I totally missed this letter that Kristofer Jonsson from Sweden posted somewhere on our blog, I think. I highly recommend reading her [whoops, his!] full post at her blog about her 1-star Amazon review of Grapevine.
The answer to all 4 questions is relatively simple: The fact that BzzAgents receive the book from us doesn’t mean they’re opinions are any less credible. They aren’t paid, they aren’t asked to say good things, they aren’t told about how to form their opinion.
I think the real issue here is that we’re very transparent about the distribution of product to individuals who want to be involved in talking with others. When you get a free sample of shampoo with your newspaper or a free hunk of cheese at your supermarket, or a trial size package of pepcid outside a baseball game, the intent is entirely the same – Just much less organized. If you talk about those products with others, are you deceiving them somehow?
Remember that we’re the company leading the charge on disclosure and transparency. I think this type of question may be more effective if directed at companies who pay people cash to communicate pre-scripted commentaries to the rest of us.
Either way, I think Kristofer’s thoughts are worth considering. And my apologies for not responding to his first attempts to reach me…
| Hello Dave, jus2cusmile and everybody else!After reading the BzzAgent blog for quite some time, and eagerly looking forward to buying Grapevine, I got very disappointed once I got to amazon. I knew I would probably react somehow, but I didn�t think my reaction would be so strong. I felt I simply couldn�t trust the reviews. I usually rely heavily on customer reviews for my purchases � I trust the word of mouth, but in this case I got really sceptical. There were mostly positive reviews, which was good, but then I started thinking� .. how many of these are BzzAgents? How many really disclose their relationship? I know agents are supposed to disclose, but maybe sometimes they forget. There are other reasons to my scepticism too, but more on that a little further down. Anyway, I felt I had to comment on this somehow, so I made a review myself, questioning a bit if this could be a form of marketing which will survive for long. I did not say that BzzAgents are paid shillsters. However, they are incentivized in some way. I did state the headline as a question, because I believe we have to ask ourselves if this will work in the long run! I also stated that these are my opinions, based in my own reactions to the fact that there were many BzzAgents posting reviews. And finally, I did make it very clear, to anyone who wanted only reviews from people who have read the book, that I hadn�t done that yet.
If we suppose that this works, and I guess that you say so (and I believe you) it will attract more marketers and more BzzAgents. It will do so until the benefit of it is equalled by the cost, which will happen sometime between now and when the whole market is full of agents. It will grow until the credibility of agents approaches zero, because that�s where the benefits no more outweigh the cost, and word of mouth will have lost it�s credibility. Where will we turn then? A lady making reviews took offense by my sceptical review, and I wanted to reply to her, but I couldn�t, there, so I�ll do it here. I would like to say to her that I DO trust her personal opinion, but once she gets some kind of incentive to share her opinion, it will detract from her credibility, at least in my opinion. Anyway, the reason I couldn�t really trust the reviews were these:
So, Dave, since I haven�t read the book (yet), I would like to hear your opinion to make up my mind. Do you think that this form of WOMM can last forever, or do you think that it will dilute the power of word of mouth over time? I think I can guess you answer, but how would you explain the four issues I mention above? best regards, Kristofer Jonsson |
So rather than ranting for the sake of ranting, has she actually purchased Grapevine to see for herself? If that\’s too much to ask, how about going to B&N and reading over a copy while sipping a Starbucks?
It\’s one thing to put a review online for the world to see, but quite another to review the people doing the reviewing without knowing first-hand what it is they are talking about or KNOWING for sure what, if anything, they get out of it.
I\’m on the Grapevine campaign and haven\’t gotten anything in leiu of compensation. Unless Dave\’s holding back on us, I haven\’t gotten squat for this campaign.
As an aside, this is an \"awareness manuel\" on WOMM with a storyline attached. The book isn\’t easy to bzz for me because I don\’t know anyone in the marketing biz who cares how it\’s done. Flip side is that I DO know some of the people mentioned in the book who are bzz agents and therefore the book has more appeal to me. Dave is concise in his explaination of how Bzz works, when to use it, how effective it is, etc. If you\’re in marketing and have an interest in how WOMM comes into play (in a good, upstanding way) then this is a book you need to read.
Don\’t rate the book by it\’s reviewer or any conjured idea of any profit they make on it. Do rate the book based on it\’s content. If you were already interested before the reviews, so go get yourself a copy and rate it from there.
Aside from all of that, Just-2-cu-smile, looks like you and Bzz Agent are melding. Before long there will be no boundries between you and Bzz Agent as an entity.
Well, that comment is just not nice, or fair, at all.
No, I am my own person entirely.
You\’d be surprised at what comes in my life order and where BzzAgent falls in line on that list(sorry, Dave-lol-but I think you know what I mean and understand what I\’m saying) God, family, friends, love, honesty, my passion for educating others on Lupus, resposibilities to others, etc…etc…and somewhere past all that on that list, is BzzAgent.
Its fine for someone to be passionate towards something they strongly believe in, is it not?
I am VERY passionate on telling/reaching others about Lupus-which I suffer from-I have tons of info guides, pamphlets, etc-does that mean when I speak of Lupus or give out the free info to others, that I am not being honest in my opinions/knowledge of it all? That its simply a BZZ?
No, not by any means at all.
Its something I feel so strongly about and HAVE personal knowledge of/experience with-so of course I want to share with others and educate others and help others.
Same thing with products or services I take part in through campaigns here-or even not through here-just products I have tried and like and know are good-in my opinion. So, I tell others about them-giving MY honest opinions and then, if it is a campaign, reporting back THEIR opinions, good OR bad, to BzzAgent.
I\’ve taken part in many BzzBlasts or campaigns for non-profit org and the rewards are nothing-except for telling others about things like the March of Dimes, RX for Survival, etc. There are no incentives other than caring enough to take part and help great orgs. I only wish they would do one for the Lupus Foundation-lol-there would be no stopping me on THAT issue! lol
But anyway, my point is this-if I like a product or service, I tell many people about it, campaign or no campaign. I\’ve done it for many years before I ever even heard of BzzAgent and joined. Same goes for when I don\’t like something-I share my opinion then as well. We all do and there\’s no denying that fact or getting around it-its human nature.
Recently, we bought the DVD \’Christmas With The Kranks\’-and I have already told many people what I thought of it-how Grisham\’s book, \’Skipping Christmas\’ was better, but that the movie was still funy and enjoyable. Its not a campaign. Just something I formed an opinion on by experiencing it for myself and wanted to genuinely share my opinion of with others and recommend the movie to those I know would probably like it too.
Another example-\’Charlie and The Chocolate Factory\’-well, I\’m a fan of the classic Willy Wonka movie and was convinced that this movie would stink-because I kept comparing it to the original without having even seen the new one for myself and going by things I had heard though what? The proverbial grapevine, of course! lol
So, last week, I bought that DVD too and we watched it with our 11 year old daughter, who had seen it in the movies and LOVED IT…and I decided from the start to give this movie a fair chance on its OWN merits and not by opinions I may have formed based on something else(the original or reviews or opinions of others) and that\’s what I did.
And I found, in seperating the two, that I actually DID enjoy this movie on its OWN merits and NOT going by the original or reviews. I even admitted to my daughter after it was over, that I was wrong-that the movie WAS cute and that as a movie-seperate from the original-I enjoyed it and thought it was pretty good.
So, you see, I was judging something based on what I had heard from others(as in reviews in mags, on Amazon, etc) and by my staunch belief that it just couldn\’t be a good movie-that the original was better-without having seen the new one to form a fair opinion of it-and I knew that wasn\’t a fair opinion. So, I watched it with an open mind and liked it!
Now, that is proof that we can\’t be biased upon the opinions of others without having actually experienced the product/service/etc for ourselves. Because we just may surprise ourselves and form our own positive opinion based on personal connection/use/experience.
Now, I would like to say, that I would be more than happy to offer Kristofer Jonsson, MY copy of Grapevine, so she CAN form an opinion on the book\’s own merits and NOT by what others have to say.
After all, you can\’t(as I made the mistake of doing with the Charlie and The Chocolate Factory movie) form an honest and open opinion of something without first giving IT an actual chance on its own.
—
BzzAgent-jus2cusmile-Cathy
HELP FIGHT LUPUS!
I just went to and read her blog and replied, since she had been trying to contact me. Here\’s what I said:
jus2cusmile Says:
November 19th, 2005 at 7:22 pm
Hello.
Yes, its me…the lady(BzzAgent) you speak of. lol And I am one of the reviewers who DID reveal myself as a BzzAgent right from the start.
I wanted to say, that I read your e-mail to Dave, at the BLOG-he made a thread just for this very topic and because of your letter to him. (just so you know, we cannot start our own posts there at the blog, only employees of BzzAgent-but we can reply to all topics posted-comments are posted in realtime-so they appear as soon as you submit them)
I have no ill feelings at all in any of this and simply wanted to let you know that. I just replied to Dave’s post and it can all be read there, rather than re-posting it here, as its long. lol
I only took offense at the mention of us BzzAgents not being honest in our opinions and that is wrong, because I HONESTLY enjoyed reading that book! lol Maybe because I’m a BzzAgent and I could relate to what was being said and enjoyed this ‘inside-look’ into the world of WOMMA.
But anyways, its water under the bridge and there are so many other important issues to deal with in life than worry about things like this…ya know? lol
But, as I said in the reply at the BzzBlog, I would be more than happy to give you MY copy of Grapevine,(its funny because I too wanted to contact YOU with that offer this past week, but also couldn’t through amazon! lol) so you can form your own opinion based on actual experience of reading the book for yourself. You may like it, you may not, but that’s what WOM is all about, after all, isn’t it? lol
Opinions and feedback of such.
Thanks for listening and Have a great weekend!
—
BzzAgent-jus2cusmile-Cathy
HELP FIGHT LUPUS!
\"Aside from all of that, Just-2-cu-smile, looks like you and Bzz Agent are melding. Before long there will be no boundries between you and Bzz Agent as an entity. \"
Cathy, I was just kidding ya. My smiley didn\’t tag along with my post. More than Bzz Agents are aware of who you are these days. Probably won\’t be long before some marketing guru tries to snag you for employment.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As to Daves post:
I\’m often asked how often I depend on reader reviews before I purchase something. To be honest, I\’ll glance at reviews, throw the ratios of pro vs. con around, and ultimately decide for myself if I truely want the item. I don\’t second guess the reviewer or what their motives are. How do I know that X company didn\’t royally cheese someone off and that the person is reviewing negatively just to \"get even\"? Or that they are the great grandchildren of the company\’s original owner and simply want to boost sales for their own inheritance by extolling the virtues of a product? What do I care either way? We can all try to sniff out a person\’s true intent, but I\’m not a basset hound, and some people don\’t wear deoderant. If I really want the product, I\’ll lie to myself that I need it no matter what anyone\’s review says nor what they get out of recommending it to me. (Whoa to commissioned sellers if I did!)
I think the angst comes from her not getting a free copy, Dave. Sometimes, it\’s just a matter of greed. In this case, she didn\’t get a free copy. Now that Cathy\’s offered her copy, wonder if the woman will change her outlook on the actual book since she doesn\’t have to fork out the cash. (Incentive enough to read it?????) More things that make ya go hmmm.
Great to see that I finally got contact! Thank you for that, Dave! =)
First, I´d like to make a quick correction. Kristofer is a name on a guy, just like Christopher is probably a name on a guy in the U.S., right? It´s just the spelling that´s different. So, I´m a guy!
Let´s get back to business.
I do really trust word of mouth. That´s why I usually use the reviews on amazon a lot. A book with a lot of one and two star ratings is probably not going to be as good to read as one with mostly four or five… .. but we all understand that.
