The Tricky Path of Brand Relationships

February 16, 2009 · Comments

money changing hands Cyndi Lauper was right: money changes everything. At least that’s what I was told in some informal surveys yesterday. I asked a series of questions to better understand people’s perspectives on products and brands and endorsements. My questions came after reading a bit more of The King of Madison Avenue, about David Ogilvy, and the rise of advertising. First, here’s what I asked:

What brands would you love to have the chance to represent passionately?

Most people had fast answers: Apple, Peets Coffee, One Laptop Per Child, Lexus. They were comfortable talking about the brands they loved, and sharing their enthusiasm.

I added a second question.

Now, if the brand paid you for the pleasure of representing them, does that change the equation? Would people’s view of your support change?

People bristled at once. Very few people suggested that this was an okay relationship. Most felt that by adding money, the opinion of the advocate was suspect. Interesting, eh?

Go another step:

So if I love Canadian Club, and could promote the hell out of it, the company should pay Crispin Porter Bogusky to make the ads?

Some people saw my point, but others held to the “money changes everything” equation. Press further:

Celebrities endorse brands for money. Do you feel they’re legit? Does it influence you?

Oh no. Not at all. Most people said that Tiger Woods wouldn’t tell you what to do. That’s not what Lindstrom tells us in Buyology, but why should I quibble?

The Larger Confusion

So let’s review:

  • People would love to endorse and support the brands they love.
  • People would be suspect of money changed hands related to that.
  • People don’t trust celebrity endorsements.
  • Advertising supposedly doesn’t work (if you listen to some).

See how those don’t really add up?

Or rather, what seems to be the next obvious step for brands would be just to build relationships of acknowledgment and appreciation between their passionate fans, but never incent them in any clear and obvious way. I imagine my PR friends like Todd Defren would be okay with that. He likes earned media.

But what does it mean overall?

I’m of the mind that content marketing is one way to supplement the declining impact of advertising. I believe the best possible minds to provide passion and insight into brands would be the customers who use them (not all customers, but those who intersect neatly the Venn diagrams of “can make decent media of some kind” and “really passionate about a product”). And yet, at least on the surface, this seems to upset or rile people.

What’s your take on it all? What am I finding here? What’s the view from your side of the street?

Photo credit quaziefoto

If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.

Tagged as: , , , , ,

ChrisBrogan.com runs on the Thesis Theme for WordPress

Thesis WordPress theme

Thesis is the search engine optimized WordPress theme of choice for serious online publishers. If you’re a blogger who doesn’t understand a lot of PHP, Thesis will give a ton of functionality without having to alter any code. For the advanced, Thesis has incredible customization possibilities via Thesis hooks.

With so many design options, you can use the template over and over and never have it look like the same site. The theme is robust and flexible enough not only to accommodate a site like ChrisBrogan.com, but also to enable the site to run far more efficiently than it ever has before.

  • People rather pay to represent the brand than have the brand pay them. It's quite funny actually. 50 years ago, large logos on clothing didn't exist, but now, people proudly display these logos as status symbols.

    Or, let's think about Apple's iPod. They made their headphones white and people paid to join the white headphone community. They saw white headphones on other people so they subconsciously realized they wanted an Apple iPod.

    So, here is the next way to market a business. Make your product exclusive and charge people a monthly fee to wear your shoes — even if they dont' wear them daily.

    What do you think of that, Chris?
  • I've always thatough that the more you can tap into someone's emotions, the more loyal your audience will be. Because, to me, this kind of 'buy in' is so moch more than the wow effect -- that will only last until the next 'wow' product comes thru. But when you affect someone on a deeper level, you've made a connection.

    These connections make a difference with companies, people and products. And why not? There's trust and credibility - which goes a long way...especially in a financial freefall like the one we're all experiencing.
  • The form of marketing that has always been most effective on me is free (or very low cost) samples. Since he or she is initially trying to give me something instead of sell me something, I am more receptive to his or her approach than I would be otherwise. Also, it's usually pretty obvious when someone offering samples genuinely uses and likes the product (and really believes that you will too after you try it) versus is just pushing samples because it is his or her job.
  • Chris...

