CHAPTER 1

Social Word of Mouth Marketing (sWOM)

Figure 1.1 An example of social sharing on Twitter

Source: Courtesy of C. Munoz.

Too personal? A tweet can say a lot. And a tweet with a hashtag and an image not only communicates more, but is also much more likely to be shared. The screenshot in Figure 1.1 embodies many topics that this book will explore: the role of storytelling, the persuasive power of images, emotional appeals, personalization, and social sharing. It also marks the beginning a positive story—which is where all good social media campaigns (and books) should begin.

In the summer of 2014, Coca-Cola launched the personalized, “Share a Coke” campaign. Twenty oz. bottles of Coca-Cola, Diet Coke, and Coke Zero were adorned with 250 of the most popular American names for millennials and teens. Consumers were prompted to share their photos of the personalized bottles using #Shareacoke on social media. They could visit shareacoke.com to create, then share virtual, personalized bottles on Instagram, Facebook, Tumblr, and Twitter. They could also be featured on Coke billboards by using #Shareacoke (Hitz 2014). Consumers were drawn to soda bottles that were emblazoned with not only their name, but also the names of their family and friends. Coca-Cola’s bottle personalization was putting into action something that Dale Carnegie taught us long before—“A person’s name is to that person, the sweetest, most important sound in any language.” So, naturally, consumers wanted to share their name discovery on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram.

Over the course of the campaign, consumers shared their experiences via the #Shareacoke hashtag over 250,000 times (Deye 2015). During the 2014 campaign cycle, more than 353,000 bottles were disseminated virtually (Tadena 2014). Geo-tagging and sales were correlated, and sure enough, there was a significant relationship between social sharing and sales (Deye 2015). By all accounts, the campaign was a sales success; Coke saw sales growth of more than 30 percent in one week (Deye 2015). Part of this success was certainly attributed to the power of social word of mouth (sWOM) marketing.

Why Word of Mouth Marketing?

You are reading this book because you get it. Word of mouth (WOM) marketing is powerful—it impacts not only product preferences and purchasing decisions, but it serves to mold consumer expectations and even post-purchase product attitudes (Kimmel and Kitchen 2014). The beauty of branded WOM marketing communication is that it is a natural, normal part of our everyday conversations. In fact, 2.4 billion conversations each day involve brands (Google; KellerFay Group 2016). The ample number of conversations related to products and services is attributable to the fact that we need and actively seek out input from family and friends before we make a purchase. A 2016 study from the referral company Ambassador found that 82 percent of the respondents surveyed sought out recommendations before making a purchase (Patton 2016). One of the reasons that family and friends’ recommendations matter so much is that they are simply trusted more—84 percent of consumers worldwide trust recommendations from family and friends more than any other type of advertising (Nielsen 2013).

Marketing executives (64 percent surveyed) agree that WOM marketing is the most effective type of marketing (Whitler 2014). The creation and membership roll of WOMMA (Word of Mouth Marketing Association) who are devoted to “representing and improving the WOM marketing industry” underscores the importance of WOM. Outside of an implicit understanding that people seem to prefer the opinions of others over a TV advertisement, billboard, or branded website, on what information are marketers basing these beliefs? Can we quantify the effect of WOM?

In 2014, WOMMA along with six major brands commissioned a study to determine the ROI on WOM marketing (WOMMA 2014). This was the first major study addressing not only the differing category impact of WOM, but also its role in the overall marketing mix. Not surprisingly, the results reinforce many established beliefs about WOM’s level of importance.

• $6 trillion of annual consumer spending is driven by word of mouth (i.e., on average 13 percent of consumer sales).

• WOM’s impact on sales is greater for products that consumers are more involved with (i.e., more expensive, higher-risk).

• Most of the impact of WOM (two-thirds) is through offline conversations, whereas a third is through online WOM.

• WOM, directly and indirectly, impacts business performance. For example, it can drive traffic to website or search engines, which can then impact performance measures.

• WOM can amplify paid media (e.g., advertising) by as much as 15 percent. The value of one offline WOM impression can be 5 to 200 times more effective than a paid advertising impression.

• Two weeks after exposure, online WOM (85–95 percent) has a quicker impact than offline WOM (65–80 percent) and traditional media—TV (30–60 percent).

Are these numbers compelling enough?

If you were paying attention, you would have noticed that according to these statistics, offline WOM appears to matter much more. Wharton Professor and author of Contagious, Jonah Berger, also suggests that we are spending much too much time and effort on looking at online WOM (Berger 2013). Research supports Berger’s statement—a 2011 study from the Keller Fay Group found that only 7 percent of all brand-related WOM conversations occur online (Belicove 2011), with 94 percent of brand impressions happening offline (Google; KellerFay Group 2016). Berger suggests that this overestimation of online WOM occurs because we can easily see the conversation and we spend a lot of time online. And, we do spend a lot of time online; global online users spend more than six hours per day online (Mander 2015) with 50 minutes (on average) devoted solely to Facebook properties (i.e., Facebook, Instagram, and Messenger) (Stewart 2016). In the United States, 73 percent of consumers are online every day, 42 percent are on the Internet multiple times a day and 21 percent reporting an almost “constant” online presence (Perrin 2015). Without question, offline brand-related WOM matters more. But is online brand-related WOM limited to only 7 percent?