Thank you for your offer and comment, jus2cusmile! You offer me your copy so that I can “form an opinion on the book\’s own merits and NOT by what others have to say”. First, in this case, I only partly form my opinion from what others have to say. And I trust other peoples opinion and let their opinions influence my buying the product or not. Isn´t that one of the basic ideas behind the BzzAgent model? Letting peoples opinions influence other peoples decisions? The idea is not that everyone has to always buy a product to evaluate it themselves, as it seems that you want me to do now. I thank you for your offer, but will get the book myself. That´s also something strange in some of the comments on your post Dave – they are suggesting that it could be out of jealousy or just plain being cheap, that I posted the review. Isn´t it telling that just because I wrote that review I should be jeolous or cheap? Immediately they think I´m not as trustworthy, isn´t it so? Isn´t that just the same as being a bit distrustful towards people who are “working” for bzzagents and giving reviews on the founders book?
To me, it´s just so obvious that if there is only one reason to something, that reason accounts for 100%. If there are two reasons, they have to divide it. It could be 99.9% that the book is great, and 0.1% that they are bzzagents, but it could also be more even.
Note this: I made it extremely clear in my post on amazon that I hadn´t read the book. Also, I never in the review made any statements about the book! I simply questioned if this was a marketing model that can last in the long run. The reason for just one star is that you have to give some number of stars to post there. I figured my one star would in some way counter the (what I still believe) biased selection of buzzagents.
Dave, you still have not answered if you really think this way of working can last in the long run. Isn´t it reasonable to believe that if we suppose that this works, it will attract more marketers and more BzzAgents? Isn´t it reasonable to believe that it will do so until the benefit of it is equalled by the cost, something that will happen sometime between now and when the whole market is full of agents? It will grow until the credibility of agents approaches zero, because that´s where the benefits no more outweigh the cost, and word of mouth will have lost it´s credibility?
Finally Dave, do you think that the sample of bzzagents giving reviews on amazon is statistically representative of all the bzzagents out there, who got their hands on the book? I don´t.
Best regards
Kristofer
Oh, my bad!! =) lol Thank you very much for clearing that up, then. I really wasn\’t sure how to take it. lol
I would LOVE to work for BzzAgent, but that is not a possibility, so being a BzzAgent is the next best thing. lol
LMAO!
But as far as others contacting me to work in this biz-oh geez, I hope not! I\’d just like to remain the quiet, mousey, soft-spoken, shy person I am.
I dunno, I guess, like I said, when I believe in something, I get passionate about it and defend it if necessary and I just can\’t stand when I read about BzzAgents being put down, called dishonest, etc. So, I open my mouth-or should I say, let my fingers do the talking, via a keyboard, and have MY say in reply. lol
Sometimes I think I should just stay out of here, then I won\’t get riled up when I read the insults and unfair accusations-I had even e-mailed Jono not long ago and said that very thing-that I was going to stop coming into the blog and just avoid the confrontations, but then I realized, \’No, that\’s wrong. I too, have the right to speak my mind and more of a right to be in here than NON-BzzAgents who only come in here to cause problems and spin people up.\’ So, I started posting/replying again. lol
But again, Thank you for clearing up what you meant. I actually breathed a sigh of relief when I read your reply. lol I just hate to have anyone think ill or bad of me when I am really a kind and caring person who just has an opinion like everyone else and I\’m not afraid to say what that opinion may be. lol
Have a great weekend and holiday!
—
BzzAgent-jus2cusmile-Cathy
HELP FIGHT LUPUS!
Mr. Jonsson,
I just don\’t think you take into full account that BzzAgents are not penalized in any way, shape or form, if they post negative responses to the book (or anything else). We are even constantly \"told\" (whether in the reporting areas, bzzguides with every kit we receive, emails, etc) to be completely honest with our WOM and feedback. Good or bad.
Isn\’t it quite possible that the posters of the reviews that had positive things to say were quite honest? I did see a few posters proclaiming to be BzzAgents who weren\’t \"thrilled\" with the book as well, after all.
Knowing that we are required, even encouraged, to be completely honest, and are in no way penalized….why would they lie? We certainly aren\’t offered anything if we DO like the book(just as nothing is taken away if we don\’t); I don\’t see where one would find a point in lying about their interest in the book (or anything else).
Now, because I believe I grew out of naivety long ago, I could understand the probablility that a few of the reviews may have gotten honesty confused with loyalty. That\’s how things usually go sometimes, after all(which is why I see your point in your review). But, I honestly think that perhaps everyone that said as such did like the book but, perhaps for different reasons. Some may have reviewed because they like the book and it\’s genre; some because perhaps it feels \"close to home\" with it\’s references to BzzAgent and it\’s agents.
That\’s just how I feel though (and respect how you feel as well); I just feel that since they have access to the same rules I do, and are told to be honest whether we make BzzAgent smile or cry (not in so much words, of course), and understand and know that there are no brownie points for pro reports/reviews, (as well as no demerits for con reports/reviews)….that they wouldn\’t bother to lie.
(I\’m sorry. \"HELLO!\" by the way! )
(oh, and apologies for butting in! There wasn\’t really a discussion with my post here; just some small points that needed to be said.)
Have a Good\’un!
—
BzzAgent Varmit
First, a hypothetical question: Imagine a society where all your friends are agents, for different companies, but with similar models as BzzAgent – would you trust your friends recommendations as much as you do today? “Hey, you know I´m a buzzer.. … I got this great book to review from BuzzerCorp.. … you should really read it!” Imagine recieving a few comments like this every day. Would you trust them as much as you would if you got one comment per week from a non-agent? That´s my point. With this model, I believe (this is my opinion), that people will trust recommendations like this less and less.
Jus2cusmile… … I hope I haven´t insulted or come with any unfair accusations. That´s not what I´m after. I just want to discuss this. Of course, I can´t speak for others, but at least my goal is not to come in here just to “cause problems and spin people up”.
This whole discussion is based on MY reaction to the fact that the reviews of Grapevine on amazon are mostly posted by bzzagents. As I have said before: If I have this reaction, it´s very possible that more people will, and it they do, then there might be a very big problem for BzzAgent in the long run.
Varmit… … I know that bzzagents are not penalized in any way if they were to post or say anything negative on a product. And I do believe that the posts on amazon were mostly honest (there are some issues however – see my letter in the post Dave made above). However, I do believe that the sample of bzzagents posting and really voicing their opinion is biased – the ones who are negative about the book are less likely to post, I believe. Anyone who has studied a bit of statistics would understand this point of view.
Also, there is a psychological phenomenon called “reciprocity” – we often feel an urge to reciprocate in one way or another, if we receive something from someone. Isn´t it quite possible that bzzagents are also affected by this universal principle?
I think this leads bzzagents to feel some kind of loyalty and certain obligation (possibly subconscious) towards BzzAgent, and that loyalty might lead them to talk more positively about products, to fervently protect the model and of course they also react when they feel their own credibility is under attack (as bzzagents, not as persons).
I don´t say that bzzagents (as agents) have zero credibility. I believe that bzzagents will have less credibility. Whether it´s 1% less, 10% less or 50% less (or anything else) depends very much on the receiver.
Kristofer,
No, you haven\’t insulted or offended. I totally understand what you are saying and yes, a world full of buzzers would get confusing and make people question things…BUT, then again, aren\’t we ALREADY a world full of \’buzzers\’?
Think about it…while everyone isn\’t a member of a place like this…everyone DOES Bzz! From kids, to moms and dads, co-workers, strangers, teachers, grandmas and on and on.
Those reviews you rely upon at Amazon…well, basically, the people who write any review on any subject are pretty much \’Buzzing\’ something too-good or bad, its all WOM.
It happens each and every day in almost every situation…office worked-ies:
Bob just got back from lunch at a new place down the block-he\’s quite pleased with the food and the service-he begins to rave about it to his co-workers. Bob, just Buzzed!
Sally & Tom hired a new babysitter-the girl had a party in Sally and Tom\’s absence that first night-Sally tells all her friends with kids…\’Do NOT hire little Susie Jones-she\’s a very unreliable babysitter!\’ Sally…just Buzzed a service she wasn\’t pleased with!
Julia went and saw a new movie last night with her boyfriend, Rick. They loved the movie and Julia told her sister, Annie, all about it when she got home. Annie, tells HER boyfriend, Alan, that SHE wants to go see that movie too.
Rick loved the movie and really loved the popcorn he got there-a new brand they are trying. Rick mentions this to his friend Joe. Joe, trys the new popcorn the next time he goes to the movies.
So…Julie buzzed Annie, who in turn, buzzed Alan.
Rick buzzed Joe about the popcorn, as a result, Joe tries it next time. And on and on and on…
I think you see where I\’m going with this. lol
Buzz happens whether its structured or not-whether its a BzzAgent or not.
People TRY. People TALK. People TELL.
People LOVE to give THEIR opinions on something…anything, to others-good or bad.
People want to be heard! lol
And through these types of programs/campaigns at least THIS WAY, the companies are getting the feedback and opinions of their consumers-which is what they want in order to make a product better, correct a problem or continue to make the quality item people are saying they love.
All this skeptisism towards BzzAgent and US agents is unfair because of the fact that its the COMPANIES who hire BzzAgent who WANT to get and hear these opinions and feedback. So why is the blame being put upon BzzAgent and the agents?
How many times do you open a mag and are bombarded with more ads than articles? lol How many of those \’SUBSCRIBE NOW!\’ cards fall out of your mags each and every time? How many scents are wafted into your face with amost every mag you open?
Its all marketing-pushy forced-upon marketing at that. I want to buy and read a mag simply for the enjoyment of its content and while many ads catch my attention and I do pay attention to, if the product/service intrests me, I hate the fact that I am paying for so much advertising in buying that mag! lol
How many people have gotten spritzed by perfume-pushers at malls? Or people trying to get you to sign up for a stores credit card before you even get INTO the store! lol Or are standing out there with clipboards practically running people down to get them to take a store survey? lol
TV is even worse! Most shows now have commercial breaks about every 8 minutes! Its ridiculous! Its forced upon us like subliminal messages. lol
So, there are far worse forms of marketing than buzzing/WOM-because WOM comes directly from people who HAVE experienced a product or service and have formed their opinion based on that experience.
As BzzAgents, we don\’t walk up to someone and say, \’HERE! Take this sample! You gotta buy this product! Its AWESOME!\’ lol
Not by a long shot-we simply begin a conversation-stating why we are doing so and sometimes, its actually OTHER people who start the conversation in the first place as was the case only last night when I was shopping. My daughter took the flavor of Warm Delights off the shelf that she loves and a lady right there, who was looking at them, asked ME if we really liked them! It started an entire conversation about the product and SHE initiated it. Not me-the BzzAgent! lol
Heck after I told her about me being a BzzAgent, and that I would be sure and report her feedback so Betty Crocker gets it…she asked if I needed HER name or info! lmao!
She was THAT interested in her voice being heard by the company! lol
And its not the first time at all that someone else initiated a convo with me about a product I may be in a campaign for. People see you buying a product or looking at a product in stores and are maybe curious about it-so they WANT to get someone\’s opinion, who may have already tried it, so they\’ll have an idea if they will be wasting their money or not. So, THEY ask! lol
So, you see…like I said, Buzz happens, all the time.
People TRY. People TALK. People TELL.
—
BzzAgent-jus2cusmile-Cathy
HELP FIGHT LUPUS!
Jus2cusmile, thank you, but I don´t think I need any lecture on what buzz or word of mouth is all about – I know that. I know people are buzzing all the time! I like that! It helps me evaluate everything around me. However, if someone buzzes me about a product and they do it on behalf of a company, I will not trust it as much. That´s my opinion. If you think it will have exactly the same credibility, I respect your opinion.
You complain about a world full of advertisers, and believe me, I think it´s just too much of that (even if you probably have it a lot worse in the US)! But don´t you think, since advertising is in quite a crisis now, due to increasing scepticism, that this phenomenon with buzzers will grow? Don´t you think that we will create the same problem once again? You say that “a world full of buzzers would get confusing and make people question things”.
Your argument that the world is already full of buzzers, doesn´t really solve anything. Do you prefer a world full of buzzers who are incentivised (given products) to buzz about, or a world of buzzers who do it because they get a product on their own and become truly passionate about it? I prefer the later, because I think there is a risk this phenomenon with incentivized buzzers will increase in use, until the point where we are just sick of it, just like advertising.
