Word of mouth is, especially these days, considered the best form of advertising and promotion. It is inexpensive (not free) and often reported by peers as the most trusted, most acted on form of referral.

Social media of course has elevated word of mouth or peer influence to rock star status.

It is often useful, if painful, to review academic literature on marketing topics that seem new since we often find ourselves adding further credence to the adage, there is nothing new under the sun; and word of mouth is no different.  Consider, two academics, Katz and Lazarsfeld, found, OVER 50 YEARS AGO, that WOM influenced brand switching purchases seven times more effectively than newspapers and magazines, four times more effectively than personal selling, and two times more effectively than radio advertising.

WOM has only increased in importance due to the increasing complexity and variety of products, the growth in the amount of available product information, and the decrease in perceived reliability of traditional media. And of course, online social network platforms have taken our connectedness and reach to steroid inducing levels.

There are at least three important, global findings about WOM that every nonprofit marketer should become more familiar with – and quickly.

Who Does it?

In 1987 two other academics, Feick and Price, introduced the term “market maven” to describe the type of person who engages in word of mouth promotion.  This person has very specific traits including knowledge of the product/company and an internal desire to share the knowledge.

Consider this definition, they have knowledge and like to talk.  You can, should and need to provide the former.  Yes, this can be conversational and simplified but you still need to educate.   The latter, “like to talk”, is clearly beyond your control to make more of these folks but certainly not beyond it to identify them – i.e. target.

It is worth noting, the percentage of folks who fit this profile tends to be very small.  Those that do are NOT necessarily more committed to your cause then those who do not engage in word of mouth.   The difference is the characteristic or trait, which many do NOT have, of “liking to talk”.

It is however, true that those who do engage in WOM (and not, necessarily, just positive!) are likely very committed to your cause.

Benefits of WOM

If you read “Benefits of WOM” and instantly thought about the benefits to the organization then it probably typifies why non-profits, relative to commercial sector, are so bad at retention and customer/donor centric approaches to marketing.

The latter is motivated by a variety of factors,

1)     sense of obligation to share

2)     a feeling of pleasure from telling others about products or companies

3)     a desire to achieve social status and power

4)     affirmation of one’s own decisions about products or companies based on approval from others

A few important sub-points; these are measurable things – i.e. one can identify these folks.  This can be done either through direct, primary research (and specific batteries of questions) OR indirect analysis of word of mouth conversations, a VERY findable data set these days with social media (think Twitter feeds) and company sponsored online communities.

Do you know who your market mavens (or “influencers” if that term seems outdated) are?

This is reporting on the benefits to the person engaging in the word of mouth.  Understand this dynamic and foster it among your market mavens and the benefits to the organization will come in spades.  Fail to do so and fail, period.

Consequences of WOM

Again, this is not about the overly obsessed about consequences of losing control over the message – that horse is out of the barn and as this post highlights, has been for a long time…not just since the advent of Facebook.

Can there be any downside for the word of mouth promoter?  It turns out, yes.  There is a measurable continuum called “desire for uniqueness” that all folks fall on somewhere.  Those high in desire or need for uniqueness are quite different than those lower on the continuum in lots of consumer related ways, fashion for example.  It turns out; they are also different in how they view participation in word of mouth activities.  Those higher in the need for uniqueness are less likely to engage in word of mouth than lower on the scale…in certain situations.  The “certain situations” include when the “product” is used in a public setting – think clothing, cars, etc…In the case of non-profit donors, that affiliation likely falls more into the private than public setting, meaning one does not typically “wear” their nonprofit affiliations on their sleeve (literally or figuratively).

This uniqueness trait plays out in other ways too. For example, those high in their need for uniqueness are less likely to be swayed by word of mouth.  In fact, it can result in the opposite outcome – i.e. not giving to a charity with a lot of positive word of mouth.  This can be mitigated by the presence of an existing opinion among those with high desire for uniqueness – namely, they will be ok with others sharing their product or company preferences and be ok with accepting referrals if they already like the product or company.

Bottom line, word of mouth, who does it, why and why not and what to measure and understand about those you engage in social media or other referral based programs is a complicated, nuanced exercise.  Fortunately, it ain’t new, has been studied extensively and as a result, is largely understood.

P.S.  To come full circle with our other postings, we do know that Donor Commitment is a big driver not just of financial giving but also word of mouth behavior.  Specifically, donors high in Commitment to the organization engage in 3 times more word of mouth activity than those low in Commitment.