The truth is offline and online WOM are not like oil and water; they can and do mix. The 2014 WOMMA study illustrates that offline and online work together to, directly and indirectly, impact business performance. Consumers today move seamlessly between online and offline communication, making it increasingly difficult for us to pinpoint whether the message that we saw came to us in-person or via social media. And, the 7 percent?—that is from a study completed in 2011 (aka 35 years ago in Internet dog years). To offer some perspective, in September 2011, Snapchat launched and Instagram only had 10 million users. Smartphone adoption of American adults was at 35 percent (Smith 2011). Things are different in 2016. Instagram now boasts over 500 million monthly active users (Instagram 2015), and by the time you read this, smartphone adoption will be close to if not greater than 80 percent (comScore 2016).

Socializing online is seamlessly integrated into our offline lives. For today’s consumers, particularly those from a younger generation, there is no offline or online socializing, it is simply socializing. Even when we are supposedly offline, we are drawn back through a symphony of chirps and beeps alerting us to an online conversation we should be responding to. We are being normalized to believe that we should upload images of our food, family outings, and post about positive and negative consumer experiences. Consumer e-commerce websites, such as Amazon, are providing more opportunities for not only consumer comments, but also allowing individuals to upload images and videos showcasing their recent purchase. Consumer feedback or input is essential in the purchase of the product. This feedback is becoming increasingly visual. Take for instance, the online rental dress company—Rent the Runway. On the primary product screen for each dress, Rent the Runway shares photographs taken by their consumers wearing the rented dress. The company encourages consumers to review the dress and provide personal information such as their height, weight, bust, body type, age, size worn, usual size, and event occasion. For any one dress, there could be well over 100 photos highlighting not only the fit, but “how others wore it,” illustrating how to accessorize and wear one’s hair with the dress.

With the advent and ubiquity of smartphones, image and video creation is easy and uploading almost instantaneous. In 2015, consumers uploaded 700 million photos per day to cross-platform mobile messenger WhatsApp, 350 million to Facebook, and 70 million to Instagram. Relative to the number of users, Snapchat had the most photos shared with 8,796 per second (Morrison 2015). Video uploads are also incredibly high—up to 400 hours of video is uploaded each minute to YouTube (Brouwer 2015). Video consumption is even greater—eight billion views or 100 million hours of video watched is viewed each day on Facebook (Constine 2015a; Constine 2015b). And, if industry reports are accurate, consumers collectively watch close to five billion YouTube videos each day, totaling over three billion viewing hours per month (Statistic Brain 2016).

Marketers also seek to further blend online and offline worlds. Television and print ads are prompting consumers to go online and watch, follow, and like. Traditional televised news programs routinely integrate social media conversations and “what’s trending” segments. While old and new media continue to become more integrated, the line is also blurring between types of online media. Owned media (e.g., company website, blog), earned media (e.g., shares, reviews, reposts), and paid media (e.g., sponsored posts, tweets) are becoming fused. For example, finance website The Penny Hoarder (owned media) pays guest bloggers (paid media). The Dunkin Donuts website (owned media) has a rotating consumer social media feed of consumer content curated from Twitter and Instagram posts (shared media), which include the hashtag #DDPerksLove. Fashion-orientated discount store, Marshalls, has a very prominent, dedicated section of the website (owned media)—dubbed #MarshallsSurprise—devoted to displaying consumer (and ambassador) images from Instagram and Twitter accounts (earned and paid media). While Dunkin Donuts and Marshalls simply take a gallery approach to integrating social media, furniture store Pier 1 Imports takes it a step further, integrating social WOM to direct purchases. On the Pier 1 store website, under the heading, “#Pier1love,” there is a curated list of photos taken from consumers’ Instagram accounts. When you click on each Instagram image, it enlarges, and consumers are asked to “Shop This Look.” A Pier 1 store item taken from the displayed Instagram picture is then pictured separately and linked to the retail landing page for purchase. Another approach that creatively blends earned and owned media are branded Snapchat lenses and Facebook filters. Taco Bell turned consumers’ heads on Snapchat into large tacos on Cinco de Mayo (with 224 million views by May 5, 2016), while IronMan Masks covering individuals faces using Facebook filters resulted in over 8 million views by March 9, 2016 (Meeker 2016). So, why are marketers exerting this level of interest in both shaping and spreading sWOM? You know the answer—many consumers are more likely to purchase a product after seeing it shared on social media via a friend or family member (Patton 2016). WOM marketing matters. So let’s explore it together.

Traditional WOM and Electronic WOM (eWOM)

Without question, WOM marketing is powerful and perhaps is one of the most persuasive factors in the consumer decision-making process. The focus on WOM marketing has grown exponentially and with it, related marketing constructs intended to increase its potency: influencers, referral programs, brand ambassadors, viral marketing, seeding campaigns, and brand communities (Kimmel and Kitchen 2014). A growing number of companies have been created to capitalize on the power and potential of WOM. But what exactly is it and how does word of mouth extend to the Internet?