Of course people want to be heard. An important question though, is if other people will want to HEAR the incentivized buzzers maybe five, ten or fifteen years from now? It could be that we just get fed up with it, just like we are with advertising.
I think it´s great that companies get feedback. That is crucial to improve the offer, and possibly get what I call “real” word of mouth – something that is not incentivized in any way else than a great product/service and great customer care.
A small correction here… .. if you hate the fact that you pay for so much advertising in a magazine, I can tell you that the advertising is most probably making the magazine cheaper for you to buy. Without the advertising in the magazine, you would pay even more.
I think you will be glad to hear that I have ordered the book now, so in a few days I will learn even more about the BzzAgent model. However, I cannot, in my wildest dreams, believe that I will change my mind about the credibility I think incentivized buzzers have compared to non-incentivized. I think it will, at least to me, always be smaller by some amount.
Best regards,
Kristofer
Hello again.
For the record, it wasn\’t a lecture-lol-merely trying to explain things to those who are on the \’con\’ side of all this, that may not quite \’get it\’ yet. =)
Now, you said…
\"Of course people want to be heard. An important question though, is if other people will want to HEAR the incentivized buzzers maybe five, ten or fifteen years from now? It could be that we just get fed up with it, just like we are with advertising.\"
So, does that mean that anyone who has ever gotten a free sample of a product to try, which IS basically an incentive, has no clout when it comes to recommending that product to anyone else, ever?
I have one more thing to add-and I gotta run and dinner on the table for the fam-lol- and that is this…many of the products we get in campaigns aren\’t brand NEW prods. They are existing products that many of us use often or have used before.
Like Listerine PocketPaks-I\’ve been using those strips for years now, since they first came out. And there\’s campaigns for Mentadent-not hardly a new product, nor is Pepcid Complete. Home Cafe wasn\’t a new item to the market-it in fact had been out about a year at the time of that campaign. It was something I wanted to purchase for a long time and planned on getting one when the extra cash was there for one-then came the campaign and I got one. As I\’ve said on that subject before, I STILL tell people about the Home Cafe and the pods for it-and there is NO continuing incentive to do so. So why do I continue to tell people about just about everything I\’ve ever had a cmapign for, even though the incentives are long past gone and over? Its simple…because I really like the products and most likely talked about them before there ever was a BzzCampaign and I will continue to do so prolly till I die ot the products are no longer made! lol
But I do have to run before the Ravioli boils over! lol
See, now I just was going to type the \’Butonni Ravioli\’ and its NOT even a campaign! But its a darn good product we use and will continue to use and I tell people how good it is all the time. Does that mean if its ever a campaign..that MY opinion loses credibility? I think not. =)
Sincerely,
Cathy
—
BzzAgent-jus2cusmile-Cathy
HELP FIGHT LUPUS!
Yessir, like I said, I see where you come from.
But, it wouldn\’t make this instance unique. (the agents who dislike the book being less likely to post.) I\’ve bought books that rated highly, and ended up donating them to the goodwill afterwards. Know what I mean? I try to rely on thorough reviews with books…explanations about what they didn\’t/did like. You just do not get them all the time with consumer\’s reviews, even I\’m guilty sometimes. (You should have seen me trying to buy toys for my kid for X-mas…reviewed by kids themselves. I hope the toys don\’t fall to pieces, but, BebeGrrl says \"It RAWKZZ!\" so maybe it\’ll be okay *snicker* )
But, even with myself, unless it\’s extremely terrible or a defective product and feel the need to warn others, I don\’t post too many bad reviews anywhere. At that point, I feel that I don\’t want to be bothered with it any longer, and am trying to get the bad taste out of my mouth. (I do, however, let people close to me hear my criticism)
I\’m sure I\’m not alone, BzzAgent or not.
A book, though, is a tricky thing to review. Simply because what one likes, another may not; and vice versa. Especially if one doesn\’t go into detail about the \"what\" they did/didn\’t like about the book. I feel this book would have been much trickier, because, even if they just do not like the genre, they could quite possibly enjoy reading the bits about BzzAgent and such, because it\’s \"home\" to Agents; and review based on that. And if so, (which I see nothing wrong with anyone\’s reasons for liking or disliking a book, mind you) that may not appeal to anyone who isn\’t a BzzAgent themselves.
I just feel if this was a book about baseball….we wouldn\’t be here today.
Anyhow….
your talk of \"loyalty\" to BzzAgent. Like I said, it\’s a probablility, like with all things, that there may be/are some who confuse honesty with loyalty. It\’d be foolish to assume otherwise, especially considering the number of Agents there are. I\’ll surely give you that. That\’s how all things work, after all.
But, you have a heap who are honest as well. I remember a product the majority (seemingly) just did not like at first; I do not know so cannot honestly say, but if I was a betting woman, I would bet that those agents voiced their opinions in negative ways about that product, and reported as such. After all, the majority (assumption) everyone bzzes are friends and family; I certainly wouldn\’t pull the wool over a close one\’s eyes.
Reciprocity; I do not know. I like to think that a vast amount of people do that subconciously (sp); from the person who recieves a rebate from some batteries, or whatever, to the person who receives a Christmas bonus at work, when it\’s in a positive light.(of course, reciprociating with WOM) The same if those individuals didn\’t get those, in a negative light.
But, we\’re free to form our own opinions. If we don\’t like it, fine…it\’s not written in stone that we have to be pleased with a product and write pleasantries to BzzAgent. We also are not entitled to voice positive (or negative) opinions to others. Just our own opinions..whatever they may be, and let the other person decide for themselves if they choose to. And technically, WOM is supposed to be natural, and not forced.
Jus2cusmile hit on a good bit of points about WOM. It\’s (WOM) something we spread constantly, whether we realize it or not. (I bzzed a candle just today..LoL–outside of BzzAgent, of course. I WAS bzzed today too! I\’m going to a resturaunt I haven\’t been to yet with a friend in a few…because she voiced her opinions about their \"sweet taters\", and I\’m a sucker for a good sweet potato dish. LoL )
People bzz all the time. We voice our opinions on a variety of things daily. And, we are bzzed daily.
If a sample/item was the first motivational tool to get \"future BzzAgent clones\" to spread WOM, then sure, I would trust them as much as I do someone who sends off for a free sample of a candy they liked and bzzed me about it. Or someone who got a free product for playing a game at Mickey D\’s, and bzzed me about how Mickey D\’s \"RAWKZZ!\". Or whatever means they got an item and it gave them a positive or negative opinion….I would accept their opinion as much as anyone else\’s.
People already do that, after all.
But, in your scenario where they stated that they got the book, and I should read it….I\’d need more than that. I want to know the \"why\" do you like it, \"what\" do you like about it, and etc..like with all things. If they can provide that, so I can form my own opinion, then yes…I would trust them and from there, go and look the product over, read up on it, and then make the decision to buy or not to buy, like I do anyway. Their opinion isn\’t the deciding force for me to buy, but, I do look for feedback from those who have tried the product themselves when considering the item. And after I used it, I\’m sure I would spread my own opinions about it. (Much like I did this yummy candle I just bought.)
But, that is my own opinion, and I do surely understand where you get yours too.
Have a Good\’un!
—
BzzAgent Varmit
I\’m new to BzzAgent, but I\’ve been thinking about this topic today, and I do have an observation to make.
I keep thinking back to another post about BzzAgents getting offered campaigns… There was a point made – (which I might have misunderstood, so please correct me if I have), that a person who buzzes more frequently and reports it will be considered a more active agent, and that will help with getting them into more campaigns in the future… compared to another person who doesn\’t buzz very often.
If that is true, or even if that is an assumption that the agents have, then there might be some WOM that is forced, in an attempt to get material to use for a Bzz Report.
The opinions themselves are not rewarded. The reward is for the act of sharing the opinion and reporting on that act back to the Central Hive. And I can understand the concerns that some people might have about a person\’s motivation.
In Grapevine, the title of Chapter two is \"Who Talks about Products and Why\". I found the list of reasons why people buzz to be interesting. I thought about the stuff that I naturally buzz and considered which category that buzz would go into. Maybe some people wonder if BzzAgent might have created an additional category – that some of the buzz that happens is simply for the purpose of buzzing, in order to take part in a campaign and in order to take part in the community at Bzz Agent.
But then again, is it forced WOM if a small part of your mind is silently on alert for opportunities to buzz? Or, is it just eager eager agents wanting to take part in any way they can.
I think the perception is that it is forced, when really it is just eager people. That\’s just my thoughts on it.
BzzAgent – Carolee_p
Hi!
Let´s totally agree that we buzz all the time! No one argues with that, so there´s no need to take it up anymore.
To Jus2cusmile…
In my opinion, I believe that buzz produced by someone who is SUPPOSED to buzz carries less (or more) weight than someone elses. This because when leave a positive review, IN ADDITION to liking a product, you are also a bzzagent. Strangely as it seems, I would possibly trust a buzz agent with a very negative review about Grapevine MORE than any other person, because he/she would say it EVEN THOUGH he´s involved in it all.
If you were on the look-out for a new car and I knew a car salesman. Would you trust me more if I said “You should go to this guy I know, his used cars are really good and sometimes he gives me new tires, if I tell people about him”, or “You shouldn´t go to this guy I know, he only sells lemons!”
It´s simple maths:
If x is the motivation for you to talk about a product, and we say that 100 is the “normal” credibility a person has (without any external incentives for saying anything) the equation becomes like this, in the eyes of the receiver:
100 – x = credibility (in the eyes of the receiver)
If x is positive, as in the case when I buzz my friend, credibility is lower. If I say something AGAINST my own interests (my friend making more money and giving me free tires), x is positive, and credibility is higher. If you are a bzzagent, and you DO get the product for free, and you ARE supposed to buzz, credibility will be lower when you buzz a product positively and higher if you buzz it negatively.
Jus2cusmile, I do “get it”, but I don´t have the same opinion as you do. I am talking here about the future, not as much about how it is now. I don´t think incentivized buzzers have a lot less credibility among people in general so far, but I DO think that in five, ten or fifteen years we will be more tired of incentivized buzz, and we WILL trust it less, because it will have reached levels never seen before.
I believe that, even if you refuse to admit it, you as bzzagents talk about products that you wouldn´t talk about as much if you weren´t agents (certainly there may be individual exceptions, but in general I think it´s true).
Your own opinion about a product dosn´t necessarily change because you get a campaign on it (but it might) but definitely credibility suffers in the eyes of the receiver. At least for me.
To Varmit…
Peoples opinions are different, that´s for sure! You don´t always hit bulls eye trusting other peoples reviews.
Even if you are a bzzagent, you admit to “unless it\’s extremely terrible or a defective product and feel the need to warn others, I don\’t post too many bad reviews anywhere” That´s what I thought.
I must admit, that this case, with bzzagents buzzing Grapevine, was a special case, and that is probably part of my negative reaction, but I do think more people will have these reactions sooner or later, and that´s why Dave and everybody else (including the bzzagents) should worry more about it, and not dismiss it.
Again, I don´t think the bzzagents opinions aren´t honest (possibly subconsciously influenced though), what I believe is that it´s on the receiver end the credibility suffers. It´s in the eyes of the beholder.
Anonymous…
The anonymous comment from 8:06 PM makes me wonder even more about the incentives here. If it´s not a misunderstanding, there are definitely more “motivation” or a higher x, if you like, which leads to less credibility in the eyes of the receiver. At least if this would be transparent for the receiver.
Varmit, don´t underestimate that the “feeling of community” that bzzagent cultivates probably lead to some kind of loyalty.
Dave, where are you in this discussion? There are still questions unanswered!
Even if an opinion is shared for the sake of buzzing, it doesn\’t mean that the opinion itself is false.
If someone is actively looking for an opportunity to buzz, or even if they seek out an opportunity, the buzz that happens afterwards could still be natural, honest, transparent, and everything that it should be.
