hanging a logo at an event.

Advertising Age’s “What’s Plaguing Viral Marketing” is an interesting counterpoint to the excitement about viral marketing. Based on conclusions of research that discounts the importance of “influencers”, the article presents the idea that marketers are headed in the wrong direction focusing on finding the few people with disproportionate influence that will transform a campaign into a phenomena. It is true that majority of such campaigns fail to catch on, and too many marketers try to catch lightning in a bottle with me-too tactics that have worked for others without considering that what worked for sneakers might not be right for pet care. But this article goes even farther based on what I am sure is a very elaborate computer model. Tom Hespos gives a good overview on why creative shortcomings might be responsible for most viral campaigns falling short, versus concluding that good ol’ mass marketing is what brands should consider (which is oddly enough what the article seems to suggest). I think there is an even bigger hole in this line of thinking, however, and it is based on the assumption that influencers are solely individuals that interact with one community.

Without knowing the ins and outs of Mr. Watts’ model, and drawing on the experience that we have from creating and planning campaigns that get picked up and spread by users all the time, I can say with confidence that it over-simplifies the real world landscape by a large margin. First, the idea that that an influential individual is “several times” more influential than an average consumer is bizarre, considering that an “ordinary” person may or may not blog, and if they do, their average readership is usually less than 10. Most of the bloggers that marketers target have audiences in the tens of thousands or even millions, which would seem to indicate there is a large magnitude of difference between the model and reality. If this difference is because the research uses a flat, peer-to-peer network as its basis, fine, but the article should have mentioned it. Also potentially misleading is the idea that marketers focus on finding individuals as opposed to groups or communities. A person who’s opinion carries weight in one community might be meaningless in another, or may be regarded as scripture in yet another. Knowing what to place where is often more important than who, and only by having a comprehensive understanding about how different communities (vs individuals) feed each other can marketers change viral from hit-or-miss to a key part of their strategy. Users will embrace great ideas, and the challenge is having them in the right format at the right time, not so much hitting up the same .1% of the population over and over again (or hiring a network of people to chase them, for that matter). I don’t know many people in marketing who really believed that if you found the 10 super-influencers you could collect your check and go home, but it is a stretch to apply an abstract model to a much more complicated environment.

Wired has a great article on how the open nature of Google Maps is changing how we interact with our surroundings. What really struck me as interesting is the potential of KML, which allows users to mash-up maps with any data they want and openly share it. Notably, Google is indexing all of the KML files they can find, whether or not it is specific to their own product. So what does this mean for marketers? Google Maps (and for that matter Live Local from Microsoft) will be integrated more and more into mobile, as evidenced by the iPhone’s deep integration of the service, and “third screen” marketing will become a much more effective and necessary part of the media arsenal. Will I drive an extra mile off the highway to go to a well reviewed local diner, versus a fast food chain at a rest stop? Definitely. Would I plan a vacation itinerary around other user reviews that I find via an online map, versus brochures I pick up, or a paid travel site listing? Absolutely. The talk about online local advertising is mostly focused on the online extensions of local media, not the local extensions of global portals, but I think that this will shift in the near-to-mid term. And again, what will drive the expansion, plus make local search (and by proxy, mobile search) much more effective is user tagging. Instead of a product page, it’s a businesses sticky on a map, and letting your users know how you want to be described (not that they’ll always listen) is a large part of taking advantage of this new platform. Whether I’m a car dealership that is betting that my location and advertising will carry the day, a casual dining restaurant chain that wants a new, better way to connect with my customers, or even a global CPG that wants to communicate with a customer base that is on a cell versus a laptop, the geoweb is worth exploring.

Digg’s popularity is not news, in fact, many mainstream news sites, like the Washington Post have embraced social news services for some time, based on the fact that a story on the front page of digg can drive tens of thousands of extra visitors in a 24 hour period. What I find fascinating, however, is that marketers have failed, AFAIK, to incorporate social news services on their own sites. The investment to incorporate such functionality on a product page is minimal, and the return can be significant. It also has SEO benefits, and can create a long term presence within social networks for accurate product information. Unlike news organizations, which have to maintain objectivity, companies are also free to suggest tags to shoppers who want to share their finds with others, and while screening out negative tags is impossible, the vast majority of shoppers who have come to a page will follow a recommendation versus creating their own. As we see more and more search engines begin to incorporate user tagging into their rankings, it is likely that experience integrating services such as digg now will potentially give a significant edge to marketers in the not-so-distant future.

Just a quick thought- I’ve been hearing and reading stories of marketers that are having problems conducting user-driven campaigns. A lot of this confusion seems to stem from the fact that companies are treating people like unpaid creative directors, and are expecting them to create :30s or print ads around products, and then fret that the results don’t accurately reflect the brand. Some of the thinking on this has been along the “You get what you pay for” line of thought, but I actually think that is secondary. Question: When was the last time you filmed a :30 to tell a friend what you thought? Or created a large visual with compelling copy? Users don’t speak in ad units, but the expectation is that non-traditional creative will be carried by traditional media, which is a large part of the disconnect. Most videos on YouTube aren’t :30 seconds long for a reason- people are done when they’re done, and though 99.9% of what is created is of middling/poor quality, it is far more genuine. The trick lies in loosening the creative restraints, and looking at vehicles that users are comfortable with already, not just in terms of media, but especially in format.

King Kaufman over at Salon.com has an interesting take on our Super Bowl report, along with pretty much everyone else’s that proclaimed Salesgenie.com’s spot to be the worst received by viewers. The premise is that even though we all proclaimed the ad to be disliked by the vast majority of people (by our measure, a whopping 88%), the ad was still a success, because Salesgenie.com met their lead targets. Now put aside for a minute that their goal of 700 leads out of a viewing audience of over a hundred million makes this one of the most disproportionate direct efforts with one of the lowest conversion rates in the history of marketing (their claimed response of 10,000 doesn’t improve it much). Also take away the long-term damage negative brand perception can have to a bottom line.

What needs to be clarified is what everyone was measuring- we, and everyone else, looked at how the average viewer perceived the ad, and in this case, everyone agreed that fans hated the spot. We made no assumptions about how each ad would affect a company’s bottom line or whether it was a smart use of the marketing budget. The experts were the fans, and another interesting development will be how many of those fans react well to the cheesy guy in a Corvette who tells them he found them via Salesgenie lead.

We have just released our Super Bowl buzz report, and we saw some interesting things that a lot of coverage missed – one of the most popular spots, after analyzing 12,000 discussions on millions of sites, was the CBS house spot featuring Dave Letterman and Oprah. It came in second to the Budweiser “Rock, Paper, Scissors” spot in volume and both spots generated an amazing 91% favorability rating. The most discussed spot, not surprisingly was the Snickers “Brokeback Mechanics” effort, which proved that not all buzz is positive. Lastly, the loser of the evening was Salesgenie.com, which hardly produced any positive feedback that we could detect. Our CEO Pete Snyder appeared on Fox News with Bill Hemmer to discuss our findings- check out the clip below:

A survey passed my desk this morning by BoldMouth, a fellow Word of Mouth marketing company, called “Perceptions, Practices and Ethics in Word-of-Mouth Marketing.” This extensive survey touches on many aspects of the WOM universe, including importance and planned use of WOM, evaluating WOM and an issue near and dear to me, Ethics and WOM. The study underscores how important disclosure is to all WoM practitioners. Disclosure practices are not only good form, but also allow for much more effective results (such as the Dr. Walter Carl /Northeastern University study). Huge props to Todd and his team at BoldMouth for this incredibly valuable study!