WOM marketing is not new—but rather our appreciation, evolving technology, and growing number of firms and resources devoted to the topic is what has changed. The WOMMA trade association defines WOM marketing as “any business action that earns a customer recommendation.” Academically, numerous definitions have been put forward that are typically more complicated than industry’s (see Kimmel and Kitchen 2013 for a review). For example, “word of mouth is the interpersonal communication between two or more individuals, such as members of a reference group or a customer and a salesperson” (Kim, Han, and Lee 2011, 276). Or “in a post-purchase context, consumer word-of-mouth transmissions consist of informal communications directed at other consumers about the ownership, usage or characteristics of particular goods and services and/or their sellers” (Westbrook 1987, 261). Both definitions focus on the activity or the result of the activity (i.e., similar to WOMMAs) (Kimmel and Kitchen 2013). As some of these definitions indicate, WOM communication can be either instigated by consumers organically or when marketers are involved the messages become amplified. Organic WOM refers to when consumers, without being prompted by marketers, discuss their product experiences. Whereas, amplified WOM refers to marketing efforts to encourage consumers to amplify the WOM. This can include reaching out to influentials to spread the word, carefully crafting messages so that that consumers want to share them and that are easy to be shared, creating buzz, and using referral programs. Later in this chapter, we will argue that we need to give more attention to the third type of WOM communication—collaborative. Collaborative can be thought of as a combination of both organic and amplified—a message that is jointly created and shared by marketers and consumers who have an interest in a product.

On the surface, WOM appears to be simple. It involves the communicator, message, and receiver. However, the WOM process is impacted by a host of contributing factors. What are the attributes of the communicator—in particular, credibility? What is motivating the communicator and receiver in creating or looking for the message? How much knowledge does the receiver have about the product? How important is the product to them? How strong is the connection between the communicator and the receiver? What is the message valence—positive, negative, neutral? What is the mode and delivery of communication? As you can see, it gets complicated. And, one of the more recent complexities is understanding whether or not what we know about traditional offline WOM translates to the Internet (eWOM)—is it “old wine in new bottles”? (Hint: it’s not).

eWOM

Over a decade ago, scholars sought to differentiate eWOM from traditional WOM, defining it as, “any positive or negative statements made by potential, actual, or former customers about a product or company, which is made available to a multitude of people and institutions via the Internet” (Hennig-Thurau et al. 2004, 39). Unlike traditional WOM, which is communicated verbally, eWOM is transmitted through a variety of electronic communication channels: discussion boards, corporate websites, blogs, e-mails, chat rooms or instant messaging, social media, review websites, and newsgroups. There are numerous differences, outside of modality, between WOM and eWOM (Cheung and Thadani 2012; Chu and Kim 2011):

• The messenger/source: In traditional WOM, the receiver of the message is acquainted with the individual communicating it—the messenger or source. Even if the individual is somewhat of a stranger, there is a context and cues that will help discern the messenger’s credibility. In eWOM, the consumer may not be aquatinted with the individual. This complicates the credibility of the message and authenticity of the messenger.

• Many messengers and many receivers: In “real-life,” WOM occurs as a one-on-one conversation between friends or in a small gathering, whereas, eWOM can be akin to one individual (or many) screaming into a packed stadium full of people that is continually turning over with new spectators.

• Message/opinion transmitter: In traditional WOM, there is the opinion giver and receiver. However, eWOM provides a new role—that of the message or opinion transmitter. The transmitter may be the opinion giver, receiver, or someone new. As opposed to traditional WOM where distortion is likely to occur when and if the message is shared (think “game of telephone”), in eWOM, the message can be transmitted with a higher degree of accuracy.

• Limited privacy: WOM conversations occur in person typically between two individuals or in a small group. In contrast, eWOM messages can be shared immediately, repeatedly, and with 100 percent accuracy to the Internet world. Messages can be accessible to the masses.

• Asynchronous (not in real-time) communication: WOM communications are typically synchronous. eWOM is primarily asynchronous—conversation occurs over a period that, in some cases, can span years.

• Messages are enduring: Unlike face-to-face conversations, which quickly fade from our memories, online communication endures, sticking around long after that initial exchange.

• Measurable/observable: The Internet allows us to track, observe, measure online conversations through a host of online analytic tools and measures (i.e., Constant Contact, Hootsuite). This simply is not possible (to this degree) in traditional WOM (yet).

• The speed of communication diffusion: eWOM can spread at an exponential speed. Conversation is not limited to water cooler banter, but can spread across the globe in a matter of seconds. This is particularly true within social media.

• More communication with weak ties: Within an online environment, there is more exposure to what is known as “weak ties.” The term “weak ties” refers to “contacts with people where your relationship is based on superficial experiences or very few connections” (Tuten and Solomon 2015, 92). For example, a casual acquaintance or a friend of a friend. In traditional WOM communication, we frequently receive messages from friends and family (“strong ties”). While communication with “strong ties” certainly occurs online, there is more exposure and interaction with “weak ties”—strangers and online only acquaintances. At least one study found that online weak ties were more persuasive than strong ties when selecting college courses and professors (Steffes and Burgee 2009).