Carolee
Kristofer,
Like I said, I understand what you are saying, but you are not getting MY point here, which is…DESPITE any opinions you have about me, my review and opinion of \’Grapevine\’, the honesty of BzzAgent-or lack-thereof in your mind or the idea that you believe positive results are probably given because we feel \’obligated\’ to do so, even if not aware of it…DESPITE all that, I honestly and CONSCIOUSLY, ENJOYED THAT BOOK! lol
So no matter what you say on this, it will NOT change my overall opinion of Grapevine. I didn\’t delve into that book with the though that…\’I HAVE to like this book, because its Dave\’s, involves BzzAgent, etc…\’ because in all honesty, I REALLY thought I WOULDN\’T like it or be able to \’get into it\’ at all!! lol
Its not my normal genre of reading at all-and I read a LOT!!!-so rather than opening the cover with the thought that I WOULD like it, it was the total opposite! lol
It genuinely surprised me AND interested me and yes, maybe that\’s BECAUSE I AM a BzzAgent and could relate, BUT that really shouldn\’t make a difference.
Here\’s a perfect example why it shouldn\’t-
I HAVE Lupus, so if I read a book about Lupus, does that make me NOT qualified to give it a proper review or give my honest opinion about it?
Does my personal experience invalidate or hinder any opinion I may have on what\’s written in the book? Does it invalidate my own experiences?
No, not at all, on both counts. If anything, all it means is that I can relate better and have prior knowledge to what\’s being discussed in the book before I even open it. But that\’s as far as it goes. I judge the book on its own merit and NOT because I HAVE Lupus, because believe me, the Lupus is a curse! A horrid, nasty, painful curse-so if I were to let my opinion be driven by my PERSONAL EXPERIENCE with Lupus, well then I\’d rate each and every book I read on Lupus as being, \’terrible\’, \’horrible\’, etc…! lol
But I don\’t. Why? Because I don\’t judge the book on the fact that I HAVE Lupus, I judge the book based on its own informative level, period.
Just because I have prior knowledge of something or am involved someway in something does NOT mean my opinions on it aren\’t fair and honest opinions.
And that\’s the point I think you are missing.
You are almost insisting your point that BECAUSE a BzzAgent gives a positive opinion on a book about BzzAgent and WOM, that it couldn\’t possibly be an honest opinion, that its possible that on a subconscious level, we are giving it a positive review because we feel we have to.
I was able to seperate the two before reading the book, why can\’t you?
And all I\’m saying is that is totally untrue and unfair. Because just like you judged a book without even having read one page of it, you are doing the same with me and all BzzAgent who gave the book a positive review-you are judging us by our prior experience/involvement with BzzAgent, when you know hardly anything about me or any of us.
You are letting YOUR opinion on both the book and US be biased due to things you have read beforehand, ie: here or at Amazon- and simple \’views\’ \’glances\’ or \’snippets\’, do NOT a complete picture make.
You have your opinion(which is fine to have) that our judgement is clouded by being BzzAgents in the first place and I am trying to say, as far as myself goes, that its simply untrue.
An opinion is one thing, but when you make assumptions and judgements on people you don\’t even know and practicaly insist that said people are maybe even influenced on an unconscious level, so that their opinions aren\’t valid…well, that\’s very unfair and close-minded.
So, like I said, DESPITE what opinion you have of my reasons for giving the book such a positive review, I am here to tell you, you are wrong on that count as far as myself goes, because I honestly DID and DO like the book on its OWN merits and NOT by my previous knowledge or experience. Regardless of what you say or your opinion. lol
I will not change my opinion of the book simply because you think it wasn\’t a fair, open, honest, unbiased opinion.
You have said you, \’didn\’t mean to offend\’ but when you are in essence, calling people dishonest and incapable of giving a fair opinion/review of something because they have previous knowledge of the subject, it is very one-sided and is basically invalidating any review anyone has ever had, if they gave an opinion on a subject they have prior knowledge of/experience with. And yes, then that is offensive, when you accusing someone of being dishonest-on whatever level or reasoning you may have.
So then you would also believe that any review of a book on carpentry, is made invalid if a carpenter reviews it? Any review on book about medicine, is made invalid if a patient, doctor or nurse reviews it? Any review on book about decorating, becomes invalid if a decorator reviews it? A review on a book about business is made invalid if a businessman reviews it?
That could go on and on and on…but you see what I\’m getting at here?
Just because I AM a BzzAgent does not mean MY opinions or reviews are invalid on a book about the subject, just like my opinions or reviews on a book about Lupus wouldn\’t be invalid.
Because sometimes, personal experience is more highly regarded by others, than someone who has no knowledge of what lies between the 2 covers of a book or subject.
Were that the case, companies wouldn\’t rely so much on various ways of marketing-instead, they would just go by the reviews of people at Amazon.com. But they don\’t. THEY want to hear and know FROM the actual consumers, what is being said…from the people who HAVE used and experienced the product/service, not from someone standing on the sidelines calling the plays and judging the other team,(BzzAgents/consumers/reviews/etc) when they really don\’t yet know anything about THAT particular sport.(book, product, service, etc)
=)
Sincerely,
Cathy
—
BzzAgent-jus2cusmile-Cathy
HELP FIGHT LUPUS!
Kristofer,
I re-read all of your posts a few times and the only questions I really have for you are this:
Are you saying if there were more Agents in there giving negative commentary you will be more apt to buy the book thinking in some skewed way that 51% negative feedback means it\’s more honest???? What\’s wrong with 51% giving positive reviews? I\’ve written reviews on Amazon before that were both positive and negative, and even though I didn\’t do those reviews as a Bzz Agent, I don\’t think my opinion is any less or more honest than when I do post as a Bzz Agent.
*Now, I don\’t know what you\’re going to think about this concept, but it\’s certainly worth entertaining since we\’re being conspiracy theorist and all. What if Amazon had paid shilsters working on their reviews board and posted 2 positives for every negative? A product certainly isn\’t going to do so well if it doesn\’t have some positives, right? So why not create positive reviews and get that product outta here? I\’m talking about the plethora of products that Amazon sells, sans Grapevine. Was this even a concept you\’ve thought on at all or are you just concerned with Grapevine and Bzz Agent reviews? This is where thinking for yourself comes in handy.
*These thoughts are my own and in no way reflect the ideals of Bzz Agent.
Tried to post this during the original debate on the Amazon reviews of Grapevine, but because of technical problems (which Dev helped clear up very promptly) it would not post…. also (in the interest of full disclosure) did receive an email response from Dave about my comments, also very promptly. I do think it is very germane at this point because of continued controversy in this area.
Hate to say this Dave, but in some ways I agree with the critics on this one. During the great CC debate I mentioned that while I thought the issue of incentives for reporting bzz was overblown, I did have a concern about the perception others would have for awarding points for basically anonymous bzz (such as Amazon reviews) where countervailing social forces insuring honesty were not present.
I hope I don\’t bruise your ego too much, but when I read a review that touts Grapevine as \"The best Business book ever read\" from a purported MBA, it does cause me concern both about the objectivity of the review and the low quality of many MBA programs.
Personally I have stopped bzzing any products in this relatively anonymous manner since the CC debate because I am sensitive to the validity of this concern. A simple solution would be to no longer offer points for such activity. While this may decrease the number of reviews (although I for one would start doing reviews again) it would effectively blunt the criticisms of BzzAgent\’s detractors
—
Gary
Gary,
BUT…the majority of reviewers have disclosed that they ARE BzzAgents. I know I did and have read many others as well, where the reviewer said right in the review, that they were indeed, BzzAgents.
So how then, do they decipher who is and who isn\’t a BzzAgent among those that said nothing about being a BzzAgent in their review?
Because lets face it, not everyone uses their same e-mails, info, etc…at every site they go to or participate in.
=)
Cathy
—
BzzAgent-jus2cusmile-Cathy
HELP FIGHT LUPUS!
\"So how then, do they decipher who is and who isn\’t a BzzAgent among those that said nothing about being a BzzAgent in their review\"
Exactly my point!
Without going through the extensive debate (which you can read by looking at the two relevant CC threads) about this issue, I do think there is a valid concern about rewarding Agents with points for essentially anonymous bzz. Whether these concerns about credibility and honesty are based on reality or just perception doesn\’t really matter, perception is reality in this situation.
—
Gary
So basically, what you are saying is that if a BzzAgent has posted a review, but has not disclosed that they are a BzzAgent, (which can be found out easy by checking the review they speak of-I know when I do an online review, I always include the link TO that review in my BzzReport, so they can see for themselves.)-that they should not recieve any points for that review?
Then, I agree totally.
If they don\’t disclose who they are, meaning a BzzAgent-now that the disclosure is a requirement and not a personal choice to do so or not, then no, they shouldn\’t get the points-because there\’s no way to even proove that review is even theirs-if it doesn\’t give their name, e-mail, location, etc…which some don\’t-just a username-which not everyone uses the same everywhere anyways.
They could easily pick out any general review from anywhere and submit it as a report and claim it as theirs, if there was no mention of any peronal info on/in the review.
So, yes, as I said, I agree. If a BzzAgent submits a report for an online review, but doesn\’t include a link to that actual review or disclose that they are a BzzAgent, in the review, then they should not be awarded points for the activity.
I think that would really solve the problem of those who don\’t disclose being a BzzAgent once they start to see 0 pts. awarded and the reasons why.
I know, in the past, there were reviews I did, which didn\’t have anything about me being a BzzAgent, but it was usually because I found it kind of hard to fit all that info/explanation into a review, along with the ACTUAL OPINION, when at some sites you have only a certain amt. of allowed space/characters.
Plus the fact that back then, I never really thought of it as being a disclosure issue when it was an online review-unlike when you are buzzing someone face-to-face. But now, since the disclosure policy has become a requirement and NOT a choice, I do state in every buzz that\’s the result of a BzzCampaign, online or off, that I am a BzzAgent.
And have no problem doing so. Many people are intrigued by it and want to now more anyways! lol
I think, to be honest and fair, that like anything else that is fairly new-as far as BzzAgent goes-not the idea of WOM itself-because that\’s been around forever and is by far NOT something new… lol but I mean the \’structured\’ means of buzz through BzzAgent(and other similar companies/programs-and there WILL be more-just wait! lol) being a newer concept for companies to market their products/services, that yes, there will be *bugs* that need working out, things that need to be tweaked, and current ways changed-as was the case for the disclosure now being mandatory-in which they saw a problem and rectified it by changing the policy.
And that\’s where time plays into everything. There needs to be time for these things to be discovered and worked on and changed. Nothing is ever perfect and nothing ever will be-(except Heaven, of course-but that\’s a whole \’nother subject! =) )
So \’critics\’ need to step back sometimes and say, \’Wait…this is new. They need time to \’tweak\’ and fix and change. But they can still give their opinions/advice and mention something that to them is wrong to bring it to the attention of others who are in the position TO make the changes.
When a movie, for example is reviewd by a critic-that\’s it-the movie IS the finished product.
But something like this-by way of concepts and ideas, are always changing, always trying to be made better.
And in fairness, I believe that BzzAgent takes all matters that may come up into serious consideration, as they did the disclosure policy, and in time-things will be changed to make the system work even better.
Then again, there will always be those critics and nay-sayers who think, no matter what, something is wrong or invalid or unethical or biased.
Its just some people\’s way…you can\’t please everyone and some…you can NEVER please. lol
=)
Cathy
—
BzzAgent-jus2cusmile-Cathy
HELP FIGHT LUPUS!
Carolee
I don´t say that the opinion is false just because it´s shared for the sake of buzzing! No! However, if an opinion is shared for the sake of buzzing, it is very probable that the receiver gives it less credibility.
Cathy
I say that the big issue for me isn´t the honesty. I believe you give your honest opinions. What I feel is a big issue, and what should concern you and BzzAgent, is that credibility is on the receiver end. Credibility is something I, as a receiver, give to you, because of your person, your authority, your words, and the context. In this case, it is mostly the context that gives me reason for doubt. The same way you might subtract 50% of all the positive stuff a used car salesman says about a specific car, because of his motivations, I might subtract 10% (note: numbers here are just to make a point) of what a bzzagent says, just because of being incentivized and supposed to buzz about a product. Once again, your opinion might be totally honest, but the receiver might not give you 100% credibility anyway. That might pose a problem for BzzAgent and you in the future.
