Sat 19 Nov 2005
Discussion please…
Posted by Kristofer Mencák under Marknadsföring , Word of Mouth , Buzz marketing (edit this)So, this is actually my very first post in english. The reason? Well, there is a slight possibility that someone who doesn´t understand swedish will want to read it. The reason for that? Well, it all started about twelve days ago. I was reading a post on the BzzAgent blog, and found out that the book Grapevine had finally been released. It had been on my wish list for quite some time. In the post, Dave Balter finished with the words:
… First day you can post a review on Amazon [I’ve hated seeing the book up there with no reviews]
To me, it was a quite obvious hint to his bzzagents to go there and give their reviews. They had already gotten a copy of the book a few weeks earlier. I already had a bad feeling about this! Once I got to amazon, I checked the reviews. There were around eighteen there already. Maybe two of them were from BzzAgents who identified themselves as such (as they are supposed to do). Most of the reviews were raving, but how could I trust them? I knew the book had just been released, and the BzzAgents had gotten it earlier. How many more could have found out it had been released, ordered the book, gotten it delivered, read it and posted their reviews in less than three days? I figured there must have been more than two reviews which were from Dave’s “agents”. They were the ones who got the advance copy and would have had time reading it.
Anyway, since I´m a true believer in word of mouth and usually rely heavily on the reviews on amazon, I felt upset. My evaluation system had been corrupted. My trust in the BzzAgents was low (not as persons, but as endorsers of this book). I felt I had to voice my opinion about it all, so I did, right there among the reviews. First though, I made it very clear that I hadn´t read the book yet.
Anyway, I woman (who is a bzzagent) took offense in my words, and felt upset that I didn´t trust her. I wanted to explain my thoughts to her, but couldn´t reach her in any way. The day after, when I once again read my rss-feeds, Dave had been checking on amazon and posted about The war on amazon. Well, I didn´t start any war. It would be ridiculous to do so. I just want to discuss this way of marketing, and hopefully understand it better.
It also seemed the discussion continued among the commentaries on the blog. I finally saw my opportunity to explain to the woman who took offense, and also figured I could take the opportunity to open up a discussion with Dave and be able to make up my mind about their way of working, if I think it is viable in the long term. So, I posted my comments. I waited a day. Nothing happened. I posted again. Again nothing happened. I let it be for a while, until the 15th when Mattias Durnik sent me a tip about an article about buzz marketing in The Boston Globe, where they mentioned my review on amazon, and discussed this form of marketing.
I decided I would try to reach Dave once again. I couldn´t find his personal e-mail on their web site so at first I tried some possible variations of it. They all bounced back. I mailed their general address (bzz[at]bzzagent[dot]com), asking whoever received it to forward it to Dave. Nothing has happened since.
Since I havent´t heard a word from BzzAgent or Dave, and my commentaries are not being published, it seems Dave doesn´t really want to discuss this. I don´t know why. I guess they aren´t as open to discussion as they say they are. I´m actually quite surprised by the fact that they don´t seem to care, since I believe that if I feel less trusting towards BzzAgents (as BzzAgents, not as persons), there might be several more who feel the same. And if there are several more, this might be a problem for BzzAgent, and even more so in the long run. I think it is a question to be taken seriously.
I believe strongly in the power of word of mouth! I work with it! But I doubt that this way of doing it is going to benefit anyone in the long run.
Anyway, here´s what I wrote in my comment, the one that BzzAgent didn´t want to publish:
Hello Dave, jus2cusmile and everybody else!
After reading the BzzAgent blog for quite some time, and eagerly looking forward to buying Grapevine, I got very disappointed once I got to amazon. I knew I would probably react somehow, but I didn´t think my reaction would be so strong. I felt I simply couldn´t trust the reviews. I usually rely heavily on customer reviews for my purchases – I trust the word of mouth, but in this case I got really sceptical. There were mostly positive reviews, which was good, but then I started thinking… .. how many of these are BzzAgents? How many really disclose their relationship? I know agents are supposed to disclose, but maybe sometimes they forget. There are other reasons to my scepticism too, but more on that a little further down. Anyway, I felt I had to comment on this somehow, so I made a review myself, questioning a bit if this could be a form of marketing which will survive for long. I did not say that BzzAgents are paid shillsters. However, they are incentivized in some way. I did state the headline as a question, because I believe we have to ask ourselves if this will work in the long run! I also stated that these are my opinions, based in my own reactions to the fact that there were many BzzAgents posting reviews. And finally, I did make it very clear, to anyone who wanted only reviews from people who have read the book, that I hadn´t done that yet.