sWOM Defined and Explained

When the Internet was first launched, electronic content was created by the few but consumed by the masses. Consumers could only read content; they could not create it (the Web 1.0 era). At the turn of the millennium, there was a gradual shift to create a Web where Internet users were not only consumers, but also creators of Web content. The Web became a place where consumers could create, engage, and collaborate with each other (the Web 2.0 era). At first, electronic communication modalities consisted primarily of online discussion forums (e.g., Yahoo! Groups), boycott websites (e.g., walmartsucks.org), and the most popular of all, opinion websites (e.g., epinions.com) (Hennig-Thurau et al. 2004). Now it includes a vast array of social platforms with varying degrees of media richness. But is WOM communication delivered via Facebook, the same as those posted to a chat room, or message sent via an e-mail? Similarly, to the delineation of eWOM from traditional WOM, we believe that WOM communication via social media (sWOM) also deserves a more nuanced look. Specifically, we view social word of mouth (sWOM) as a subset of eWOM. We are not the first to propose reexamining and segmenting eWOM. Researchers Wang and Rodgers (2010) recognized the limitations of the earlier eWOM definition. They point out that conversations are not just positive or negative—many include mixed reviews and include neutral information (Wang and Rodgers 2010). They also acknowledge the relationship between user-generated content (UGC) or consumer-generated content (CGC) (i.e., Internet content created and posted online by consumers) and eWOM, viewing eWOM as a type of UGC. Wang and Rodgers (2010) suggest that eWOM should be broken down further into two categories: informational-orientated contexts (i.e., online feedback systems and consumer review websites) and emotionally oriented contexts (i.e., discussion boards and social networking sites). Both of these typologies do not encompass all forms of electronic communication (i.e., e-mail and chat rooms or instant messaging).

In many respects, it almost sounds silly and redundant to call it sWOM. Yes, the essence of WOM is about being social. However, we argue there is a distinct difference between WOM communication via social media and other eWOM tools, such as Instant Communication (IM) chat rooms, e-mail communication, review websites and newsgroups.

• Personal accounts: In the case of eWOM, a large majority of information is shared on a company or third-party accounts. For example, a consumer writing a restaurant review on Yelp or a product review on Amazon, a concerned citizen posting a comment on a news website, or complaining about a malfunctioning product in a customer service forum. In contrast, a large percentage of sWOM is posted to and shared from a consumer’s personal account. The recipients of sWOM are more likely to be connected to the poster (strong or weak ties) than are the readers of posts that appear on the company or a third-party account. This fact alone may increase the credibility, and therefore the persuasiveness of the message.

• Audience: When a consumer posts a comment to his or her personal social media account, it has the potential to be seen by a wider assortment of consumers. In contrast, eWOM’s reach may be limited to those consumers who have an interest in the topic or product being discussed. For example, product reviews on Amazon are seen only by those consumers viewing the product, whereas a larger audience may see a product review posted on Facebook. Granted a consumer’s Facebook friends may not have an interest in the product mentioned. However, the fact that they are exposed to the posting may have some level of influence at a later point in time.

• Defined messenger: Within social media, a user’s communication is connected to their profile. Profile information typically consists of an image and multiple descriptors. A descriptor can be as short as a sentence (e.g., Twitter) or as lengthy as a resume (e.g., LinkedIn). E-mail, newsgroups, review websites and chat rooms will typically only provide a username and user address. User descriptors are an important step in building credibility and trustworthiness in WOM communications.

• Communication direction: Social media platforms allow for one-to-one, one-to-many, and many-to-many forms of communication between the message communicator and receiver(s) (Figure 1.2). In other words, conversations can be between individuals (e.g., private direct messages on Twitter), one-to-many (e.g., tweet to a network), but also many-to-many, where a message is created and discussed within a network (e.g., tweet using a hashtag). sWOM encompasses three communication directions, whereas traditional WOM and eWOM are limited to one or two directions.

• Highly accessible and searchable: Unless a user has established privacy settings, social media posts can quickly be found through searches on social media platforms, major search engines, and specialized social media monitoring tools (e.g., Hootsuite, TweetDeck). In contrast, chat rooms or IM and e-mail and are not publically searchable. It should also be noted that an increasing number of social media platforms are becoming synchronous and transient through the use of video and expiring content (i.e., Snapchat and Periscope).

• Faster scalability: Chat rooms or IM, e-mails, and newsgroups do not have the potential reach of various social media venues such as Twitter and Facebook. While an e-mail certainly has the potential to be sent far and wide, its dissemination does not match the speed and out-of-network connections that social media can. You also do not see entire TV shows and regular news segments devoted to trending e-mail.

• Saturated, information overload: Many social media platforms (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) provide users with an abundance of information each time they log in. On social media, marketers face fierce competition for consumer’s attention (Daugherty and Hoffman 2014). To further complicate this issue, the active lifespan of a social media post can be very short, as it becomes buried in the sea of newly created content. On a website, a product review can live forever, but on social media, the life of a message can be fleeting. The median lifespan of a tweet is a matter of minutes, and a Facebook post will get the vast majority of its impressions in the first few hours after posting (Ayres 2016).

• Communication occurs in a mediated environment: Communication within social media occurs, primarily, through their social media platform. While many platforms (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) allow for direct communications via an internal mail system, the content that is shown or is more prominently displayed is readily controlled by the platform’s algorithm. Popular user posts and trending news and information, which can be commented upon, is not fully under consumers’ control.

• More visual: Social media is becoming an increasingly visual medium. Facebook’s acquisition of Instagram, the ease with which you can incorporate images and video into a tweet, and the popularity of Pinterest, Instagram, and Snapchat all speak to consumers’ ability and desire to incorporate imagery into their communication. Older forms of electronic communication, such as e-mail, are not as visually oriented.