    I had this debate three years ago, with the people behind DeSmogBlog.

    They made the contention that PR people are to blame for global warming, because PR practitioners are "clouding" the "resounding" science supporting their cause. Their statement was that PR people were selling out their souls, chasing the dollars of the greedy capitalists.

    I asked the simple question: "What if there are PR people who, prior to any question or opportunity for money, believed that global warming is a natural event and that the impact of mankind has been exaggerated?"

    In that instance, is their counsel and messaging support any less valid because they happen to be paid now?

    My very thoughtful and well-reasoned comment was deleted outright, and never acknowledged.

    So there is your answer.

    The purists who already KNOW EVERYTHING will stop at nothing to bully and browbeat those with whom they disagree with the OLDEST rhetorical shortcut in the world: the ad hominem of circumstance.

    Screw 'em. They reveal their character in the way they say one thing and do another.
  • I'm thinking that we don't get the word out and sales don't happen if we don't advertise. If people don't know about your product, they don't know to buy it.
  • I'm thinking it primarily has to deal with the negative subconscious ideas and experiences that people have around money and business. The average person has been programmed to consume. To receive a "kick-back" for actively promoting what was just "consumed" seems like a conflict of interest... an underlying "oxymoron" running the default memory in most people.

    I like the idea of content marketing that you suggested. Depending on your surveyed subjects, the outcome may change. If you do this again, compare and contrast the responses from business owners/entrepreneurs/students and regular workers. There may be a differential there.
  • There's another element here and that's that the people who read this site and I'm guessing (?) many of the people you've surveyed are pretty marketing savvy.

    I guess this sounds kind of snobby or elitist, but there are a massive number of people out there who will buy or sample something because Tiger Woods says they should.
  • Things evolve. Advertising will certainly find its way into our lives. I believe in passion and its influence, whether that be a blog post or any other kind of media.

    I think your results are incongruous because there is emotion and passion as an underlying current that flows through those that are passionate about the subject to respond. That always skews the results a bit.

    Overall, I believe that people are inclined to be apathetic or worse when the advertising targets a product or service for which they have no passionate position. To some extent I think the advertising needs to work a bit to try and instill that passion.

    On another note, I think that celebrity endorsements play little part to my purchasing decisions. I'm afraid I liken them to political endorsements and I'm usually inclined to go the other way.

    George
  • I saw when you posted this questions on twitter but I could not really answer this in 140 characters or less so thanks for making a post about this. Receiving money for representing a brand is fine if done correctly.

    The person who is getting paid should have some knowledge of the product or brand for the average individual to ask questions. The problem comes when the person just slaps a name on a brand and has no idea what it really is about. Credibility is lost and maybe even a sale.

    @bookerx3
  • Chris:
    I would generally agree with you that we as consumers can be hypocritical about this subject - but who said consumers were always rational people? :)

    I think you're dead on talking about content marketing as the way to move forward - but why do consumers have to be paid for that? Couldn't the ones who are passionate about it do it for free, but still work in conjunction with the company?

    And as far as advertising goes, why couldn't the company advertise the community rather than the product? As in, discussions and involvement are happening around this product or idea, so come join us. Be a part of something. That I think would seem appealing to people. It wouldn't feel like they were being "sold" per se, just informed.

    Thanks again, Chris, for a great discussion starter.
  • Charles Neville
    The questions you asked on twitter recently got me thinking. Here's a one person case study of my experience with Icebreaker clothing (they make Merino wool thermals, base and mid layers, great for all kinds of sport, and general wear, check them out at Icebreaker.com). It's not cheap.

