We introduce our next guest blogger of our monthly series on the 25th of every month, in celebration of our 25th anniversary this year, Ed Keller, CEO, The Keller Fay Group.

Ed Keller, CEO of the Keller Fay Group, a specialist market research firm focused exclusively on word of mouth marketing.  He is a Board member and past President of the Board of the Word of Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA), a board member of the Advertising Research Foundation, a board member of Bazaarvoice, and a member of the U of Pa’s Annenberg School’s Alumni Advisory Board.  He is Past President of the Market Research Council, and has lectured on word of mouth marketing at Wharton, Columbia Business School, NYU’s Stern School, and other leading universities. Keller speaks frequently to business audiences about word of mouth marketing, and is quoted frequently in the trade press.

Social media is all the rage today among marketers and communicators.  The allure of Facebook, Twitter, Four Square, and other social networking sites, along with all the apps that help to fuel conversation and allow marketers to connect to consumers, is a powerful draw.

But here is something that might come as a big surprise to some of you.  Despite the tremendous attention being paid to social media, and the meteoric rise in the number of people using social media, when it comes to brand-related conversation, the overwhelming majority of word of mouth (WOM) still takes place the good old fashioned way – face-to-face.  In fact, over 90% of WOM is offline, and less than 10% is online.  And of that 10% which happens online, only 1-2% comes via social networking sites or blogs.

How do I know this?  Because every week since 2006 my firm conducts research with Americans ages 13-69 and asks them to report to us about brand-related conversations in 15 different product category areas ranging from fast-moving consumer goods such as food/dining, beverages, personal care products, and household products, to higher consideration categories such as automotive, technology, and travel.  And in every single category, the story is the same.

How could this be, you might be asking?  Are the statistics about the 500 million people who have Facebook accounts somehow incorrect?  Or the fact that people are spending a growing amount of time each day on Facebook?

No, they are not wrong.  But what is not as well documented is the literally billions of brand impressions that are created daily (yes, daily) via offline conversations.  The online stats are easily measured, and therefore well reported.  Offline, while harder to measure and therefore less well reported day in and day out by the marketing and tech press, is massively larger.

What is more, our research shows that offline WOM is more credible, and more likely to lead to purchases than online WOM.

This research does not mean that online-oriented strategies are wrong or a waste of money.  In fact, the internet is playing a growing role in helping to fuel word of mouth.  Over the last few years, the internet has become just about as important as a medium that sparks conversation as TV.  But it’s not the medium via which the conversations actually happen.  If you want to know more about the different roles that TV, the internet and print all play, I would encourage you to read the research we have published recently about this.

The conclusion that I hope you will draw from our research is that in an era when word of mouth is the dominant force in driving purchase decisions, brand marketers need to think holistically.  It’s not enough to focus just on social media.  Think about your online strategy, yes, but that should include your website, and internet content, and ratings and review sites, and online advertising – in addition to Facebook and Twitter.  Think, as well, about ways to encourage offline conversation.  This can come via experiential marketing or in-store activity, whereby people can see, feel, and touch your product.  (Apple stores are a great example.)  Advertising can and does act as a powerful conversational spark, as well.   In fact, more than 20% of conversations are driven by ads.  Advertising plus word of mouth is a powerful combination.

Marketing success in the 21^st century requires new approaches.  But just because the pace of technological innovation is often dizzying, don’t overlook the power of basic human connections to drive your brand success.

‘Tis the season to say thanks and, pat downs and virtual scanners notwithstanding, it would behoove all of us to include the TSA among the many things for which we are grateful.  TSA’s efforts at keeping us safe in the skies, deserve our thanks…

The public outcry is nonsense.  It is emotionally driven and without any rational thought behind it.  Just consider what any traveler would reply, when asked whether their own privacy issue would trump taking security risks. C’mon, would anyone want to chance having another Christmas bomber, or shoe bomber or some other murderous-thinking terrorist on board when flying?  Isn’t a pat down or a step into the virtual scanner worth taking, in order to fend off a risk?