• Co-creation: Social media content is frequently co-created between consumers and between marketers and consumers (and vice versa). This is often referred to as collaborative content. Marketers can inspire conversations or the creation and sharing of images through a variety of initiatives such as contests and hashtag campaigns. Sometimes, these conversations generate a positive result, other times consumers can, intentionally or unintentionally, take them in a negative direction. There are many examples of where hashtags have become “bashtags.” In 2012, McDonalds adopted the hashtag #McDStories to encourage consumers to share their happy McDonald’s stories. Unfortunately, consumers used the hashtag to relay a host of unflattering restaurant experiences. In 2014, the hashtag #myNYPD sought to encourage positive images of police officers and instead received, over one day, almost 102,000 tweets addressing various civil rights violations (Swann 2014). In some cases, marketers have also taken over existing consumer hashtags with negative consequences. In one example, Digiorno Pizza used the hashtag #WhyIStayed and included the answer—“I had Pizza.” Unfortunately, the hashtag was already associated with domestic violence (cringe!). Needless to say, they quickly deleted the message and profusely apologized, but not before it received wide media attention (Griner 2014). But there are examples of positive consequences—DDB New York used the established #FirstWorldProblems meme for their highly successful WATERisLife viral video ad campaign. The campaign featured impoverished Haitians reading various “problems” (i.e., “I hate it when my house is so big, I need two wireless routers”) (Payne and Friedman 2012).

Figure 1.2 Scope of sWOM

We define sWOM communication as any visual or textual post about a company or their product offering that is either created independently by a consumer, created by a company, or created by a consumer in collaboration with a company and publically shared on a personal or company social media account. This definition is broader than other WOM or eWOM definitions, in that it considers not just opinions regarding the traditional products that a company sells, but also the content that the company disseminates via social media. The stories that brands tell via social media are part of the product and contribute to its brand equity. This idea is similar to what consulting company McKinsey has called a “consequential” type of WOM marketing, “which occurs when consumers directly exposed to traditional marketing campaigns pass on messages about them or brands they publicize” (Bughin, Doogan, and Vetvik 2010). Social media has provided countless ways to distribute a wide variety of information that consumers deem valuable enough to share. Whether a social media post includes an e-book, white paper, product photography, how-to video, recipe, or even a joke, the act of sharing itself is an endorsement or recommendation. And, while a consumer may not be directly discussing the traditional product offerings of a company, they are still disseminating and conversing about a company’s offering in the form of their digital assets. This act of sharing in the social media space can be as simple as forwarding information on (i.e., retweet or share), personalizing information that is created by someone else, writing product- or brand-related comments, or creating product- or brand-related content and posting it (i.e., video, photograph, etc.). The other aspect of this definition that we need to highlight and explore is the intersection between consumers and company in the social media environment (Figure 1.3). Increasingly, consumers and companies are co-creating content in both planned and organic ways.

As illustrated in Figure 1.3, sWOM communications can include one-to-one (e.g., direct message on Twitter), one-to-many (e.g., Facebook status update), or many-to-many (e.g., the use of a popular hashtag) messages. Communication can originate from a consumer, a company, or both parties can collaborate (the 3 Cs). Consumer content is content that is created by a consumer without any involvement from a company—organic content. Examples include sharing an experience on Facebook, creating a video for YouTube, or Instagramming a photo of a recent purchase. This is commonly referred to as earned media because there is no cost to the company. Company-generated communication refers to content created and posted by the company’s marketing department. The company shares this communication with one or more consumers in the hope that they will engage with the content through liking, sharing, retweeting, and commenting, thereby amplifying the communication. This is commonly referred to as paid media, particularly if the company has paid to promote the communicaton (e.g., promoted tweet). Outside of consumer-generated and company-generated content, there is a middle ground; a combination of both organic and amplified WOM efforts—collaborative. In this instance, consumers and companies are working together to create and share information. For example, a company may invite consumers to upload photos of their purchase with a hashtag. The Dunkin Donuts and Marshall’s examples offered earlier in this chapter are examples of collaborative communications. Collaborative communication has seen significant growth in recent years, thanks in part, to high smartphone adoption rates (Tode 2015). Stores are now thoughtfully integrating social media within consumers’ in-store experience. Consumers are not only prompted via signage to not only “follow,” “like,” “Check-In,” and review retail venues, but also to contribute to social media conversations via a preselected and promoted hashtag. Some stores, like Target and Victoria Secret, are even crafting in-store photo-ops. See Figure 1.4 for an example. Both campaigns encourage users to take a photo and use their hashtag (#targetdog, #vstease, #vsgift). Victoria Secret went a step further by rewarding their consumers with a “sexy surprise” (after they showed an associate that they shared their branded selfie). Signage is also becoming more dynamic, as retail is slowly starting to embrace digital signage. Perhaps, displaying consumer tweets and posts related to brands will become commonplace within stores. Companies can create contests that require consumers to create content to be shared. Another example of collaboration communications is when companies hire social influencers to tweet positive statements about the company. Depending on the strategy, collaborative communication can be a combination of earned, paid, and owned media.

Figure 1.3 sWOM Typology

Regardless of whether the sWOM is consumer- or company-generated, or whether it is a collaborative effort, some forms of sWOM require more effort than others. Retweeting takes much less effort than generating a new post. Generating a new status update takes less work than creating a video and posting it on YouTube. The amount of effort required of the consumer is closely tied to consumer engagement. The topic of engagement is covered in Chapter 2, so we will not be discussing it here. But for now, suffice to say that marketers need to ensure that they account for varying levels of engagement and pay more attention to consumers participating in higher level engagement forms of sWOM.

