Control of branding and “the message” or word-of-mouth talk about a company, product, service, issue, etc., is a common theme in social media. It’s been written about in many books, on many blogs and, heck, even in person I’m sure.
And, it came up in a brief back and forth Twitter conversation I had with Geoff Livingston Thursday.
Maybe we’re talking about the same thing, but taking a different approach. Maybe it’s just semantics. Or, maybe we disagree.
As I’ve said in the past, businesses ultimately have control. Or, at least, the most influence.
Let’s start at the beginning: Essentially a company forms when someone sees a need in the marketplace and tries to fill it. (Yes, there are variances, like when a someone makes a product and then tries to find a need, but let’s stick with the basic premise.)
Before that company starts, there is no conversation, reputation or perception about it. It didn’t exist.
That company markets its products, so has contact with prospects, vendors and, ideally, customers via marketing communications, sales personnel, retailers, customer service personnel, etc.
Then, prospects and customers react to those “touch points” with the company — and have the opportunity to give their opinion of the touch point, whether its bitchin’ about a product online or giving rave reviews to the next door neighbor.
What online communication and social media — email, blogs, boards, etc. — have done is give consumers more power. More influence. More opportunity for our voices to be heard by a larger audience. Yes, more control over how ABC Company Inc. and its products are perceived.
But, remember, WOM is as old as history. (Just ask Adam about Eve’s review of the apple!) Companies have never been in total control of their brand or the WOM chatter.
Today, various tools and technology on the Internet give consumers more influence than ever before. Despite that, the ultimate influence of a company’s brand and the perception of its products and services is in the hands of the company.
The company starts all “conversations” via its marketing and other customer contact activities. We’re all just reacting to those contact points. And, we’re having a level of control or influence as to the positive, neutral or negative tone of the chatter — as we’ve always had.
But, ultimately, the company has the most control and influence because it initiated the chatter — via good or bad products, customer service, etc., — or it chose to heed the feedback of its marketplace.
Just like all good companies have done, and will continue to do.
– Mike
Mike I think you are getting at something interesting here. We have to be careful about the words control and influence, however, to make sure we don’t conflate them.
Sure, a company has control over what it ‘officially’ says and does. It can choose to influenced or not by ‘conversation’.
Yes, the audience has increased influence with the growth of social media tools - perhaps even some level of control (although I am leery here) over how a company/brand is PERCEIVED. (I think we have free will in our own perception if we choose to exercise it, minimizing any ‘control’, but anyways…)
A company may reaction to its public brand perception thus created, but while that perception may INFLUENCE the actions the company actually takes, it does not CONTROL them. The audience does not have any kind of direct control.
You could argue an execption - maybe an audience votes on whether a company should introduce a new product or not. But again, the final decision here is made by the company itself. It can choose to disregard customer input. So, again, control here is in the hands of the company.
Marketers and businesses always think they have control, and they don’t. It’s a marketer’s classic error to think they have control. I find it funny that this is an illusion that many large companies have and all of the smaller companies follow suit. Small to medium enterprises are the organizations that can least afford this pompous attitude.
Whenever I hear this opinion, I can tell someone hasn’t spent significant time in sales. And that’s a problem because marketing supports sales. It’s also a very good reason why in a downturn, marketing is the first to go. They don’t understand relationships.
Buyers have the wallets… Companies have to serve consumers in order to get them to purchases. In essence conmpanies are trusted to resolve a need.
When they don’t, they ultimately fail. They always fail to realize that no company starts w/o a sale. What you assume to be control was granted to you by a buyer in trust. It can be taken away when trust is violated. And customer bases erode.
What social media has done is accelerated the process, but buyers were voting with their feet (and wallets) a long time before blogs started. Think Sears, Detroit auto, IBM consumer products, AT&T phones, on and on.
Oh and, Mike, just because your company is talking doesn’t mean any one is listening. Buyers rarely pay attention or voice anything when things are going right. They only care when their needs aren’t met.
[…] Another conversation from a marketer who thinks they can control the message. Sigh. I wonder what his company’s customers would say if they heard him saying, “I have more control then my customers do.” […]
Geoff,
Thanks for the comments and the trackback by repeating and adding a bit to your points on your own blog. (For those that didn’t follow the Twitter links above, Geoff repeated most of them in his comments and in his post.)
As I stated at first, we may be talking about different aspects of business, or essentially the same point of view, but playing too much into semantics.
It seems like you are talking about the ultimate result: the sale, whereas I was talking more about a company’s brand, perception. In that area, consumers are merely reacting to what a company does and making a judgment. Companies ultimately have the greatest influence in its reputation because it has the greatest power in spreading its message. Then, it judges reaction and adjusts. At least, the smart ones do.
We definitely agree that consumers have the final say (call it control if you will) in sales, and as to if and how much a company survives. Consumers always have — blogs or no blogs. For those who shout that this is something new, it’s not. Successful companies have always known that.
And, as with most things in life, there is no black and white. It’s about seeing and filling a need, giving and receiving feedback, and adjusting.
Thanks for the discussion.
Mike
Elizabeth,
Great points.
In marketing/sales, there really is no control. Companies can’t control what consumers buy. Consumers can’t really control what a company makes.
Collectively, consumers exert control — at least extreme influence — on a company. So, we could come to a general agreement that the collective voice of consumers (i.e., the marketplace) controls a company’s success.
The real conversation and education of companies should be about influence — and how it works both ways.
Thanks for the feedback!
Mike
Hey Mike, just a small contribution to your conversation.
Can you tell me who started this conversation? And who influenced this search result (take a look at the third place), as part of this conversation?
Nikos,
Not sure what you’re trying to get at. Alex Rudloff was responding to a contact with Spirit Airlines. He’s complaining online, just as he would (or did, I assume) to his friends and family.
If Spirit hadn’t screwed up, Mr. Rudloff wouldn’t have had any reason to complain. So, he started the conversation — just like he likely would’ve no matter when the screw up occurred.
Business — successful business - is all about being responsive to the marketplace: filling a need, adjusting, etc. Businesses can’t adjust based on every single complaint or compliment. They have to weigh the risk-reward.
Mike
I’d say the aim of marketing is not about “control” (that’s a pretty strong word). Obviously you cannot control a consumer. But you can influence him. And that is the real strength of marketing and branding. How do you manage to create or to change the consumer’s perception without making him feel obliged to buy? Why do we buy one product rather that another? I dare say a company that makes an effort to understand its customers can in fact change his/her mind.
For instance, do people buy Newman’s Own simply because they see it on shelfs? I dare say quite a few people buy Newman’s Own because they connect something to it – a name, and with it an attitude – charity, ethical and social responsibility etc…
True, changing the perception of a product does not necessarily result in higher sales. But who says a new perception won’t influence actual behavior later on?
I guess us busines people can go on and on discussing marketing and never actually agree on its importance. But this is a very interesting article and discussion.