    I first found out about Icebreaker from a friend who had bought himself a selection of their products to wear on a ski holiday. He'd been influenced by a salesperson who recommended Icebreaker as a response to the question: What's the BEST, money no object, thermals you sell? I was sceptical at first but he extolled the key virtues of the Merino wool: it doesn't stink - you can sweat but your clothes don't smell, it's really comfortable to wear - no artificial fibres helps.

    I didn't buy any immediately (did I mention, it's pricey stuff!), but the exclusive retailer of Icebreaker where I live were doing a promo and I noticed it on their storefront, buy one item get the second for half off. That was the nudge that I needed, I bought my first couple of items of Icebreaker and they're the most frequently worn clothes I own.

    So, it took a personal recommendation AND some good ol' fashioned point of sales promotion to get me to buy, but no traditional advertising. Now I'm a devoted fan. Take what you like from this.
  • I suspect celebrities because I questions whether they really use the product or use the product as "regular" people would.

    Another thought pops up: If I've already stated that I love a product, in my case, my Nikon D40 camera, and Nikon suddenly offered to be a sponsor for my blog, which already features photos taken with my camera, would my love of my Nikon be suddenly suspect?
  • John Zurovchak
    Chris,

    Your post reminded me of Dan Ariely's chapters in Predictably Irrational about how money turns a social relationship into a business relationship. What if people see their favorite brands (not all brands - only their favorites) as social relationships - as part of their identity? They would see someone offering to pay them as violating this social relationship, much like Dan's example of standing up after Thanksgiving dinner and offering your mother-in-law some money for the dinner. If you haven't read Predictably Irrational, take a look at it. You might draw some connections with the effect you are seeing in your post.
  • euonymous
    Oh, boy. I saw your tweets asking for input, and didn't, but I found the above summary interesting. Marketing really gets the juices flowing for some folks, doesn't it? Ogilvy and Charles Revson had wonderful observations about B2C marketing. I take them to heart, although my area is B2B they are still relevant. All marketing is based on human nature.

    Authors (like Isaac Asimov or Stephen King) have been known to say that being an author spoils reading for them. They know the tricks. Similarly we marketing folks recognize what we see going on around us - or do we? Pepsi and Coke create communities of affiliation with their ads. Celebrity advertising supposedly works enough to justify its cost. It works because it taps into the brand of the celebrity and bites off a piece of that for the advertiser. Whether we like/dislike celebrity ads (I find them a waste of money), we respond to them because the celebrity is a shorthand notation for a set of characteristics a company wants affiliated with their product. That's why DELCO advertises on NASCAR cars.

    Mostly product marketing is about making people aware of the product and its benefits. To do this we need to, as you say, "get the word out." Visibility to the right people. And we'll use every psychological, physical, electronic, etc. trick in the book. Does money change everything? Unless they've been living under a rock, consumers are sophisticated enough to know the celebrities are being paid and adjust their antennae input for that. But the shorthand still works. Pepsi commercials without celebrities work, too. Visibility, affiliation, benefits. You pays your nickel and you takes your choice. We're selling dreams as well as functionality.
  • I wrote a post over on my blog about "Why we should care about Attention" to answer this question. (www.whitneyhoffman.com)
    Basically, what we have here is a classic case of mixing the metaphor, straight out of Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely. We have a social relationship, but when it gets financial, it muddies the water, as much as if you offered to pay your Mom for that fine Thanksgiving dinner. What we're doing in this new age of consumer-centered marketing is playing with this mixed message of when we can ask our "friends" for money and financial support in return for "x"- the idea/service/product we are trying to capitalize on.
  • Just wanted to leave a comment on the 'advertising works' aspect of this.

    You have to be careful when concluding that 'advertising works'. From which perspective are you asserting this? It could be from the point of view of the advertiser. They notice a measurable improvement to their sales, strongly correlated with their campaign. In that sense, yes, the advertising has 'worked'.

    However, looked at globally - from an 'overview' sort of perspective, it might not have 'worked' as well as is indicated by the advertisers perspective.