Figure 1.4 #targetdog

Source: Courtesy of C. Munoz.

Importance of sWOM

The importance of sWOM for marketers can be summarized in two key facts. First, almost everyone who is online is using a social network (Mander 2016b). While usage rates may vary dramatically between consumer segments, social media is touching and impacting the lives of most consumers. Second, sWOM influences each stage in the consumer decision-making process and can impact sales. Similar to WOM and eWOM, sWOM serves as an important information source in the prepurchase research process. The GlobalWebIndex survey found that social networks are used by over 30 percent of online users in their product research. Social networks and mobile apps were even more popular in product searches for younger consumers (Mander 2016a). Simply put, consumers are increasingly turning to social networks and consumer reviews to hear their friends’ (and strangers’) opinions on products, view pictures depicting how the product “really” looks, and find new uses and applications through videos. However, the extent to which they rely on social media in their investigations depends heavily on the type of product they are considering purchasing (Bughin 2015). Outside of facilitating product research, sWOM is leading to sales. Management consulting company McKinsey found that approximately 26 percent of purchases across 30 different product categories were influenced by social recommendations (Bughin 2015). A 2013 survey found that four in ten social media users make a purchase (online or offline in approximately equal amounts) of a product after sharing or favoriting it on Twitter, Facebook, or Pinterest. The purchase is also occurring within a week after sharing or favoriting the item (Samuel et al. 2013). Given the increasing rates of online shopping and the growing number of technologies that integrate shopping options directly into social media posts, it is not unreasonable to expect that sWOM’s direct sales influence will continue to increase.

Outside of being instrumental in product research and influencing sales, sWOM communication has other benefits. Let’s look at some examples of how sWOM communication has made a difference:

Our Journey Ahead

This book is not an introductory “how-to” book on social media. It is assuming that you have already gotten your feet wet (or drenched) in the topic. Instead, the purpose of this book is to examine the influence of sWOM and provide guidance on how to operationalize its growing power. Our goal in writing this book is to bring together industry best practices and academic research to illustrate how much sWOM matters. It should also help you construct social media posts that will be both shared and conform to regulatory guidelines. Each chapter highlights a key area of sWOM that will further your understanding of the topic and provide actionable information to increase the likelihood of creating your own your sharable sWOM marketing successes:

The Social Consumer

The social consumer examines individuals who use social media to inform their product decisions and also share product-related information and opinions with others. This chapter explores who they are, the different roles they play (i.e., social listener, social sharer, and social influencer), and their motivations to share.

The Social Business

In most companies, social media usage begins in the marketing department, but it should not end there. Social media can add value in other ways including, offering strategic insights, identifying problems, crowdsourcing ideas for new products and services, improving customer service, recruiting new employees, and empowering employees to spread positive sWOM. In this chapter, we discuss the importance of becoming a social business. We review the stages of social business development and how social tools can be integrated to become part of your company’s DNA.

Legal and Regulatory Issues

There is a very fine line between encouraging and incentivizing consumers and employees to engage in sWOM about your brand—a line that may have legal implications for your company. In this chapter, we examine “material connections”—relationships that exist between a company and an endorser of your brand—and the guidelines that must be followed to ensure that consumers are not being deceived by information they learn and recommendations they receive on social media.

Social Media Policy

As your company begins to integrate social media into more business functional areas and as more employees use it, your company’s liability exposure increases. The first step to mitigating risk is to develop and implement a social media policy. In this chapter, we will examine the importance of having a well-developed social media policy, the process of creating a policy and appropriate content.

Storytelling

Social media posts need to tell a story and marketers need to learn to be good storytellers. This chapter explores how to construct shareable stories concentrating on not only textual content, but also the importance of visual communication in all your marketing efforts.

Social Influence

To be successful in social media and to encourage sWOM, your company needs to be influential. In this chapter, we explore six principles of persuasion as they apply to social media.

Social Sharing Applied

In our final chapter, we present some best practices encouraging positive sWOM. We examine the important components of a company’s social media presence and offer platform-specific recommendations for LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Pinterest, and Instagram.

Special Notes: We have, on occasion, included statistics to emphasize a particular point. At the time of writing, these were the most current statistics. These statistics may not be current today. As such, we ask that you try not to focus too much on the actual numbers, instead, pay attention to the trends and patterns to guide your social endeavors.

Those who work in the business-to-business (B2B) market typically refer to the buyer of products or services as customers. In the business-to-consumer (B2C) market, we often refer to the end users as consumers. For consistency purposes, we have chosen to use “consumer” throughout this book when referring to buyers in a B2B or B2C market. The term customer is used when discussing customer service activities.

References

Ayres, S. 2016. “Shocking New Data about the Lifespan of Your Facebook Posts.” Post Planner. Retrieved from www.postplanner.com/lifespan-of-facebook-posts/ (accessed June 22, 2016).