If we suppose that this works, and I guess that you say so (and I believe you) it will attract more marketers and more BzzAgents. It will do so until the benefit of it is equalled by the cost, which will happen sometime between now and when the whole market is full of agents. It will grow until the credibility of agents approaches zero, because that´s where the benefits no more outweigh the cost, and word of mouth will have lost it´s credibility. Where will we turn then?
A lady making reviews took offense by my sceptical review, and I wanted to reply to her, but I couldn´t, there, so I´ll do it here. I would like to say to her that I DO trust her personal opinion, but once she gets some kind of incentive to share her opinion, it will detract from her credibility, at least in my opinion. Anyway, the reason I couldn´t really trust the reviews were these:
Firstly, the reviews are incentivized (incentives are incentives, in cash or not) – even if they are honest, it detracts from their credibility, in my opinion.
Secondly, there is a large number of BzzAgents giving reviews – clearly statistically overrepresented. No statistician would accept such a sample. Last time I checked, there were 16 agents (disclosed) out of 30 reviews.
Thirdly, there is a also a great risk that the sample of BzzAgents giving reviews is biased – the ones who don´t like the book as much are less likely to write a review.
Forth, opinions might be influenced – there is a risk that BzzAgents who hesitate if they are going to give the book three or four stars might give them four. With such a large percentage of agents, the average is not trustworthy anymore.So, Dave, since I haven´t read the book (yet), I would like to hear your opinion to make up my mind. Do you think that this form of WOMM can last forever, or do you think that it will dilute the power of word of mouth over time? I think I can guess you answer, but how would you explain the four issues I mention above?
best regards,
Kristofer Jonsson
In my opinion, Dave, BzzAgent and every other WOM marketer who uses the same or similar tactics as BzzAgent, will have to deal with these issues sooner or later. And the best way to deal with them is open discussion. To me, with my knowledge of WOM and social psychology, I think this form of WOMM will have a hard time lasting for long, but as I said in the letter to Dave, I´m willing to hear his view, if he´s open to discussion. I´m also very open to hearing your view on this!
Anyway, this was a very long post, so I´ll just make a quick ending to this. Feel free to discuss these issues in the comments!
November 19th, 2005 at 7:22 pm e
Hello.
Yes, its me…the lady(BzzAgent) you speak of. lol And I am one of the reviewers who DID reveal myself as a BzzAgent right from the start.
I wanted to say, that I read your e-mail to Dave, at the BLOG-he made a thread just for this very topic and because of your letter to him. (just so you know, we cannot start our own posts there at the blog, only employees of BzzAgent-but we can reply to all topics posted-comments are posted in realtime-so they appear as soon as you submit them)
I have no ill feelings at all in any of this and simply wanted to let you know that. I just replied to Dave’s post and it can all be read there, rather than re-posting it here, as its long. lol
I only took offense at the mention of us BzzAgents not being honest in our opinions and that is wrong, because I HONESTLY enjoyed reading that book! lol Maybe because I’m a BzzAgent and I could relate to what was being said and enjoyed this ‘inside-look’ into the world of WOMMA.
But anyways, its water under the bridge and there are so many other important issues to deal with in life than worry about things like this…ya know? lol :)
But, as I said in the reply at the BzzBlog, I would be more than happy to give you MY copy of Grapevine,(its funny because I too wanted to contact YOU with that offer this past week, but also couldn’t through amazon! lol) so you can form your own opinion based on actual experience of reading the book for yourself. You may like it, you may not, but that’s what WOM is all about, after all, isn’t it? lol
Opinions and feedback of such.
Thanks for listening and Have a great weekend!
November 20th, 2005 at 2:22 am e
Great to see that I finally got contact! Thank you for that, Dave! =)
First, I´d like to make a quick correction. Kristofer is a name on a guy, just like Christopher is probably a name on a guy in the U.S., right? It´s just the spelling that´s different. So, I´m a guy!
Let´s get back to business.
I do really trust word of mouth. That´s why I usually use the reviews on amazon a lot. A book with a lot of one and two star ratings is probably not going to be as good to read as one with mostly four or five… .. but we all understand that.