    How many people have been alienated, annoyed, insulted, irritated by the style of the advertising? To what extent has the reputation of the vehicle which carried the advertising been adversely affected by the campaign? How much 'long term damage' has been sustained in contrast to 'short term advantage'? How much future potential business has been permanently lost by catering to the people who are easily influenced by that particular type of advertising?

    The measurable improvement may have been achieved as the result of a sub-group reacting favourably to the advertising but this could mask the majority who did not.
    The party who are benefiting from the 'bottom line' might not care about carrying out any further analysis. The advertising has 'worked' and that is all that matters to them.

    In my opinion, this is what is wrong with advertising in recent years. It simply ignores the growing cohort of people in society who are sick of the usual techniques of advertising. They are not part of the 'success' of advertising and are therefore simply not counted. It is a bit like a political party winning an election with only 20 percent of the vote say. They declare 'victory' but really, they have lost.

    I hope that this made some sort of sense because I am speaking as a 'consumer' rather than a member of the profession (which I am not).
  • Looking at your points in reverse order, here's my take:

    -Advertising works just the way it is supposed to. The advertisers have run the numbers and they know what they are getting for their buck. It certainly does seem, though, that media delivery is changing, so ad buys are likely to shift as circulation/viewer counts and other demos shift.
    -Celebrity endorsements are primarily a form of entertainment to me; if the celebrity finds some creative way to stick in my head, MAYBE I'll try the product if I'm not already a user. Often though, I watch advertising for products I already use, so the celebrity serves just as an entertainer.
    -I'd have a hard time understanding how to properly weight an ebulliently positive review versus a scathingly negative review if I know that the reviewer gets paid as a product delivery and marketing conduit. Maybe you can remain objective, you are that good, but most people would simply become 'tools' at this point. Also, I wouldn't want to make my own living this way. I just don't really like that many products and think that maybe we are a bit too focused on consumerism (?)
    -I have no problem at all with sharing my own positive experiences and I heartily recommend ways that my friends/colleagues/etc can improve their lives. I'd hate to soil those recommendations with the appearance of an impropriety due to "compensated positivity". Interestingly, instead of products it is normally people (i.e. Chris Brogan, my mechanic, and my barber) and sometimes companies (i.e. Walmart, Coca Cola, Wordpress) that I recommend. My own recommendations are normally based on positive experiences, not individual products. The only compensation I need is the knowledge that my friend has had a similarly positive experience.
  • Celebrity endorsements definitely don't change my mind about a brand. I know its all about the money there and I'll use the product if I like the product.

    I feel like I already promote my brands. I tell people I like certain brands because I use them. It doesn't take any money I just like the products.
  • I hear your argument, but I think that with celebrity endorsements, there's an understanding that consumers know that they're being paid. And having been in on those negotiations, I know that -- by and large -- celebrities don't just endorse any old thing. We've had many turn down endorsement/spokesperson opportunities based on principle, dislike, conflict-of-interest, etc. For instance, celebs who are spokespersons for pharma companies usually have a personal connection to the drug, disease, whatever.

    There's such a strong bond of trust placed on a non-solicited, non-paid endorsement by Joe and Jane Public. You feel like you're getting the real scoop. However, in your case, Chris, you're moving into that celebrity realm (seriously), so a paid endorsement by you, goes with a certain understanding of trust and knowing the source. You've built up that trust, so if you truly endorse something -- paid or not -- I feel you're being honest, because you've built up that trust with me ... more so than Paris Hilton!
  • Hi Chris --

    Good on you for starting a conversation about the next steps in solving a serious problem.