Bazu, A. 2013. “Cadbury’s ‘Thanks a Million’ campaign: The Sweet Taste of Success!” UCD Graduate Business School Blog. Retrieved from http://ucdblogs.ucd.ie/digitalmarketingstrategy/cadburys-thanks-million-campaign-sweet-taste-success/

Beer, J. 2015. “How Lowe’s Brought Social Savvy and a Sense of Humor to Home Improvement.” Fast Company, July. Retrieved from www.fastcocreate.com/3048021/behind-the-brand/how-lowes-brought-social-savvy-and-a-sense-of-humor-to-home-improvement

Belicove, M. 2011. “Measuring Offline Vs. Online Word-of-Mouth Marketing.” Entrepreneur, November. Retrieved from www.entrepreneur.com/article/220776

Berger, J. 2013. Contagious. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Brouwer, B. 2015. “YouTube Now Gets Over 400 Hours of Content Uploaded Every Minute.” Tubefilter. Retrieved from www.tubefilter.com/2015/07/26/youtube-400-hours-content-every-minute/

Bughin, J. 2015. “Getting a Sharper Picture of Social Media’s Influence.” McKinsey Quarterly. Retrieved from www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/marketing-and-sales/our-insights/getting-a-sharper-picture-of-social-medias-influence

Bughin, J., D. Jonathan, and V. Ole. 2010. “A New Way to Measure Word-Of-Mouth Marketing.” McKinsey Quarterly. Retrieved from www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/marketing-and-sales/our-insights/a-new-way-to-measure-word-of-mouth-marketing

Cheung, C.M.K., and D.R. Thadani. 2012. “The Impact of Electronic Word-of-Mouth Communication: A Literature Analysis and Integrative Model.” Decision Support Systems 54, no. 1, pp. 461–70. doi: 10.1016/j. dss.2012.06.008

Chu, S.C., and Y. Kim. 2011. “Determinents of Consumer Engagement in Electronic Word-Of-Mouth (eWOM) in Social Networking Sites.” International Journal of Advertising 30, no. 1, pp. 47–75.

comScore. 2016. “comScore Reports February 2016 U.S. Smartphone Subscriber Market Share—comScore, Inc.” Retrieved from www.comscore.com/Insights/Rankings/comScore-Reports-February-2016-US-Smartphone-Subscriber-Market-Share

Constine, J. 2015a. “Facebook Hits 100M Hours of Video Watching, 1 B Users on Groups, 80M on Fb Lite.” Tech Crunch. Retrieved from https://techcrunch.com/2016/01/27/facebook-grows/

Constine, J. 2015b. “Facebook Hits 8 Billion Daily Video Views Double from 4 Billion in April.” Tech Crunch. Retrieved from https://techcrunch.com/2015/11/04/facebook-video-views/

Daugherty, T., and E. Hoffman. 2014. “eWOM and the Importance of Capturing Consumer Attention within Social Media.” Journal of Marketing Communications 20, no. 1–2, pp. 82–102. doi:10.1080/13527266.2013.79 7764

Deye, J. 2015. “#ShareACoke and the Personalized Brand Experience.” Marketing Insights. Retrieved from www.ama.org/publications/eNewsletters/MarketingInsightsNewsletter/Pages/shareacoke-and-the-personalized-brand-experience.aspx

Google; KellerFay Group. 2016. “Word of Mouth (WOM).” Retrieved from https://ssl.gstatic.com/think/docs/word-of-mouth-and-the-internet_infographics.pdf (accessed May 28, 2016).

Griner, D. 2014. “DiGiorno Is Really, Really Sorry About Its Tweet Accidentally Making Light of Domestic Violence.” AdWeek. Retrieved from www.adweek.com/adfreak/digiorno-really-really-sorry-about-its-tweet-accidentally-making-light-domestic-violence-159998

Hennig-Thurau, T., K.P. Gwinner, G. Walsh, and D.D. Gremler. 2004. “Electronic Word-Of-Mouth Via Consumer-Opinion Platforms: What Motivates Consumers to Articulate Themselves on the Internet?” Journal of Interactive Marketing (John Wiley & Sons) 18, no. 1, pp. 38–52. doi:10.1002/dir.10073

Hitz, L. 2014. “Simply Summer Social Awards Contestant #3 | Simply Measured.” The Simply Measured Blog. Retrieved from http://simplymeasured.com/blog/simply-summer-social-awards-contestant-3-cocacolas-shareacoke-campaign/#sm.00018n9uis1172fifrc4xqq28xm0f

Instagram. 2015. “Press Page.” Instagram. Retrieved from www.instagram.com/press/

Kim, W.G., J.S. Han, and E. Lee. 2011. “Effects of Relationship Marketing on Repeat Purchase and Word of Mouth.” Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 25, no. 3, pp. 272–88. doi:10.1177/109634800102500303

Kimmel, A.J., and P.J. Kitchen. 2014. “Introduction: Word of Mouth and Social Media.” Journal of Marketing Communications 20, no. 1–2, pp. 2–4. Retrieved from http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=psyc11&NEWS=N&AN=2013-45151-002

Kimmel, A.J., and P.J. Kitchen. 2013. “WOM and Social Media: Presaging Future Directions for Research and Practice.” Journal of Marketing Communications 20, no. 1–2, pp. 1–16. doi:10.1080/13527266.2013.797730

Kolowich, L. 2014. “Delighting People in 140 Characters: An Inside Look at JetBlue’s Customer Service Success.” Hubspot Blog. Retrieved from http://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/jetblue-customer-service-twitter#sm.00018n9uis1172fifrc4xqq28xm0f

