There is an ever-present metric that looms over meaningful engagement. It is an artifact from the industry that long ago accepted its flaws, but continues to sell campaigns and drive efforts to make brand messages measurable.

We have sufficient data to suggest the recommendation of a trusted colleague, friend, or family member is more influential over purchasing decisions than that of traditional advertising or media editorial. [92% compared with 48% and 42% - WOMMA] These relationships are built upon trust. The pulse of an online community is regulated by that underlying economy of trust that gives credibility to every participant's contribution to the conversation.

Trust is not a factor in calculating impressions.

Measuring sustainable word of mouth about a brand that is both meaningful and relevant to a community means focusing on the velocity, engagement, and adoption of a messaging strategy, and less on the estimated impressions resulting from the placement.

There is a place for reporting impressions. However, this should only be one metric with which a brand measures its success in building long-term relationships and sustainable word of mouth marketing and social media strategies.

Photo Courtesy: Mikael Altemark


Paul just posted an open question concerning a potential ethics code violation at the WOMMA blog.

I think the active parties perceived their actions to sufficiently disclose their relationship and intention of spreading messages on behalf of their client, Motorola. Listening to the growth and adoption of the social media mindset within the world of PR and marketing, I actually think astroturfing was the furthest objective from their minds.

However, there is a very traditional mentality at work here wherein agencies see the internet as a place to put or publish messages for a brand.

There are too many definitions for authenticity when it comes to online participation, and too many inauthentic "hits" / one-off messages that completely miss the value of participatory consumer marketing.

From a blogger's perspective:

• It's not enough to disclose your affiliation when you are advertising in our comment boxes.
• Take the time to get to know us.
• This means introduce yourself, then contribute.
• If we like you, we'll embrace your message (And, it will be a lot more effective if it comes from our voices instead of yours.)
• Your job is not to get the message out there - it's to show us that you care enough about the community for us to get the message out for you.

For a DWOM practitioner

• Make the message relevant, personal, and 'invited.'
• Bloggers still want your participation!
• Re-align your tactics with your program goals in such a way that you are building marketers of bloggers - as opposed to marketing to bloggers
• Be visibly authentic.

How else can we help drive sustainable word of mouth marketing best practices to not just abide by a code of ethics such as the ones put forth by WOMMA, but to actively seek relevance and authenticity within the communities they hope to foster long-term brand advocacy and earn trust?

Capture Collage Courtesy Gizmodo

Some brilliant work appears to have been behind AntiSpore.com. The website postured itself as fundamentally creationist, and attacked the 'evolutionist dogma' brought to life though EA's new game, Spore. The game allows players to temper the evolution of lifeforms by design. This was antithetical to the beliefs of AntiSpore.com's writers, and stood for several breaches of morality that were the content of each post.