    "Hey gang, how do we make money off these cool new tools that let us stay in touch and talk about things that are important to us?"
    -- (insert chorus of "yeah," "all right," "sounds good")
    ~later...~
    "Hey gang, this thing from company is really cool! Have you tried it? I like x y and z but how about you?"
    -- (insert discussion about the thing, which probably inspires some people to buy it, and at least gives thing google juice)
    ~later~
    "Hey gang, company sent me a free new thing, and I think it's just great. It does x, y and z. What are your experiences?"
    -- "SELLOUT!!!!!!"

    Apparently, actually succeeding at what EVERYONE wants to do suddenly makes you LESS reliable and trustworthy. I don't know if I have answers but GODDAMN it feels good to see someone ask the questions. Maybe more later.

    -Dave
  • Excellent point about people who are already passionate being turned into brand advocates.

    I'd argue it's a question of self-respect/dignity - people can't be made to feel as if they've been conned. That's why my intro to marketing course in CEGEP taught us that after a purchase, people talk about it with friends/family to validate their decision and be comfortable with what they did - they're seeking reassurance that it was a good buy (compliments on how nice the car is matter too, but that's besides the point). That's why folks are OK with paid reps, so long as the relationship is disclosed - they feel they can make an informed decision, and avoid being taken advantage of. Perhaps more than self-respect, it's an instinct of self-preservation?

    Fascinating the depth of comments you get here.
  • In the research I've seen on women and WOM, women are especially alert to incentives that might taint their recommendation. Spreading WOM is often about strengthening relationships. Do it wrong, and it could hurt your relationships with your friends and your social standing.

    and yes, there's the social relationship theory from Predictibly Irrational mentioned by several other commenters.

    I think it comes down to a perception of "incentivising" vs. "appreciation."

    Incentivising your customers implies giving something with an expectation of getting something in return. It also implies lack of freedom to say what you really think (aka, you're probably not going to get the incentive if your review is negative)

    appreciation is about a more one-way transacation with no expectations of anything in return, and no restriction on what you can say (aka, you send a free product to a loyal customer, but they have the right to give it a positive review, a negative review, or no review it at all)

    It's a fine line - really a perception thing. But Transparency and authenticity have to be built in.
  • In short, Brand Relations should be led by PR, not the traditional "ad man." Now is the opportunity for the PR industry to emerge as more of an asset to brand than ever before. Become the "branding through communications" agency similar to the way ad firms have in the past. Ads are about "push", but today's marketing is not.

    re celebrity endorsement: I think the misperception here is that brands pay celebrities to endorse products. I manage two outdoor brands and can tell you that our celebrity sponsorship is about branding, not endorsement. What I mean is that, they are an extension of our brand. The represent what our brand is about, and they add exposure to the brand. I don't believe people are listening to what they say about our brand, but I do believe people associate products with people - and that's an entirely different thing.
  • Hi Chris,

    We've seen the same trends among the Mom demographic as well. Mom WOM is strong:

    67% of Moms would rather get information from someone they consider a peer than a “celebrity” Mom.

    94% of Moms rely on recommendations from other Moms when it comes to purchasing decisions.

    The large majority of Moms read consumer-written product reviews online before making even small purchasing decisions. Since Moms now invest more time and effort researching their purchasing decisions, they feel compelled to share their findings with others. We've found Moms, especially, are leaders in this movement.
  • I love those little quotes under the stories in Readers Digest. One of them I read years back that stuck with me is:
    "People will always prefer the calm seas of despotism to the turbulent waters of independence" (can't remember the author)
    It's sad but true, but that's STILL no justification for becoming a despot.
    Advertising/not advertising should be a matter for personal preference, and not something that's forced down your throat like bad medicine or, worse, religious dogma!
  • I've been interested in this topic for years Chris because it seems like the perfect model for social networking. Social Networking today has two pieces: an ad driven business model that gives users functionality for free - MySpace, Facebook, etc.

    Those two pieces support walls. Walls to keep the users in - and all their communications too.

