And for a minute there, I thought we were way beyond this:

“There’s no way to control that word-of-mouth. Do I want to give up control and let consumers take over my campaign? No way. They aren’t getting paid based upon how many widgets get sold. If I go to all this trouble delivering a positioning strategy for my product, I want to see that message delivered. Buzz can get your name mentioned but you can’t depend on much else.”

Jack Trout - "Tales From The Marketing Wars: Is Word Of Mouth All It's Cracked Up To Be?" (Forbes.com, March 7, 2006)

Remember that piece I wrote yesterday about penetrating cultures in order to understand them? It applies to this as well. The issue here isn't so much that I don't agree with Mr. Trout's views on WOM. Not at all. I invite the dialogue. What troubles me is that Mr. Trout obviously hasn't done much research on the subject, and that's sad. For someone touted as an expert in the fields of marketing and advertising, he doesn't seem to have given much thought to the evolution of these two disciplines in quite a while. You would think that the fine folks at Forbes might have caught on by now.

(And for the record, they're early adopters, not early adapters. Ahem.)

Mr. Trout does make some mildly astute (albeit Johnny-come-lately) observations in his piece though, like this one:

"The very expensive movie King Kong was a bust because of a lot of negative word-of-mouth. "Too long, too loud and overdone." The Pontiac G6 giveaway on Oprah got a lot of buzz but the car died at the box office. People would take one for free, but not if they had to pay for it. You've got to have a product or service people want to talk about in a positive way, and there aren't many of these around."

Exactly. Here's the deal: As a marketer, you have a choice: Market great products, market average products, or market crap. If you are in the business of marketing the latter, then perhaps you should re-examine your career path. Seriously. That would pretty-much make you the marketing equivalent of a mob lawyer, wouldn't it?

Necessary evil, you say? I guess that's up for debate.

Anyway, back to the point: The very power of WOM is in its authenticity. If a product sucks, no amount of PR, marketing and advertising can save it. Effective (and ethical WOMM) simply facilitates the dialogue, for better or for worse - hopefully for the better. For companies to benefit from "good WOM", all they have to do is practice what they preach and deliver great value. For companies to get slammed by "bad WOM", all they have to do is cut corners, lie, or treat their customers like stupid little children.

Tip #398: Always beware the "expert". Just because someone has written twenty Marketing books doesn't mean they always have anything relevant or intelligent to say on the subject:

"If I go to all this trouble developing a positioning strategy for my product, I want to see that message delivered. Buzz can get your name mentioned but you can't depend on much else. Not too many mouths will do a stand-up commercial about your product vs. its competitor. Nor will they check with you in advance on what to say."

Sorry, Mr. Trout, but you've completely missed the boat with that piece. A few hours on the WOMMA website might be kind of helpful - or better yet, attending the next WOMMA conference would probably be a welcome eye-opener for you. If that doesn't work, surf through the hundreds of blogs (weblogs) and fan sites for WOM-worthy products and brands (try Apple, Sony, and Nike, for starters) to find out that, yes, lots of people will do a stand-up commercial for your products, as long as they are worthy of praise.

I find it very sad that such an "authority" in the Marketing world should be so cynical. Scary, even.

Our very own John Moore (of the famed Brand Autopsy blog and practice) points us to George Silverman's counterpoint:

"This is so colossally naive and out of touch that it's difficult to know where to start. Of course there is no way to control WOM. That's mostly what gives it it's credibility and power. People know that their friends and trusted advisors aren't going to lie to them, so they believe both the truth and relevance of that they are saying.

He doesn't want to give up control and let consumers take over his campaign? Guess what? They already have. (See my Disturbing Memo to Marketers.)"

You know what? Do yourself a big service and read both pieces. You'll be glad you did. Read Jack Trout's short-sighted attack on WOM here, and read George Siverman's fantastic response here.

I would love to hear everyone's thoughts on this. (And no, you don't have to be an expert to respond.) ;)