Thank you for your offer and comment, jus2cusmile! You offer me your copy so that I can “form an opinion on the book’s own merits and NOT by what others have to say”. First, in this case, I only partly form my opinion from what others have to say. And I trust other peoples opinion and let their opinions influence my buying the product or not. Isn´t that one of the basic ideas behind the BzzAgent model? Letting peoples opinions influence other peoples decisions? The idea is not that everyone has to always buy a product to evaluate it themselves, as it seems that you want me to do now. I thank you for your offer, but will get the book myself. That´s also something strange in some of the comments on your post Dave – they are suggesting that it could be out of jealousy or just plain being cheap, that I posted the review. Isn´t it telling that just because I wrote that review I should be jeolous or cheap? Immediately they think I´m not as trustworthy, isn´t it so? Isn´t that just the same as being a bit distrustful towards people who are “working” for bzzagents and giving reviews on the founders book?
To me, it´s just so obvious that if there is only one reason to something, that reason accounts for 100%. If there are two reasons, they have to divide it. It could be 99.9% that the book is great, and 0.1% that they are bzzagents, but it could also be more even.
Note this: I made it extremely clear in my post on amazon that I hadn´t read the book. Also, I never in the review made any statements about the book! I simply questioned if this was a marketing model that can last in the long run. The reason for just one star is that you have to give some number of stars to post there. I figured my one star would in some way counter the (what I still believe) biased selection of buzzagents.
Dave, you still have not answered if you really think this way of working can last in the long run. Isn´t it reasonable to believe that if we suppose that this works, it will attract more marketers and more BzzAgents? Isn´t it reasonable to believe that it will do so until the benefit of it is equalled by the cost, something that will happen sometime between now and when the whole market is full of agents? It will grow until the credibility of agents approaches zero, because that´s where the benefits no more outweigh the cost, and word of mouth will have lost it´s credibility?
Finally Dave, do you think that the sample of bzzagents giving reviews on amazon is statistically representative of all the bzzagents out there, who got their hands on the book? I don´t.
Best regards,
Kristofer
November 20th, 2005 at 2:03 pm e
This is yet another comment I made on the BzzAgent blog:
“From Kristofer
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 20 2005 @ 03:42 AM CST
First, a hypothetical question: Imagine a society where all your friends are agents, for different companies, but with similar models as BzzAgent – would you trust your friends recommendations as much as you do today? “Hey, you know I´m a buzzer.. … I got this great book to review from BuzzerCorp.. … you should really read it!” Imagine recieving a few comments like this every day. Would you trust them as much as you would if you got one comment per week from a non-agent? That´s my point. With this model, I believe (this is my opinion), that people will trust recommendations like this less and less.
Jus2cusmile… … I hope I haven´t insulted or come with any unfair accusations. That´s not what I´m after. I just want to discuss this. Of course, I can´t speak for others, but at least my goal is not to come in here just to “cause problems and spin people up”.
This whole discussion is based on MY reaction to the fact that the reviews of Grapevine on amazon are mostly posted by bzzagents. As I have said before: If I have this reaction, it´s very possible that more people will, and it they do, then there might be a very big problem for BzzAgent in the long run.
Varmit… … I know that bzzagents are not penalized in any way if they were to post or say anything negative on a product. And I do believe that the posts on amazon were mostly honest (there are some issues however – see my letter in the post Dave made above). However, I do believe that the sample of bzzagents posting and really voicing their opinion is biased – the ones who are negative about the book are less likely to post, I believe. Anyone who has studied a bit of statistics would understand this point of view.
Also, there is a psychological phenomenon called “reciprocity” – we often feel an urge to reciprocate in one way or another, if we receive something from someone. Isn´t it quite possible that bzzagents are also affected by this universal principle?
I think this leads bzzagents to feel some kind of loyalty and certain obligation (possibly subconscious) towards BzzAgent, and that loyalty might lead them to talk more positively about products, to fervently protect the model and of course they also react when they feel their own credibility is under attack (as bzzagents, not as persons).
I don´t say that bzzagents (as agents) have zero credibility. I believe that bzzagents will have less credibility. Whether it´s 1% less, 10% less or 50% less (or anything else) depends very much on the receiver.”
November 18th, 2007 at 6:27 am e
[…] I totally missed this letter that Kristofer Jonsson from Sweden posted somewhere on our blog, I think. I highly recommend reading her [whoops, his!] full post at her blog about her 1-star Amazon review of Grapevine. […]