    What you're proposing removes the walls.
    - Build me an "online home" with no restrictions in or out (controls, but no restrictions)
    - Everything I send out - IM, e-mail, blog, link - has advertising representing my interests and choices.
    - The "online home" host keeps the revenue in exchange for "free" or could split it with me and/or the destination site too. Whatever.
    - The advertisers get direct access to people I know and presumably influence. Aka - targeted advertising to my friends, family, associates, etc.
  • Take a look at the Walmart 11moms campaign - the moms are supposedly not getting paid, but do enjoy benefits, and there's been a bit of divide (some publicly and some privately) over whether it's viable, right and fair. There's also many that love it. Companies do what they can, but they will always upset people because that's the nature of corporate vs. individual.

    It's important to be as much a part of the conversation as possible. I personally think that one issue with the Walmart 11 moms campaign is that Walmart isn't speaking themselves. Have endorsements, absolutely, but make sure you and your company are also a large part of the conversation.
  • Good survey!
    Highlights the current incongruities even within out own community.
    Until our mindsets shift into something slightly more practical (easy for advertisers to exploit) this area will always be one difficult to tackle.

    I for one must cast a ballot against the "anit-celebrity" sterotype.

    I believe them to be very successful.
    I love John Legend, and his endorsement of Bailies is perfect.
    Don't tell me people don't buy Air JORDANS anymore.

    I believe that celebrity endoresement has become so commonplace that we not only do we not appreciate it anymore we avoid it.

    Today the everyday man and the nonsensical seems to be selling far better.

    Better ad tactic would be to place these very popular faces in some very awkward positioning for audiences to consume their brands. It would have the appeal of a car wreak. Can't quite look away.

    For example.

    What if Joaquin Phoenix' recent antics (and beard) were to endorse an aftershave?
    Or Salma Hayeks overseas aid mission were sponsored by Land Rover?

    Give us our celebrities being authentic about the brands they represent!
    I love Demi Moore much more now that I can see her for who she is on twitter. No media bias or awkwardness. Double goes for her hubby.

    So there....
  • Successful advertising and marketing strategy is deeply rooted in science and strategy. Sure you can talk about celebrity advertising, or the hypothetical decline in advertising, but successful marketing takes more than just paid placement.
    You mention Martin Lindstrom, who I've interviewed in my podcasts. If you truly interested in the science behind why we buy, might want to listen to it.
    Being in the advertising and brand management industry for years, there are more optimal venues and ad placements for certain brands. Advertisers take in account optimal consumer dwell time - when is the best time to reach the consumer. We find in-flight advertising and vacation based venues are the best for reaching consumers during their dwell time.
    For social media, would you say it's on your blog? Is it on Twitter? Is it through a sponsored post? If you do sponsor a post, would consumers take your recommendations seriously?

    @Jacqueline, you make a great point. One of the most solid ways to reach a consumer is through sampling. A consumer who tries a product and relates back to a positive experience is more likely to buy.

    To brand successfully, advertise successfully, and market your product successfully takes engaging your consumer in multiple ways. Engaging in social media is only one avenue - but still you reach a niche market to which the blogger reaches. Advertising in-flight or even on TV, reaches a broader market in general.
  • I can see it now Chris...

    Cut to you sitting in an oversized leather chair, wearing a tuxedo and holding a crystal tumbler full of Canadian Club (think Bill Murray in "Lost in Translation"). :-)

    Seriously though, I've got no problem with a person being compensated to endorse a product, especially if they genuinely believe in its value.

    The quality of their message will be directly tied to how straightforward their endorsement is anyhow.

    Speaking of whiskey, ever tried Tullamore Dew?
  • @Joe - I haven't, but it sounds lovely.
  • I am sorry we live in a business world, product endorsements, commerical, and ads have been around for a long time and it is ethical for people to get paid. There are a variety of reasons people endorse products for one a person could be finanically distressed and really need the money.