Mander, J. 2015. “Daily Time Spent on Social Networks Rises to 1.72 Hours.” Global Web Index. Retrieved from www.globalwebindex.net/blog/daily-time-spent-on-social-networks-rises-to-1-72-hours

Mander, J. 2016a. “40% of 16–24s Use Social Media to Research Products.” GlobalWebIndex. Retrieved from www.globalwebindex.net/blog/40-of-16-24s-use-social-media-to-research-products

Mander, J. 2016b. “97% Visitng Social Networks.” GlobalWebIndex. Retrieved from www.globalwebindex.net/blog/97-visiting-social-networks

Meeker, M. 2016. “Internet Trends 2016—Code Conference.” Retrieved from www.kpcb.com/internet-trends

Mitchell, E. 2015. “Pepsi Makes the Most of Viral #BringBackCrystal PepsiCampaign.” Adweek. Retrieved from www.adweek.com/prnewser/pepsi-makes-the-most-of-viral-bringbackcrystalpepsi-campaign/115132

Morrison, K. 2015. “How Many Photos Are Uploaded to Snapchat Every Second.” Adweek. Retrieved from www.adweek.com/socialtimes/how-many-photos-are-uploaded-to-snapchat-every-second/621488

Nielsen. 2013. “Under the Influence: Consumer Trust in Advertising.” Retrieved from www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2013/under-the-influence-consumer-trust-in-advertising.html

Patton, T. 2016. “8 Statistics That Will Change the Way You Think about Referral Marketing.” Ambassador Blog. Retrieved from http://app.mhb.io/e/npo3/57

Payne, E., and C. Friedman. 2012. “Viral Ad Campaign Hits #FirstWorld Problems.” CNN. Retrieved from www.cnn.com/2012/10/23/tech/ad-campaign-twist/

PepsiCo. 2016. “Celebrite the 90s with Crystal Pepsi—Iconic Clear Cola to Hit Shelves This Summer.” PepsiCo Press Release. Retrieved from www.pepsico.com/live/pressrelease/celebrate-the-90s-with-crystal-pepsi----iconic-clear-cola-to-hit-shelves-this-su06292016

Perrin, A. 2015. “One-Fifth of Americans Report Going Online ‘Almost Contantly.’” Retrieved from www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/08/one-fifth-of-americans-report-going-online-almost-constantly/

Samuel, A., L. Lam, D. Sevitt, and C. Loh. 2013. “From Social to Sale,” 1–28. Retrieved from www.visioncritical.com/resources/social2sale/

Smith, A. 2011. “Smartphone Adoption and Usage.” Retrieved from www.pewinternet.org/2011/07/11/smartphone-adoption-and-usage/

Statistic Brain. 2016. “YouTube Company Statistics.” Retrieved from www.statisticbrain.com/youtube-statistics/

Steffes, E.M., and L.E. Burgee. 2009. “Social Ties and Online Word of Mouth.” Internet Research 19, no. 1, pp. 42–59.

Stewart, J.B. 2016. “Facebook Has 50 Minutes of Your Time Each Day. It Wants More.” The New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2016/05/06/business/facebook-bends-the-rules-of-audience-engagement-to-its-advantage.html?_r=0

Swann, P. 2014. “NYPD Blues: When a Hashtag Becomes a Bashtag.” Public Relations Society of America. Retrieved from www.prsa.org/Intelligence/TheStrategist/Articles/view/10711/1096/NYPD_Blues_When_a_Hashtag_Becomes_a_Bashtag#.V3PeIvkrKM8

Tadena, N. 2014. “Coke’s Personalized Marketing Campaign Gains Online Buzz—CMO Today—WSJ.” The Wall Street Journal, July 15. Retrieved from http://blogs.wsj.com/cmo/2014/07/15/cokes-personalized-marketing-campaign-gains-online-buzz/

Tode, C. 2015. “Retailers Adapt Social Media for Real-World, In-Store Sales Impact.” Mobile Commerce Daily, August 10. Retrieved from www.mobilecommercedaily.com/retailers-adapt-social-media-for-real-world-in-store-sales-impact

Tuten, T., and M.R. Solomon. 2015. Social Media Marketing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Wang, Y., and S. Rodgers. 2010. “Electronic Word of Mouth and Consumer Generated Content: From Concept to Application.” In Handbook of Research on Digital Media and Advertising: User Generated Content Consumption, ed. M. Eastin, 212–31. New York, NY: Information Science Reference. doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-792-8.ch011

Weapon7. 2012. “UNICEF Pinterest Case Study.” Retrieved from www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vq7Hz9YpDeA

Westbrook, R.A. 1987. “Product/Consumption-Based Affective Responses and Postpurchase Processes.” Journal of Marketing Research 24, pp. 258–71. doi:10.2307/3151636

Whitler, K. 2014. “Why Word of Mouth Marketing Is the Most Important Social Media.” Forbes. Retrieved from www.forbes.com/sites/kimberlywhitler/2014/07/17/why-word-of-mouth-marketing-is-the-most-important-social-media/#3443d9c37a77

WOMMA. 2014. “Return on Word of Mouth.” Retrieved from https://womma.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/STUDY-WOMMA-Return-on-WOM-Executive-Summary.pdf