The debate over which type of word-of-mouth is more damaging continues
First a refresher – the Keller Fay group came out with a study that found that 92% of word of mouth (wom) happens offline and that positive wom outnumbers negative wom 6 to 1. I argued that online negative word of mouth might have a more devastating effect on buying decisions because the buyer is in a more active buying mode when searching for information than when being the recipient of positive wom at a cocktail reception.
Pete Blackshaw wrote a great piece commenting on the same study and concluding that “incidental” word of mouth – which is mostly negative and online – might indeed have a bigger impact on buying decisions than positive offline “intimate” word of mouth. Walter Carl from Northeastern university responds with a call for more research. Interestingly enough, he also lists the primary motivations for people to spread negative WOM – altruism, anxiety-reduction, advice-seeking, and vengeance.
All in all I wonder if the studies take into account that online negative word of mouth repeats itself – so while I may only have left one bad review of Mercedes online, the fact that 5,000 people read it , and that search engines keep sending 20-40 people a day to read it, is the same as if I would have told the story 5,000 times, and still tell it 20-40 times a day.
[Tags: word of mouth wom viral marketing online marketing cgm]
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
June 2nd, 2006 at 4:01 am
Great, I like this theory. Now, how would you propose to test it? Observation, or experimentation?
As for myself, by the way, negative influence is definitely more powerful, but only because of the vast array of choices we’re presented with. In a limited marketplace, it matters much less.