    People have to do their due diligences and be accountable for their own decisions. Every person has a motive when they push a product, the motive could be to help someone out or for a financial benefit. I feel that the social media space is some what behind in its approach to whether it is ethical, right or wrong to get paid to endorse products. A word of advice don't take anything at face value.
  • While I agree that money changes everything and that celebrity endorsements do not say much about the quality of a product (except that the company has a high advertising budget), I do think that the endorsement brings awareness to a product. Many people will pay attention to an advertisement with a celebrity and then, at a later time, subconsciously rememeber or recall the product name and purchase that because they have heard the name before.
  • No getting around it, money corrupts.
    I'm put in mind of the honorable tradition of critics, producing published reviews of art, performance, literature. These thought leaders' endorsement of the product is essential to the latter's success, but any salary is paid by the publisher, and (supposedly) no influence of money has sullied the critic's respected and educated evaluation.
    If the publisher is the critic, however (as in the case of a blogger), even more must the separation of monetary reward and detached judgment be made clear.
    If your blog claims to be an honest reporting of your observations, and if its content is intended to be taken seriously in the long term, what you write can't be connected to financial reward.
  • Janet Ryan
    Chris, consumers want to think of themselves as rational, and answer rational questions with rational answers. But most buying rationalizations appear (based on latest research...which I'd have to look up to cite properly) to happen after the buying decision, to convince ourselves we were right. Beyond that, consumers lie on surveys regularly, especially when asked for that opinion in an open forum. we can't help, we give the politically accepted 'right' answer, and usually have n oidea what the truth really is.

    Back in my print media days, it was widely known (in industry) that if readers told the truth about magazine readership, the New Yorker would have tens of millions of paid subs and Playboy/Hustler, none.

    So, do celebrity endorsements influence consumers work? of course they do. If you pay attention to a shoe ad simply because a sports star got your attention, that ad was more effective than if you'd changed channels or turned the page. Does that make endorsements a surefire approach...of course not, needs the right magic combination of celebrity fit, product perception, marketing objectives, sales process, channelmix...and even then all can collapse when your celebrity gets bad personal press. So its a very tricky and costly solution that is only sometimes right.

    Content marketing? Absolutely. I am convinced it is the future in a UGC/ "consumers control the medium" world. But I don't think it will come from paying consumers to endorse (there is, as your survey showed, a high ICK factor to that one). I think it will come from marketers, media and leading edge consumers interacting authentically to find the case by case examples,

    Just my $0.02...@janmaran

    Janet
  • Chris, I have to agree with Janet's comments here. Before moving online I spent a lifetime in retail sales and marketing. I can recall a rigged survey I once ran on in-store promotional signs where we surveyed customers as they entered the store, had special promotional displays setup on the sales floor specifically matching the survey questions, and then monitored the customer's purchases as they cashed out. This was all permission based by the way, nothing Big Brother about the checkout monitoring.

    An overwhelming majority of the shoppers who took the survey went on to make purchasing decisions that directly contradicted their given responses. I can't recall the exact numbers so many years later, but the bottom line was people lie when asked what motivates their purchasing decisions.

    I'm not sure it's as much about trying to rationalize or "fit in" by saying what's expected, so much as it may be that there's a difference in the thought process of many people from when they're in discussion mode to when they're in shopping mode.

    I myself believe that paying more for a cup of coffee than a gallon of fuel is insane, $40 a gallon for coffee seems crazy to most people if you say it out loud, yet if I'm meeting a friend and they suggest the local coffee shop I order the $4 cup of coffee every time without a second thought.

    The difference is my thought process in conversation or sitting here at my desk vs. standing at that coffee counter.
  • Mary, I disagree. Money doesn't corrupt. Money is an amplifier - if you're corrupt already, it'll make it more obvious. If you're generous already, it'll let you be more so.
    It's too easy for people to blame their own motivations on the things that they use to express them.
  • I think the one positive thing about content marketing is that the amount of influence you have is only as good as your last recommendation. In advertising, there really isn't a trust relationship so if they tell me about a product and it's terrible who am I not going to trust? The manufacturer, certainly. But it's not like I know what agency made the ad. They have a chance to "get" me again. People have had enough of those experiences so what can they do but not trust any of them. Hence the downward trend in advertising effectiveness.