And yet, the outcry has reached such proportions that it’s now got Washington involved, with both sides of the political aisle jumping on board saying the TSA has gone too far with their new airport security measures. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, when asked on Sunday’s CBS’ “Face the Nation” if she would submit to one of the new pat-downs gave a somewhat stammered answer,  “Not if I could avoid it. No. I mean, who would?” Even the Homeland Security chairman called for the TSA to ‘Reconsider’ pat downs…

The popular Drudge Report has been leading the charge in escalating the outcry with screaming headlines that have escalated the public’s ire.  First it was, “TSA Warns: Submit Or Pay.”  This was followed with “Former Gov. Ventura Will No Longer Fly Due to Abuse He’s Endured at Hands of TSA” and “Tears After Rough Skirt Search,” “Airports Consider Call To Ditch TSA,” and finally a bit of humor with, “Will Turkey Day Fliers Cry Foul?”

TSA deserves all this, for they anticipated none of it.

It is a classic case of naïveté that a program was rolled out without a carefully planned public information campaign behind it. For instance, as a first, a well-orchestrated PR plan could have informed the public, well in advance, of the radiation statistics of the virtual scanner — that it is ten times less than an ordinary lung X-ray.  That would have assuaged unwarranted fears and minimized the need for the alternative tactic of so-called “humiliating” pat downs. Second, pat downs could have been explained as necessary, citing that terrorists are getting more creative about what they do to hide explosives in crazy things — like underwear. There could have been videos planned, showing what to expect in pat downs, and that “groping” is not the intent. Third, the TSA airport staff should have received “pat down” sensitivity training to avoid the impression of “groping” and thus have better managed the patted-down public’s expectations of the experience.

The momentum is building for a “National Opt-Out day” — meaning passengers should refuse the new virtual body scanners in use at airports around the country and opt out of that procedure.  It is a shame that TSA did not get their act together in time for the biggest travel day of the year, the day before Thanksgiving.  All too late…  Damage done.

Happily TSA Administrator John Pistole said, “the ingenuity and determination of terrorists trying to bring down an airplane rules out changes in screening policies that have been assailed by some passengers as an invasion of privacy.”

Here’s my message: Get over it and get scanned or patted down, for I personally don’t want to have an opt-outer or non-patted down person get on my plane.  Would you?

And THANK YOU, John Pistole for not being dissuaded from keeping us safe….

For all the times that a company has been frustrated in not getting a journalist’s attention resulting in not capturing in depth coverage (primarily because journalists are currently too busy covering too many beats due to budget cuts), there is now a new plan afoot to circumvent it all.  Corporations are forming their own media companies and hiring journalists to staff it, in order to focus on getting out company news – all under the watchful eye of the corporation, of course.

Apparently with creativity and deep pockets, there is always a solution to a problem. Of course, it takes the “big elephant” to do this.

Intel is one of those companies that gets this concept very well.  The company has put together an editorial team that seeks to use the best journalistic practices to publish its own news magazine that is purported to contain high-quality news, features and video. It will be separate from its newsroom, but staffed by some of Intel’s corporate communications team.

According to Bill Calder, previously press secretary to Sen. Mark Hatfield in Washington D.C., before that, a regional correspondent for The Oregonian, and now managing editor for Intel Free Press, “We know we have the expertise in-house to report on these stories so, we thought, why not do it ourselves?”

Indeed, why not? You really can’t blame corporations for trying to take control of their destiny, that is, if it turns out that they can…

But what considerations have been given as to the source?  Will it be credible only because of Intel’s iconic brand? What about other companies that follow suit? Calder recognizes this challenge, saying, “People tend to distrust corporate blogs, so we have to show that our stories are fair and of high quality, so that people trust us.”

Still, stories that are reported and produced by writers employed by any company seem to defy the very essence of objective journalism, as we know it.

Here is the thing…Journalists are grateful for information.  They have traditionally received it from corporate press kits, electronic or otherwise, website company press centers or simply through persistent PR people pitching story ideas.  This now, presents a new platform that will essentially duplicate, and possibly overshadow, the older information tools.
The question remains as to whether it will be seen by other news media as a resource for news, welcoming it for its thoroughness and in depth information, on which to build their own “news” story, or whether journalists will take the stance that, once covered by the Free Press, it will be seen as second-hand news and therefore not get covered, which will defeat Intel’s objectives in the first place.

The danger is that news organizations might see Intel Free Press as a competitor.  It is possible that they might not cover a story because Intel has already written that story.  Journalists remain steadfast in their pursuit of “news scoops.” But according to Intel Free Press, Intel won’t be writing those types of stories.

Hard to say…