This entry was originally posted on May 9, 2007 at the old Brandstory blog.

Over the past few years, Word of Mouth or buzz marketing has had it’s share of promoters and detractors. The rise of WOM marketing has prompted the creation of buzz agencies, a professional trade organization, conferences, books (here, here, and here too), and much more.

So if you’re looking for advice on how to get people talking about your brand story, there are plenty of resources.

Or you can do what Stacy’s Pita Chips (part of Frito Lay) did, and just send a product sample to everyone in the United States. At least, that’s what they wanted to do. But mailing chips to nearly 300 million people, well that’s a little much for even this spunky little division of the snack company to bite off.

So instead, they mailed a sample pack to everyone in the country named Stacy. 133,000 people, most of whom hadn’t heard of the product before. The package included the Stacy brand story and on the back of the enclosed card, said:

“We hope you enjoyed getting your free box of Stacy’s Pita Chips as much as we enjoyed sending them to you. If you did, why not share the joy by sending a FREE gift box to a friend? Since we’ve already sent them to every Stacy, you’re free to send them to Bill or Mary or Cheryl or John—or whoever you think would enjoy Stacy’s chips the most.”

So has it worked? It looks like it. Here are a few Stacys who are now spreading the word: here, here, here, here, and here. Think how many people have mentioned this to friends and coworkers. And how many Stacys have tried, liked, and now regularly buy Stacy’s chips.

That’s not all that Stacy’s does to promote great customer experiences/brand stories that are easy for customers to share with others. Check out what Art Steiber at The Diff has to say about Stacy’s when he wrote to complain about a half-empty bag of chips. Not content to leave him with a negative impression, they went well beyond and sent him a case of pita chips.

This is a brand I like, and I’ve yet to taste the chips.

This entry was originally posted on March 9, 2006 at the old Brandstory blog (link available for a limited time). I’ve made a couple of minor revisions to the original.

John Moore over at Brand Autopsy has written about Jack Trout’s recent article in Forbes which discusses the value of Word of Mouth as a marketing tool. Jack takes a decidedly old-school approach and gets taken to task for it by John, George Silverman, Olivier Blanchard, and others. I won’t deconstruct the article, others have done that already. But I do think that Jack’s column represents a fundamental misunderstanding about the way brand stories are created and shared.

Jack is a big believer in Macro-stories. These are the stories brand managers tell about their brands. They use company controlled marketing tactics like advertising, corporate websites, catalogs, direct mail, and so on to tell the story. Macro-stories are vital to communicating brand positioning and brand values to a huge number of potential and current customers. These are the stories a company can (to some extent) control. They are generally expensive to produce and distribute. And they are often ignored or distrusted by jaded consumers.

Where Jack misses the boat is Micro-stories. These are the stories consumers tell about the brands they love and hate. These are stories that are influenced by Macro-stories, but also include other elements like experience and satisfaction. They are created on an individual basis, one by one. These are stories that companies can only influence, not control.

Take the restaurant chain, Olive Garden, for example. Their brand story (reflected in their television advertising) is one about (large, loving) families gathering for great food, great conversation, and the kind of hospitality you would have received from your Italian grandmother. The company controls the advertising, from where it is placed, to how it is filmed, from the food that is shared, to the attractive people shown eating it. This is the Macro-story.

The Micro-story may or may not reflect this experience played out on TV. If a customer has to wait to be seated, is served cold food, receives poor service, or has mistakes made on his bill, her Micro-story isn’t likely to share many characteristics of the Macro-story. On the other hand, if this customer’s experience is similar (within reason) to the brand story told on the advertisements, her Micro-story will reflect the brand values the company wants to communicate. When she shares her experience, she won’t be talking about the handsome Italian family from the television ads, she’ll talk about her experience at the restaurant.

In other words, once a brand is experienced, the experience, not the advertising or positioning, is the biggest part of the brand story for that consumer. If the experience is compelling, she will share her Micro-story with others at work, at church, at the club, on her blog, and so on. It used to be enough to share the Macro-story and hope for the best, but times have changed.

The biggest difference, of course, is that consumers have so many more ways to share their Micro-stories now that they did just a few years ago. And, thanks to brand experiences disconnected from Macro-stories, more and more consumers no longer believe the brand stories companies “sell” them with traditional advertising. Jack (and hundreds others like him) may always favor the tactics they can control. But their clients will suffer as the power of Micro-stories grows.

That’s why word of mouth matters.

This entry was originally posted on February 15, 2006 at the old Brandstory blog (link available for a limited time).

Every once in a while I hear criticism of “branding” like this from Bob Bly, suggesting that it doesn’t create loyalty. By branding, I believe Bob is mostly referring to “image” advertising.

He’s right. Image ads don’t make customers loyal. Experience does. But done properly, they can create desire and establish reasons to buy. This ad by DDBLondon for VolksWagon comes close. Notice the product focus.

Much of the image advertising from Madison Avenue deserves criticism and closer scrutiny. But Bob’s anecdote doesn’t prove his point. Bob’s friend Richard was loyal to a particular shoe (we’re not told why, but are led to assume it was because of “branding”). Another friend recommended a new brand. After trying the new shoes, Richard switched brands. Is this a failure of “branding”? No. It’s a success for word-of-mouth and a compelling brand experience (both vital components of brand building).

Richard says, “I have brands that I prefer among just about everything I buy… but virtually every single one of them is negotiable. Show me that your product is cheaper and/or better than my current brand, and I’ll switch in a heartbeat.” The fact that Richard has brand preferences in the first place shows that branding does indeed work. He believes his brands are better than others and he’s loyal to them until he has a reason to switch.

The problem is most advertising doesn’t communicate a good reason to switch or demonstrate a compelling reason not to switch when a competitor comes along. But don’t blame “branding”, blame the marketers and creatives who don’t understand how to sell products effectively.

In a previous, related post, Bob Bly wrote: “As a copywriter, I don’t get paid to ‘build great brands.’ I get paid to generate greater ROI from my clients’ marketing. In other words, to make the cash register ring.”

Frankly, I don’t see the difference.