    Celebrities are a nice try if we could trust them, but they generally have another job. What do they care if we buy the car and it sucks and we stop trusting them. We'll probably still go see their movie/golf match/whatever.

    However, the Chris Brogans and Seth Godins and TwitterMoms of the world are different. Their recommendations actually affect their JOBS. So why do I care whether or not they're getting paid to make recommendations? That's generally why I'm seeking them out in the first place. And the first or second time they tell me something is great and it sucks I'm going to stop trusting them. If that happens a lot they will lose influence and poof! no more job. For the consumer, the content advertising model has less risk and lower switching costs than the traditional advertising model and so it's less about who is getting paid and more about the trust. (and the transparency of the revenue stream is part of that trust)

    I think this issue is more about the internal ethics required of the recommender because it's darn hard to get something for free or get paid and then have to say it's bad.
  • I honestly don't know what to think of this :)
    Interesting thread and good reader comments.
  • app
    Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, consumers have a vested interest in the success of products & services that they use and feel strongly positive about.

    If these products fail due to bad marketing, the consumer loses what they love. And in some cases, that can be quite painful.

    Word of mouth advertising can make up for poor marketing when enough consumers that love a particular product tell others about it.

    Anyone that loves a product and out of their own free will tells others about it, without any thought of monetary compensation, still hopes to receive compensation, in the form of continued product availability, even if this thought is only lying just below the conscious surface.

    For most, this is enough compensation and they consider their endorsement an investment in their own consumer happiness. And for many, accepting money in exchange for an endorsement somehow may imply (subconsciously?) that they would rather have the money than the product, itself.

    These feelings may partly be the basis for the mistrust of paid endorsements in general, as if to say that if you accept money you don't really love the product. (also goes hand-in-hand with the general mistrust of people that trade words for money, is that being paid to say anything also equals being paid to lie)

    But I wonder if they would feel the same about bragging about their favorite toothpaste, if the company offered them a years supply of the product they love as compensation. Would they trust a celebrity endorsement if the compensation wasn't money and was product, instead? Would that have any effect on the consumer's perceived integrity of the endorser?

    BTW: Thank you very much for this article. Between this one and a recent conversation with my daughter about providing free advertising for lesser known products she loves, on Facebook, I managed to squeeze a related blog post out of it.
  • I have a chapter in my book about social validation and another about similarity. People look to others to know what to do (esp. if there is uncertainty). I think some of what you are talking about here is about this concept of social validation. People listen to other people, especially if they think they are similar to them. On the other hand, people don't really know why they do what they do (another chapter in my book). But they like to think they do, so they make up reasons for their own behavior. Advertising works, and people buy what celebrities say they should... The answers to your survey questions might not match real behavior during the buying process.
  • app
    What's funny is how some people react to celebrity endorsements of product & services.

    I am not sure if James Earl Jones did anything to increase the number of people that saw Verizon favorably, but I know a number of people that felt that him taking that job lowered their opinion of him. They lost a lot of respect for him for endorsing a product and attaching his name, face, & voice to it. They felt he was better than that and taking a job like that was beneath him.
  • I think it's a conscience issue. If we feel like we are free to say what we wish, and the product empowers us, we are always more likely to share with others or shout at the rooftops. Direct benefits to advertising and word of mouth seems to be the antithesis to sharing something you love. It's almost like we're being TOLD to share, rather than welcomed...to share. Regardless of the good intentions of advertising incentive programs.
  • Make the customer excited. With the economy tight, the customer is in charge and they want to be excited. Businesses have to meet customers on a level that makes them feel engaged. Walter Pinson speaks on this in his blog Hyundai schools us on Relationship Marketing
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: