Adam Selig from Visible Tech and I ran a session during the Stream un-conference in Athens dedicated to the question of who owns word of mouth in the marcom ecosystem. I wanted to test drive a controversial subject that will be featured during the upcoming WOMMA Summit: Social Media Heats Up the New WOM which will be held in Vegas in November.
Remember, Stream was an invite-only event in Athens hosted by WPP. It featured marketing and comms gurus from all of the agencies and digital companies within the WPP universe, clients from major brands, and tech luminaries that are friends of the family, so-to speak.
The session was well attended on the last day of the event after a late night of the Extravaganza show - a weird variety show that defies description - and Midnight cooking madness where attendees signed up to cook specialties after midnight (don't worry most of the rest of the program or 'un-program' was dedicated to digital ideas and issues).
We had ad agency people, tech entrepeneurs, PR firms and clients. We spoke a bit about WOM best practices but then we got into the debate.
On the client side:
People generally agreed with the point that the CEO is best to own. Leadership at the top will matter. Support for WOM programs may also be connected to buy-in to the Net Promoter Score. That also is likely to come from the C-suite.
The silos of "communiations" (aka PR) and marketing on the client side is probably going to time-out in the future.
Marketing has the bigger budget for WOM programs but will likely reach out to their PR counterparts to help run these programs.
It was probably due to the make-up of the room but no one spoke about CRM or consumer affairs owning WOM
On the agency side:
We all acknowledged that "owning" was probably the wrong question. We all wanted to play well together. But clients are confused as to who to go to for programs designed to activate (and measure) positive WOM.
I claimed that word of mouth marketing is a natural extension of the highest, most abstract definition of public relations. I wanted to distinguish between what the discipline is based upon - "realtions," "relationships" - and how it is often portrayed - media relations and manipulative spin.
Since we align ourselves to the client structure, we will need to make sense of the PR vs. marketing dilemma. If a CMO wants to launch a WOM-based program will the ad agency voluntarily call-in the PR folks (providing they have demontsrated WOM expertise)? Likewise, if communications launches said program, will PR suggest a complimentary ad campaign as that may enhance the talkability of the program?
The debate continues. What do you think?
- Where should a client go for a significant WOM program?
- Should both PR and marketing develop the capabilities to go deep in WOM?
- Or is a third discipline that sits outside those others?
Get the latest Word of Mouth expertise at WOMMA's 2007 Summit, November 13-15 in Las Vegas. Get the agenda now>
And jump into the conversation now. You can see what the WOMMA conversation is by using the del.icio.us tag - wommeme.
link to original post