I am certainly not trying to change your opinion on the book. Where did you get that from?
Of course, if you have experience with a product, you are able to give a better opinion on it than someone who doesn´t. However, if you are SUPPOSED to give your opinion, and in some way incentivized for doing so, the receiver of that opinion might discount a bit on your words (depending on what they are). It´s up to the receiver to evaluate your words. There´s nothing you can do about that. (I feel that I am totally repeating myself here, but I´m merely answering statements made over and over again).
You can´t insist that anyone who listens to you have to trust you 100%. It´s not your choice to make.
About the subconsious influence, I still think that it is a possibility, not to say that it is so for all agents always, but for some agents sometimes, quite possible! It´s not close minded to say that it is a possibility, is it?
Once again, I have NEVER judged the book! I am discussing the credibility (from the receivers point of view) of bzzagents. About BzzAgent and you as a bzzagent, people are always, all the time, judging stuff without much knowledge about it. So, don´t feel so threatened about that. That´s just the way it is, for good or for bad.
I have never said that I invalidate a review from someone who has previous knowledge of a subject. That would be extremely stupid. However, I do give less value (everything else equal) to opinions that are clearly biased, or have something to gain from saying something positive or negative.
Anonymous
No, I am not saying that I would be more apt to buy the book if there were more negative reviews, because if there were more negative, the book would not live up to my normal evaluation criteria.
What I said was that if someone who has an interest in saying a positive thing actually says something negative, it´s more credible. If a business owner refers a customer to a competitor, because he thinks the competitor would do a better job in this particular case – wouldn´t that be extremely credible? If a business owner says the competitor is producing crap, would it be 100% credible? Nope!
I am not a conspiracy theorist. Saying that is taking this discussion to a much lower level. But sure, it would be a horrible thing if amazon posted positive reviews just to get more sales. I don´t think they do though.
Once and for all, I primarily question if this way of marketing, with incentivized buzzers, will maintain credibility among the receivers forever. I do not primarily discuss the honesty of bzzagents.
Dave
Where are you?
Howdy Mr. Jonsson,
You said: \"Even if you are a bzzagent, you admit to “unless it\’s extremely terrible or a defective product and feel the need to warn others, I don\’t post too many bad reviews anywhere” That´s what I thought.\"
Yes, that\’s true. Understand, of course, that I\’m talking both inside and outside of BzzAgent. And also that I don\’t substitute a good review in it\’s place; I do not review online period (with my exception of \"utter garbage or defective, if needed.).
(But, I think you get that. Just wanted to be clear, is all.)
But, I think a lot of consumers do that (with exceptions.)
Anyhow,
it wasn\’t directed at me, but, I thought I\’d comment on: \"I don´t think incentivized buzzers have a lot less credibility among people in general so far, but I DO think that in five, ten or fifteen years we will be more tired of incentivized buzz, and we WILL trust it less, because it will have reached levels never seen before.\"
As it is, with myself, I have no problems with incentivized buzzers, simply because I am already buzzed by some people who recieve some form of incentive or another. I do not trust their opinion any less than one who isn\’t, because quite frankly, I just \"listen\" to their (both) opinions. If we were to put a percentage on it, I\’d say(both) they recieve about 50% of my trust (when mentioning I should \"try it\"). And, I say that because, I can\’t let go of the \"what one likes, another will not\" thing, and I am somewhat picky.
And then after that, you know…I make up my own mind and form my own opinions, if I choose to.
But, that is me alone, and I cannot assume everyone else is the same way, because that\’s just…well…ignorant.
But, since I am a slow typer, and after refreshing my other window of this blog so I can try and keep on subject (I see there are posts after I began writing this LoL)……………..
It\’s hard for me to fully see your point of view, because I have no problems with incentived people buzzing me now. But, I do not know how I would feel 10 years from now, no.
In your future scenario(thinking on it), I think, sure, it\’s possible that \"incentivized buzzers\" could be seen as a form of commercialism someday, especially if there are many mirror companies with members in the thousands of their own.(not to mention, members with different motives for joining). I have my own reasons for thinking so, but, yes..like all things, I think it could be possible.
But, I can\’t help but to say that it could also not turn out that way. You know? I think as things grew, things would also change…to keep it \"honest and natural\", if honesty (and keeping it natural) was still the backbone of the companies.
Have a good\’un!
—
BzzAgent Varmit
I KNOW that everyone on Amazon was honest. I am NOT criticizing my
fellow Bzzagents, Mr. Balter, or BzzAgent. Anyway, thanks to Grapevine
and Amazon, BzzAgent is again under public scrutiny by real people.
That\’s a good thing, and y\’all should be proud. And I think you have a
valid question, Kristofer. The way I interpret it: the Amazon reviews aren\’t
a question of honesty, they are about conflict of interest. You can be
100% honest and be a nice person and yet have a vested, personal
interest at the same time. But it\’s a thin line. I respectfully suggest that in
the future, Bzz might consider not including Amazon reviews of Mr.
Balter\’s book as a Bzz Activity. (If people want to spontaneously do it, by
all means, that\’s groovy). That could help to keep the appearance of a
conflict of interest to a minimum. Amazon is one of those amazing, lucky
entities that lots of people consider to be \’sacred\’ and \’real\’. Congrats on a
great book and a good dialogue!
From bzzagent kmacjp
I\’m a lover not a fighter
Varmit..
Yes, I did understand that.
You seem to be an open minded person who totally understands that credibility is up to the receiver to judge, even if the sender would like to have 100% credibility with the receiver. You also seem totally capable to critically evaluate other points of view. Great!
As regards to what I believe could be true in the future, of course they are simply speculations. But, there is a risk they will come true. The BzzAgent business model is successful so far, so we probably will see more of this (from BzzAgent and others), and usually when we see more of something, inflation kicks in! We will trust buzzers less. And if this distrust spills over to non-incentivized WOM, where will we turn?
I guess the future will tell where all this will lead us, fifteen years from now. I certainly hope that I am wrong!
To kmacjp
First, you cannot KNOW that everyone on amazon was honest, as long as you´re not the one who wrote all the reviews, but you can definitely believe so, and I am willing to agree that it is possible that you´re right.
Yes, you have definitely gotten my point, that honesty is not the issue here, but that if there is some kind of vested personal interest at the same time… .. credibility in the eyes of the receiver might very well diminish. Yes, it is a thin line, and some people definitely wouldn´t care. But some do. I did in this case, and other people too. Sure, this was a special case, since it was bzzagents buzzing about the BzzAgent founder’s book, but in my opinion, there are some credibility issues for Dave and BzzAgent to deal with. From what I can understand, BzzAgent has been taking a lot of heat lately so, there are more people than me who are a bit concerned.
Dave
Where are you?
Best regards,
Kristofer
Ok, I think I get the jist of this now. I don\’t know (anymore than anyone else does) what will make or break the ebb and flow of marketing. WOMM changed it from being loud and obnoxious to being personal and familiar. Who knows what the next step is? All anyone in any field can do is enjoy the ride while there\’s gas in the car. If there\’s a product out there, someone, somewhere is trying to sell it. Whether or not the person doing the chatting up of the product is getting an incentive for talking about it is really moot. I\’ve had campaigns (Listerine Pocket Paks for example) that I was buzzing before the campaign even began, but just because I received samples doesn\’t mean I *suddenly* became more motivated to talk about them. No. I was chatting those things up when they came out on the market to begin with. My opinion didn\’t change. I did get a nifty keychain out of it though…but so did people who weren\’t on the campaign or weren\’t even Bzz Agents, for that matter. If you want to call the samples of Pocket Paks and the keychain \"incentives\" that\’s your right. I don\’t look at it that way. I mean, I took a piece of blueberry cobbler from the samples lady at the grocery store yesterday. Was my incentive the sample in your eyes when I turned to another woman and told her how delicious it was? I think you\’re sweating the minute stuff. You\’re getting stuck on something that is merit-less. There may well be a person who has an MBA that thinks Grapevine is \"all that\" and unless you contact the person personally, you may never know. Pure conjecture and seeing ghosties where there are none. Your arguement actually sounds quite familiar and almost sings dead-on of someone that lurks here frequently with their own blog (and angst towards Bzz Agent). (No, I\’m not accusing you of being that person or a rep of that site, but it all sounds soooo familiar.)
To Anonymous (the post at November 21 2005 @ 06:14 PM CST)
First, it would be nice if you wrote out your name. I don´t know who I´m talking to.
Second, there might have been some kind of confusion here. I didn´t write anything about doubting the MBA review. Some of the later posts here are comments on my comments, without changing the headline. Therefore, since my name is in the headline, there might be some confusion.
I believe incentives are incentives, because, there´s only one way to draw the line, and that is at zero, nothing, zip. If you start arguing that a packet of listerine and a keychain is not an incentive, then you could argue that a free dinner is not an incentive, or a new lawn mover, or a new Ford. Of course, incentives are smaller or bigger, but nonetheless, they lead to credibility issues (small or big), for the receiver of the message. You really can´t argue with that. If you want to dismiss my argument anyway, please let me know exactly where to draw the line on what exactly contstitutes an incentive!?
Of course, your opinion on Listerine didn´t change, but your credibility to the receiver might have (I have said this maybe ten times now). In this case probably not much, but in other cases it could be much. What if I said “Nissan gave me this car to talk about it. I´m a buzzagent and this car is totally awesome!!” I would definitely have some larger credibility issues. It´s on a scale, from small to big, but you can´t call them ghosts, even if they are small. Then you would be in denial. If you´re thinking I´m sweating the minute stuff… … might be so. You are the one choosing if you want to have just a tiny bit less credibility.
I won´t comment on the MBA issue, because I didn´t bring that one up and really have no comment on it.
If you think my arguments sound familiar, maybe you should take them to your heart, because there are more people out there thinking the same as I do.
Dave
Where are you?
Best regards,
Kristofer
Kristofer,
You say…
\"I believe incentives are incentives, because, there´s only one way to draw the line, and that is at zero, nothing, zip. If you start arguing that a packet of listerine and a keychain is not an incentive, then you could argue that a free dinner is not an incentive, or a new lawn mover, or a new Ford. Of course, incentives are smaller or bigger, but nonetheless, they lead to credibility issues (small or big), for the receiver of the message. You really can´t argue with that. If you want to dismiss my argument anyway, please let me know exactly where to draw the line on what exactly contstitutes an incentive!?\"
So then you ARE saying that even free samples cause a person\’s opinion to be clouded and loose clout to others? EVEN, if we are giving out those very samples TO the receiver of buzz???
Now come on-that\’s just going a bit too far and answers everyone in this thread who\’s asked questions of the topic of getting/giving a sample.
For instance, the person who spoke of trying the pie in the store-well, it WAS a free sample-and YOU think that something like THAT-after all, its free-makes her opinion loose credibility…but only if its a positive opinion, that is…right? If she hated it, that goes without suspect or question.
That\’s just utter nonsense! I have tried many things in stores over the years-people handing out samples and such-and there have been MANY that I liked and MANY that I didn\’t like. So, according to your thinking, only the ones I didn\’t like are acceptable in the eyes of others, if I tell others about said product as a result of having been given a free sample of it?
Sorry, but I don\’t believe that for one second because millions of people get free samples of things to try-so are millions of people\’s opinions clouded BECAUSE the initial product was a free sample of it? Not one bit. Its called \’try before you buy\’ and its one of the smartest things people can do as consumers!
You used a car as a referance-so will I. You go out to buy a new car-people have said various things about this particular model-good and bad, the same with reviews you read-both pros and cons. So, do you just walk onto the lot, grab the first sales man you see, point to that model car and say…\’I\’ll take THAT ONE!\’ No, you don\’t. No one does! They take a testdrive first! Maybe even more than once.
Again…its \’try before you buy\’. SMART CONSUMER SHOPPING.
So, you test drive it and like it-you buy it-now because you got a FREE RIDE(via a testdrive-and remember, YOU said it didn\’t matter-Big or Small-its STILL an incentive) has YOUR own opinion now become less valid or look \’shady\’ to others? Not at all.
I have never once, in my entire life had anyone tell me…or even heard this in a conversation EVER, that because someone got a free sample of something, that their opinion doesn\’t really count for much.
Its absurd to say that or believe that.
Its the opposite actually, because people will think, \’oh they tried it-let me see what they think of that before I buy it.\’ But THAT alone won\’t be their deciding factor-it\’ll be the actual product once they have tried it for themsleves too. BIG or SMALL, people want to know, to have an idea of what something is like, before they invest their money and/or time.
BUT, lets say you were given more of an incentive to TAKE that testdrive. Many car companies offer those-so lets say its a $50.00 giftcard to Sears-you take the testdrive-you don\’t like the car. BUT wait, you got that incentive!! You MUST like the car because after all, they GAVE you something for free to MAKE you like the car. Right!?
Wrong.
BUT, now lets say, you took the testdrive, took the giftcard incentive and DO like the car! You buy the car! But wait…oh, your opinion to anyone else is now clouded by that giftcard, so your opinion of the ACTUAL CAR is now tainted and doesn\’t count. Right?
Wrong.
If a person doesn\’t like something at all-having gotten an incentive in the first place, is NOT going to be the deciding factor. the PRODUCT is by way of it either being good or bad.
I don\’t like many things-SlimJims for one and believe me NO amount of INCENTIVE is going to change that! lol They can send me a case of them, I still won\’t eat them and tell people I like them, just because they were free! lol
I\’m not a programmed robot without a mind of my own or the capability to make rational choices. Nor are most consumers.
You give people NO credit for being able to make up their own mind at all.
Companies hire survey companies to to send out a survey about their product-some will then send the actual product for the person to \’try\’ and then take another survey on.
So, to your way of thinking…nay, insisting, because they got something FREE, their opinion is now tainted by incentive.
Its just bull, because I\’ve taken many surveys and gotten test products over the years-as do millions of people and I don\’t answer the surveys on a positive note, if I don\’t even like the product, just because I feel obligated to do so as a result of having gotten product for free. Never, not once. The product ITSELF determines that, not the fact that it didn\’t cost anything!
If that system didn\’t work, companies would NOT be spending millions of dollars on research and development! Surveys would be thing of the past-but they aren\’t because the opinions of consumers are trusted because after all its the consumers who will or won\’t be shelling out their money for a product or service.
I think you are really grasping here for validation of your theory, because think about it…in your opinion:
ie: If someone gets a sample-ANY sample or incentive at all…and he/she say they like it, their opinion becomes invalid BECAUSE of the incentive.
YET, if another person gets the same free product, doesn\’t like the product and says so, their opinion IS valid.
How can it be both ways when BOTH people got the FREE sample?
Only if you LIKE something, the opinion is tainted? But if you dislike it, its not?
Again, how can that be when after all you said it yourself many times-\’an incentive is an incentive.\’
To your way of thinking, if \’incentives\’, any at all, make a person more apt to give it a positive review or opinion-BECAUSE they got an \’incentive\’…WHY is it then, that MANY, MANY people do NOT give a positive opinion?
Because according to you-they MUST be biased because they got an incentive.
You insist that opinions are tainted if a positive opinion is given as a result of incentive.
Then the same would have to be true if they didn\’t like it. Are they LYING and really DID like it but incentive has their heads so clouded they really can\’t decide rationally? lmao
Just ridiculous. It cannot be both ways.
You\’re setting a double-standard here.
This isn\’t rocket science, its free samples. lol
Besides, in the case of the Listerine PocketPaks,(and MANY campaigns that include free samples) the samples we to also be given to others to let them try it and get their opinions of it.
This would be an example of your line of thought:
I tell a person that I think the PocketPak strips, which I got a FREE sample of-an \’incentive\’- are good and they should try it for themselves to see and then I hand them a sample.
Now, my opinion must be tainted because of the incentive-so they don\’t believe me or trust my opinion. What do they do? They TRY it themselves via he sample-uh-oh…another INCENTIVE-BUT, they also LIKE the product-so now if they ever tell anyone else that they liked the product, its not honest or clear-headed thinking/judgement because they too got a free INCENTIVE?
BUT, if they DON\’T like it-their opinion was somehow magically \’protected\’ from being tainted by INCENTIVE?
Uh-uh, doesn\’t wash. Double-standards cannot be used to make this argument and make people believe it.
Because if your thinking was correct along this line, then EVERYONE who tried the product via a sample or incentive would be subconsciously led to give it a good review/opinion. But that\’s just not the case or EVERYONE would be buying FreshCitrus pocketpaks.
In fact, MANY people don\’t like products after they have tried them, so that then blows your theory right out the window.
How could they NOT like it? They DID get that \’incentive\’, after all. =)
One more point-repeating part of your above quote-
\"I believe incentives are incentives, because, there´s only one way to draw the line, and that is at zero, nothing, zip.\"
So then NO ONE should EVER be given the opportunity to TRY a product before they BUY it, because if its given free-an incentive-their opinions are tainted by the incentive?
It just makes no sense and borders on nonsense.
Consumers aren\’t stupid. We all know how to decide if we like a product or not by trying it first. A sample does not DECIDE our opinions for us or make them tainted. We WOULD be stupid though if we jumped in head first and bought that car right off the lot without even test-driving it first! lol
BTW-I never said you were TRYING to change my opinion of the book either-I only stated that my opinion wouldn\’t be changed by yours no matter what. I said it \’for the record\’-that\’s all. =)
Have a good day…or night…time zone thing and all. lol
Cathy
—
BzzAgent-jus2cusmile-Cathy
HELP FIGHT LUPUS!
Kristofer – you’re so right. I should have said, “I BELIEVE that all BzzAgents on Amazon were honest in their reviews.”
BzzAgents have less of a vested interest in the products they’re selling than most traditional marketers do. Therefore, in my opinion, there’s a Catch 22 going on here: The risk of negative results from conflict of interest is also relatively low — for the BzzAgents. However, the risk is very high for Mr. Balter, BzzAgent and WOM as a whole. That’s why they are working their stingers off to keep us as honest as possible.
An example: in return for my time with BzzAgent I get small (and very appreciated) gifts and free samples, plus the fun of bzzing. If I lie, I stop getting free samples. The end. For my work as a professional PR person, I get health insurance, vacation, and enough $ to afford a nice house in the city and a car. Believe me, as a professional PR person I am scupulously honest at all times, because a) I want to be honest and b)if my honesty were ever questioned, my reputation and career are OVER. I have a lot more to lose as a professional PR person than I do as a BzzAgent. (Note that I am as honest at bzzing as I am at my ‘real’ job; it’s all tied together). I assume that Mr. Balter et al have even more to lose than I do if their credibility is shot. It appears that they are working hard to define and instill professional standards for BzzAgents and WOM marketing practices. I think that’s why Mr. Balter posted your letter. That’s very cool, in my opinion! It’s for the best. If they succeed, they can make marketing more honest all around. I’m rooting for them!
Oops I forgot to sign: kmacjp
Cathy
First of all… .. excuse me to everyone for repeating myself a bit in this post. I´m merely answering the same questions over and over again. (I did avoid some of them). Secondly… .. all over your post Cathy, you suggest that my opinion is in a certain way, even though I have never said anything like that. Please do not extrapolate my point of view into absurdity!
Back to business…
I would say a sample is also a kind of incentive. It activates the Rule of Reciprocity. If you´d like to learn more about that rule, and five other rules of influence, go get the excellent book “Influence”, by Dr. Robert Cialdini, (there you have it… .. word of mouth, totally without incentives! But if I was the author, there might have been people who didn´t trust me that it is as excellent as it is!). Anyway, about samples, I think there is a slight difference there… .. a sample usually have the purpose of generating a direct sale, and is setup for that. It is not set up to primarily generate word of mouth the same way the products to bzzagents are. There is no implicit suggestion that they should talk or anything, and therefore, I do not believe their credibility suffer in the eyes of most receivers.
Cathy, you challenged my opinion about drawing the line for what constitutes an incentive at zero. So please, where exactly do you suggest we draw the line instead?
I have already explained why someone saying something against their own interests has more credibility, so I will not go through that again. You can scroll up and read it again.
Yes, I totally agree with you about the car. It´s such a large purchase, so of course you would like to try it first.
Yes, the test drive is a a very smart selling device. You let them try it and activate something called “fear of loss”. This “fear of loss” becomes even stronger if the car dealer lends you the car over the weekend. Then you will have an even harder time giving it back. Puppets are also often sold this way.. … no way the kids will accept giving them back!
I never said that a sample gives the one who samples it less credibility in front of a third person. Even so, you go on and on as if I had.
About your example with the $50 to take the test drive.
You probably won´t like the car much more or less because of the $50, but it might make you feel a bit bad if you take the money and don´t give anything back… .. once again – the Rule of Reciprocity. The sum $50 is ridiculously low in comparison to the price of the car to diminish credibility very much. Say you got $5000 discount on the condition you talk about it a lot. Yes, credibility suffers.
My point is this – people who are buzzing for the sake of buzzing, and also are incentivized, takes a risk of being perceived as less credible. I´m getting very tired of saying this now.
Cathy, opinions are always allowed, and credibility is on a scale. I have never said that an opinion is “valid” or “not valid”. Please leave that subject! That is not the point. Once again, scroll up and read why credibility might differ because of motivations. Incentives are incentives, but if motivations differ, credibility differs.
You wrote:
“To your way of thinking, if \’incentives\’, any at all, make a person more apt to give it a positive review or opinion-BECAUSE they got an \’incentive\’…WHY is it then, that MANY, MANY people do NOT give a positive opinion?”
Once again, I have not talked much at all about the honesty, I am talking about the credibility.
But sure, to answer your question, the exact reason they did not give a positive review can be very different, and I cannot know that. However, the fact that they are acting against the incentive, or against their own interests, give them more credibility in the eyes of the receiver!
What you say here below is not true – once again I have never said such a thing:
”Because according to you-they MUST be biased because they got an incentive.”
Once more, I have only said that their credibility might suffer in the eyes of the receiver. Nothing else.
Best regards,
Kristofer
Kmacjp
Yes, I agree that the risk of negative results due to conflicts of interest might be relatively low for bzzagents (depending on the product of course) – but there is a risk. The risk in the special case of the reviews of Grapevine was higher, in my opinion, because of the stonger ties to BzzAgent in that case.
I certainly agree that there is a high risk for Dave and others with similar models. That´s why I hope so much that he would participate in this discussion. Great that he posted my letter, but so far he hasn´t participated much here. Where are you Dave?
Anyway, I hope that they will continue to work hard to make something good out of this. In it´s present form, I´m afraid we will run into trouble.
Best regards,
Kristofer
Kristofer, I agree with you and thank you for bringing up an interesting
topic of conversation. kmacjp
Kristofer,
You said-\"Cathy
First of all… .. excuse me to everyone for repeating myself a bit in this post. I´m merely answering the same questions over and over again. (I did avoid some of them). Secondly… .. all over your post Cathy, you suggest that my opinion is in a certain way, even though I have never said anything like that. Please do not extrapolate my point of view into absurdity!\"
Well, by your continued avoidance OF answering certain questions, you have caused the repetitive questions. And yes, you have insinuated your points of view to the point that others take it a certain way.
I totally \’get\’ the credibility issue…but you ARE making the double standard here and not answering as to why.
IF you notice many of the times I said anything on the subject of validity, sample, incentive, whatever, I posed them as questions…asking basically, \’is that what you\’re trying tell us here?\’ Note the-\’?\’
That\’s not \"extrapolat(ing) (your) point of view into absurdity\". Its asking you to clarify if that\’s your line of thinking because that\’s what you have led others to believe in your wording and comments.
You said-\"I never said that a sample gives the one who samples it less credibility in front of a third person. Even so, you go on and on as if I had.\"
I never said that either. I said, asked actually, that if someone ELSE tries it-gets the sample/incentive from the second person and doesn\’t like it, that their opinion/credibility IS more valid but not the other 2? Just because they DIDN\’T like it?
BUT, you did say things along that line. You said a sample is a sample no matter what, an incentive included. And that if effects credibility, period.:
You said-\"I believe incentives are incentives, because, there´s only one way to draw the line, and that is at zero, nothing, zip. If you start arguing that a packet of listerine and a keychain is not an incentive, then you could argue that a free dinner is not an incentive, or a new lawn mover, or a new Ford. Of course, incentives are smaller or bigger, but nonetheless, they lead to credibility issues (small or big), for the receiver of the message.\"
THAT\’S where you make no sense.
So where in this equasion do the first or second person become less credible for having tried something for free as in an incentive and LIKING it, but NOT a third person who got the same exact incentive yet didn\’t like the product?
Now, do you understand what I\’m saying?
If credibility is an issue, period, than a sample or incentive would negate ANY credibilty or opinion-positive OR negative.
Like I said, it can\’t be both ways. Either an incentive doesn\’t affect credibility for anyone-or it does affect credibility of everyone. But it cannot be that it only affects the credibility of SOME(who liked it) and not all (who didn\’t)because and YES, you DID say this…\’an incentive is an incentive\’. (\"I believe incentives are incentives\")
So please, stop trying to make it seem as though what I say is nonsense, while yours is law. In your doing so, I believe that is how you are avoiding answering certain questions-by trying to toss it all around and harping on the same things.
I KNOW you have an opinion. So do I. So does everyone. So please, stop trying to come across as though yours IS the only valid opinion that could possibly make any sense here and stop trying to make it seem as if I don\’t accept your opinion. That\’s false. I do accept YOUR opinion as YOURS, but you don\’t seem to do the same with everyone else, because you are dead set on making up the minds of others by forcing your opinion over and over and avoiding questions, points, etc. that are valid.
Ah, you know what? This is senseless, really. I\’m arguing with a total stranger over what? lol
Compared to the problems in this world and in life in general, this issue is paltry and really, I have much better things to focus my attention on than continuing this banter. Our Thanksgiving is 2 days away, lots to do, Holidays around the corner-LOTS MORE to do.
TOO much to do to continue this which is leading nowhere anyway.
You aren\’t getting my point at all, whereas, I totally get yours, have said so and yet when I pose questions about them being unfair because of basic logic and double standards, you turn it to make it look (and accuse) like I\’m simply being repetitive in effort to throw the subject off balance and avoid once more, the answers.
So my continuing to take part in this discussion gets me nowhere and no answers from you on the important factors/points/questions I bring up.
And neither is stress any good for me, that\’s for sure and this has become stressful. lol So, enjoy, but I\’m done in this thread and moving onward down the road of life.
besides, if I stay in here too much, how can I get out there and buzz the public?? lol :p lol =)
Sooooo….Happy Holidays. Have a great night and Ta,ta!
Most Sincerely,
Cathy
—
BzzAgent-jus2cusmile-Cathy
HELP FIGHT LUPUS!
Cathy
Here comes an explanation of why exactly an incentive (the exact same one) can affect credibility in different ways.
If a car salesman gets a commission for selling a car, he very clearly has an incentive for selling it.
Now, he tells you – “This car is a lemon… .. we really don´t have any good used cars in at the moment”
He is credible 100% because he is speaking against his own interests.
If the same car salesman, with the same incentive said – “This car is really great! The little rust there on the side is nothing. We´ve checked it, and it wont spread any more.”
You might think – “Is that true? Is he saying this just to make a sale?”
He is not as credible as the first guy.
Do you see? Exactly the same incentive, but two different levels of credibility. His statement might be totally true in both cases. He might be 100 % truthful, but the incentive have a different effect because of his different words.
I believe that this answers most of your questions about the double standards et cetera.
If there are any more questions you want me to answer – please go ahead and ask!
Yes, you put questionmarks after some of your sentences. But you didn´t put questionmarks in all places where you assumed my position. And just slapping on a questionmark at the end of a sentence doesn´t magically transform the structure of the sentence into a question.
Please direct me exactly to the post (time and date) where I said “a sample is a sample” as you say I have. I have searched the webpage digitally, but couldn´t find it.
I agree that a sample is a sample, but the fact that you say that I have said it when I haven´t is pretty telling.
Please go back and read my previous post (pretty much in the beginning of it) about why a sample doen´t affect credibility as much as the structure of the BzzAgent model, and it will make sense.
Since you challenged my view of where to draw the line of what constitutes an incentive (I believe at zero), and you haven´t provided an answer to that. Please! Where should be draw the line?
Feel free to ask me any straight questions and I will answer.
Best regards
Kristofer
Well thank you, kmacjp!
I must agree with you too then! =)
Kristofer
I had no intention of replying to this again-and I think you knew that-so what do you do? Make a snide comment basically calling my character into question:
“I agree that a sample is a sample, but the fact that you say that I have said it when I haven´t is pretty telling.”
Very telling of what? Why do you continue to claim this all has nothing to do with the honesty of BzzAgents and then make a crack like that? Especially when its not true.
“Jus2cusmile… … I hope I haven´t insulted or come with any unfair accusations. That´s not what I´m after.”
Uh, yeah, sure, okay.
~~~~
You HAVE said:
“Also, there is a psychological phenomenon called “reciprocity” – we often feel an urge to reciprocate in one way or another, if we receive something from someone.”
~~~~
“I believe incentives are incentives, because, there´s only one way to draw the line, and that is at zero, nothing, zip. If you start arguing that a packet of listerine and a keychain is not an incentive, then you could argue that a free dinner is not an incentive, or a new lawn mover, or a new Ford. Of course, incentives are smaller or bigger, but nonetheless, they lead to credibility issues (small or big), for the receiver of the message. You really can´t argue with that. If you want to dismiss my argument anyway, please let me know exactly where to draw the line on what exactly contstitutes an incentive!?”
~~~~
Now, in that last quote of yours you were replying to someone who spoke of the SAMPLE packets of Listerine PocketPaks and the keychain.
In case you missed that, you were referring to the SAMPLES mentioned by another person who said, “If you want to call the samples of Pocket Paks and the keychain “incentives” that’s your right.”
You then answered saying, “I believe incentives are incentives,because, there´s only one way to draw the line, and that is at zero, nothing, zip. If you start arguing that a packet of listerine and a keychain is not an incentive,…..Of course, incentives are smaller or bigger, but nonetheless, they lead to credibility issues (small or big), for the receiver of the message.”
Now, you say you didn’t say ‘a sample is a sample’-but you are forgetting that you DID say incentives are incentive and made the point that that even a packet of Listerine is an incentive(given free, as they were SAMPLES FOR US TO HAND OUT TO OTHERS! WE DIDN’T KEEP THEM ALL FOR OURSELVES!!) Therefor YOU made the correlation/comparrison of incentives to samples, NOT ME.
Those samples given to us were NOT all ours to keep, but, like I said, to give away to those we tell about the product.
But once again, you skirted the issue by accusing me of putting words in your mouth and making the crack about it being ‘very telling’ in your effort to once more avoid the obvious and try and make someone else look the fool, when you are, in effect, trying to keep yourself from looking the fool.
According to YOU samples are incentives. So what the heck is the difference is I said ‘samples’ or ‘incentives’? None, but that’s your way of avoiding and trying to turn something around and off the main subject.
And BTW-your little example of the car salesman is a bit off balanced because everyone knows the ‘incentive’ as far as commission would NOT be the same for a LEMON compared to a good working car-so that example doens’t hold any validity.
Cathy
Now just because I wanted to make mention of this somewhere:
WOM works, period. How big is WOM? Well, in a recent issue of TV Guide, Country Music Superstar,(Over 20 MILLION records sold and one of THE higest grossing concert tours in music history!) Kenny Chesney ‘credits his success with Word Of Mouth-he calls it “Stronger than gravity”-that’s been building since his performances at 4-H fairs more than a decade ago’
—
BzzAgent-jus2cusmile-Cathy
HELP FIGHT LUPUS!
Cathy
If you say you will not reply any more, you don´t. That doesn´t mean I don´t have the right to reply.
I was simply doing that – replying. You can still chose not to reply to this if you like.
I´m sorry if you took offense about writing the “pretty telling” thing. It wasn´t the fact that a “sample is a sample” that I reacted to (because I agree with that), it was that you said I had written it, which I hadn´t. I said it was pretty telling, because I thought it was pretty telling at the time. I feel you are not taking in what I say, invalidating my arguments and examples (and it´s possible that you feel the same about me, but I believe I have answered the questions you put forth and give good reasons if I think something you say doesn´t hold). So we agree that I hadn´t written that, but my words from before could be interpreted that way. If you are going to quote what I say, I prefer that you use copy/paste and quotation marks just as I do, to avoid misunderstandings like that.
I wasn´t at all questioning the honesty of bzzagents in general. That was between you and me, but I simply reacted to the fact that you said I had written something that I hadn´t.
I still agree that a “sample is a sample” and I still think a sample can constitute an incentive.
Your dismissing my argument that the commission for a “lemon” isn´t as big as the commission for a good working car doen´t really hold, because the salesman still argues against his interests in one case and in accordance with his interests in the other. The amount isn´t really important in that case. But, since you totally dismiss that example as being “not valid” I have to come with another one. Imagine two different scenarios:
Case 1: The car salesman has a Mercedes on the lot. The selling price is $10.000. Now,he tells you – “This car is a lemon for this price… .. we really don´t have any good used cars in at the moment”
He is credible because he is speaking against his own interests.
Case 2: The car salesman has a Toyota on the lot. The selling price is $10.000. He obviously has the same incentive (since the price, and therefore his commission is the same). Now, he tells you – “This car is really great! The little rust there on the side is nothing. We´ve checked it, and it wont spread any more.”
You might think – “Is that true? Is he saying this just to make a sale?”
He is not as credible as the first guy, in the eyes of the prospective client.
Cathy, is this a valid example? Do you see my point now?
I know that WOM works, so you don´t have to mention that anymore. What I would like is to be convinced by Dave that his form of word of mouth marketing doesn´t have credibility issues. But Dave is missing from the discussion here. If anyone reading this has his e-mail, please send it to me, or post it here.
Cathy… .. you still haven´t answered the question on where exactly we draw the line on what constitutes an incentive, if we don´t draw it at zero. Please inform me! I´m waiting!
Best regards,
Kristofer
First off-I HAVE, many, many times used copy and paste and quotes throughout. lol
\"Cathy… .. you still haven´t answered the question on where exactly we draw the line on what constitutes an incentive, if we don´t draw it at zero. Please inform me! I´m waiting!\"
Fine! lol I\’ll answer your question-though I figured it was obvious that a sample given away to another is not an incentive to the GIVER of the sample. lol
A SAMPLE is just that-a sample for consumers to TRY a product and see if they like it before they buy it. A SAMPLE is not going to make anyone feel obligated to then BUY the product and/or tell everyone how wonderful it is, whether they like it or not.
I get tons of SAMPLES in the mail all the time-the majority of which I feel NO loyalty to the makers simply because they sent me a sample. Like I said, they WANT people to try thier products, because if they really like them, they WILL BUY THEM! lol
Incentives, would be considered monetary offerings and yes, could include such items as gifts, prizes, etc.
BUT, you are forgetting that most of the campaigns we get in-include SAMPLES(like The Listerine PocketPaks for one) for us to GIVE AWAY to other people. The HONEST BzzAgents don\’t keep them for themselves…we give them away as is their intended purpose.
Plus the fact that we also get involved in other non-profit campaigns as well. What\’s the incentive there? Nothing but goodwill towards others.
Granted, I get \’rewards\’ as points add up(but, I\’ve said it before-not in this thread maybe, but and I\’ll say it again-lol) Most of the \’rewards\’ I get, I give away to others!! Out of love and kindness-so where\’s MY incentive then? lol
Also, I take surveys/product tests all the time-even take part in focus groups now and then and they all offer \’incentives\’ for those that take surveys-for THEIR TIME AND EFFORT, because they want opinions of their products-why is that ANY different than this?
Do YOU work for free? Isn\’t YOUR TIME, for another company, worth anything?
All I am also trying to say and did say, but it was never answered or acknowledged-is this: I have been buzzed over the years many, many times by people I know and don\’t know. Some may have been \’incentivized\’ others not. BUT, never once in my life have I though…\’Oh, I can\’t trust THAT opinion, because they may have gotten something and now their opinion is tainted.\’
Yet, you go on as though that\’s how the majority of people think. Not true. I\’m not one of those people who walk though life being wary of everyone and everything, looking at all with suspicion and ulterior motive.
People that do, well, they have a sad, cynical, untrusting existance then, don\’t they?
So, now let me say the following and be done-lol
I have no malice towards you or your opinions-I have no desire to argue over this or even continue to discuss it as its been proverbially \’beat to death\’ lol
We agree on some things not on others-that\’s human nature. No sense arguing over that. So I\’d like to end this on a good note…
I respect you for your opinions and beliefs and for being so staunchly supportive of your own opinions/beliefs-and I ask that you, likewise do the same, because to me, MY own beliefs and opinions are just as important and valid. =)
We should simply agree to disagree on this subject and let this ongoing, sometimes heated-lol- discussion between you and I, at least, just rest…on a friendly and civil note.
=)
Have a good one and take care.
Sincerely,
Cathy
—
BzzAgent-jus2cusmile-Cathy
HELP FIGHT LUPUS!
Cathy
Yes, I know you have used copy/paste quotes quite much, and thank you for that.
You still didn´t answer the question on incentives. You answered another one. The question is “where to draw the line… .. what constitutes an incentive to the receiver? That´s what I have been discussing all the time. Is it a dime? Is it a packet of Listerine? Is it a $100? I say it either is zero, or it´s an incentive.
I know what a sample is. If you wish to disregard much reliable research on the Rule of Reciprocity, you can do that. A sample is oftentimes given to activate this “feeling of obligation to reciprocate”. I sincerely recommend the book “Influence” by Dr. Robert Cialdini for more on this.
I also suggest you take a look at a popular definiton of an incentive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incentive
There are for example:
Remunerative incentives (money, products etc. goes here)
Moral incentives (the rule of reciprocity, for example, should go here)
Coercive incentives (physical force for example, goes here)
I haven´t said that all the campaigns have credibility issues. Some have more, some have less, some probably have none. This particular campaign, with Daves book, for example had more credibility problems than other ones, I believe, due to the close connection between Dave and all the bzzagents. Other people in this thread has agreed with me on this.
Focus groups are not “supposed to talk” about the products in the same way as bzzagents are.
No, I don´t work for free! Of course companies have to offer incentives (pay) for their employees! I don´t really understand what you want this argument to lead to? In addition I say that someone working for free would be considered to truly love his job! You could easily make an analogy here to credibility and incentives.
If you never once have been distrustful towards a salesman on commission for example, you seem to be quite gullible (I hope this isn´t a very hard word). And you give them an easy job. I don´t say that everybody suspects everybody. I say that many people distrust salesmen on a commission, and people who have some kind of ultiverio motivation for putting something a certain way. I don´t distrust everyone, but if I see that there might be a credibility issue, I might distrust, yes.
I too want to reach a conclusion on a good note, but also, I would like if you accept some well researched facts – such as the rule of reciprocity, and answered my still unanswered question, about what constitutes an incentive?
If you chose not to.. .. that´s also fine!
Dave
Where are you?
Best regards,
Kristofer
BOSTON GLOBE
How much can you trust buzz?
By Scott Kirsner | November 14, 2005
Critics can be so cruel. So Dave Balter, founder of the Boston-based marketing firm BzzAgent, thought it would be nice to have some nonpoisoned pens writing on his behalf when his book was published earlier this month. \’\'Grapevine: The New Art of Word-of-Mouth Marketing\" is Balter\’s first book, and he wanted to give it every possible advantage. The review from Publishers Weekly, posted prominently on Amazon.com, was a cast-iron pan. Grapevine\’s \’\'slapdash, \’admittedly nonscientific\’ analysis is backed by little more than enthusiasm, quotes from The Tipping Point and three years of BzzAgent anecdotes,\" PW wrote. \’\'Balter\’s gee-whiz, narcissistic writing voice won\’t help win converts, either.\"
But \’\'Grapevine\" received a much warmer welcome from the amateur Amazon.com reviewers, who bestowed on the book an enthusiastic four stars (out of a possible five). It helps that many of the most glowing were written by foot soldiers in Balter\’s army of 117,000 BzzAgents — volunteer product promoters who get free samples of new products. Two thousand of his buzz agents got an advance copy of Balter\’s tome.
In a world where authority is shifting from the elite few to the wired masses, from The New York Times Book Review to the constant reader\’s blog, is that so wrong?
BzzAgent and Tremor, a rival firm owned by Procter & Gamble, have both assembled networks of individuals who are willing to evaluate new products and services and help spread the word among friends, co-workers, and family. In Bzz-Agent\’s case, prospective members sign up on the company\’s website, and provide some background demographic information.
BzzAgent\’s clients then pay the firm to get access to particular clusters of these people, offering them a free sample, along with an information kit that describes the product\’s benefits. Balter says the firm is currently managing 300 \’\'live\" buzz campaigns. The company has worked with clients such as Levi\’s Dockers, Anheuser-Busch, Cadbury-Schweppes, and the publishers of \’\'Freakonomics\" and \’\'Eats, Shoots, and Leaves,\" both bestsellers. (The firm also works with some nonprofits on a pro bono basis, including WGBH and the Wang Center.)
Agents aren\’t paid for their work, but they can collect reward points by participating in campaigns, which are redeemable for goodies, such as an iPod. They\’re not obligated to be positive in what they say about a new coffee-maker or a business book, but they are expected to file a report with BzzAgent letting the firm know what they\’ve been up to.
Balter says an agent might go into a supermarket and ask an employee whether they carry Hahn\’s Yogurt and Cream Cheese (a current client), and inform BzzAgent headquarters that the supermarket had ordered the product, for example, but it wasn\’t in yet.
Agents are supposed to disclose they\’re connected to BzzAgent. Part of the firm\’s code of conduct, Balter says, is that \’\'when buzzing others, you must first let them know that you\’re involved with BzzAgent.\"
Balter says that while BzzAgent uses its website to recruit and manage its network of agents, about 80 percent of their buzzing takes place in the offline world. That might mean, for instance, bringing a free sample of the new blueberry flavor of Hahn\’s Yogurt and Cream Cheese to a brunch, and talking it up.
\’\'The other 20 percent may be posting something on a blog or on Amazon, or writing a review somewhere on the Web,\" Balter explains.
BzzAgent has displayed an impressive knack for garnering publicity for itself, as has Tremor. Fifty-person BzzAgent was the subject of a feature story in The New York Times Sunday Magazine last year, and has been covered by Newsweek, NPR, and Business 2.0. In a way, they\’ve proven their ability to build buzz by pitching themselves so successfully.
\’\'Everyone talks about it, so it becomes a story,\" says Andy Sernovitz, chief executive of the Word-of-Mouth Marketing Association in Chicago. He says that 43 percent of all marketers are planning some kind of word-of-mouth initiative, but not all of those will involve agencies like Bzz-Agent, Tremor, or M80, a Los Angeles firm that helped revive the animated TV show \’\'Family Guy.\" Some word-of-mouth campaigns may be as simple as handing out free samples of cheese in a grocery store.
But along with all the attention has come controversy, mostly over whether BzzAgent\’s volunteer promoters were being upfront about their connections.
Last month, a consumer advocacy group connected to Ralph Nader, Commercial Alert, wrote a letter to the Federal Trade Commission calling for an investigation into whether buzz marketing firms were \’\'deploying buzz marketers who fail to disclose that they have been enlisted to promote products.\"
Commercial Alert executive director Gary Ruskin said, \’\'People think they\’re talking to an ordinary person when they\’re talking to a shill. This is like telemarketing, but right to your face.\"
In May, one of BzzAgent\’s pro bono clients, a copyright reform group called Creative Commons, ceased working with the firm because of questions about disclosure.
And then came Balter\’s book. Balter relied on thousands of his agents to provide feedback on drafts of several chapters, and to react to cover designs and suggested titles. (The publisher rejected their favorite cover, which featured a bunch of grapes, but used a version of the subtitle they\’d endorsed.) Two thousand agents got an advance copy of the tome.
Many of the 35 customer reviews posted to Amazon.com shortly after the book\’s publication came from BzzAgents who acknowledged their link to the firm in the text of their reviews. Among them was a short write-up titled \’\'awesome book,\" by one of Balter\’s buzz agents, who gave \’\'Grapevine\" five stars:
\’\'This is a great book, you cannot put it down once you start it. It really gives you good insight on how things travel by word of mouth. You don\’t really give much thought to some conversations you have with others. I am a bzzagent and am so glad that I am.\"
Last week, though, Balter was complaining about a negative, one-star customer review on Amazon from someone who hadn\’t read the book, but was griping about all the plugs from Balter\’s agents. Trashing the book just because several BzzAgent members had recommended it \’\'doesn\’t make sense,\" he said.
I was suspicious about some of the customers who gave \’\'Grapevine\" a favorable write-up, but didn\’t mention any link to BzzAgent. Four of them, who gave the book between three and five stars, had also posted reviews on Amazon of \’\'Freak-onomics,\" a popular new economics book that was an earlier client of BzzAgent.
BzzAgent spokesman Joe Chernov checked for me, and discovered that three of these four reviewers were in fact part of the network. (The fourth he wasn\’t sure about.) He wrote via e-mail that that was \’\'completely unacceptable in our system,\" but also said that he thought BzzAgent was \’\'winning this battle\" over disclosure. Balter, meanwhile, said these reviewers will be \’\'talked to.\"
Some people argue that what BzzAgent is doing is no different from handing out samples of a new brand of mints at a subway stop. Are the recipients of those mints obligated to disclose to their friends that their glowing endorsement is based on a free sample they received?
But since BzzAgent is building its business atop its word-of-mouth network, and encouraging agents to join that network by dangling rewards, I think it needs to get more serious about disclosure.
It\’s one thing to ask agents to be honest and open, but BzzAgent would avoid more bad publicity, and do well by its clients, if it gave its disclosure policy some teeth — kicking agents out of the network when they fail to disclose their connection.
Even if that means Balter\’s new book might lose a half a star on Amazon.
Scott Kirsner is a contributing editor at Fast Company. He can be reached at kirsner@pobox.com.
Oh brother. 35 peeps wrote reviews, many of whom upfront claimed to be Bzz Agents. Is the author of that newsclip suggesting in some round-about way that all 35 were Bzz Agents and did not disclose? Or is he saying that he finds it incredible that those who did claim to be Bzz Agents actually liked the book? Considering that \"only some\" of the 2000 Agents that received an advanced copy of Grapevine took the time to write a review at Amazon, doesn\’t the percentage get knocked down a few meters there, Skippy?
Ralph Nader is worried I might say I like my Home Cafe without first disclosing that I\’m a Bzz Agent to my cousin Flo????? While I have no problem whatsoever on disclosure of being a Bzz Agent, (in fact, I find people will ask me more about it wanting to know how to become one themself) if this is going to start the FTC on a roiling boil, remind me to start asking the samples lady at the Bag-It-Yerself what her name is so that when I tell someone else how delicious or great the sample was that I received, I can honestly and forthrightly proclaim that Gertrude over to the Bag-It-Yerself gave me that delicious sample and she works for Yadda-Yadda-Yadda Displays. Don\’t want anyone getting into trouble over something so miniscule as company name dropping, no matter who they work for, or what bite-sized morsel they \"paid\" me with. (Should have started a log book of names when I was born because I\’m fairly certain some nurse in the hospital where I was delivered gave me a sample of baby formula without first disclosing to me that she was a rep of that company through osmosis, telekenisis, or some divine rite of her nature as a hospital staff person…in essence…a paid \"shill\" by her very acceptance of the goods in her care. How many in the world ARE there?????
Errr, does this mean that if I receive a sample through the mail addressed to me I have become a paid shill if I pass my opinion of the product off to another person? Have I unwittingly become a product whore for companies by merely having a mailbox and trying out what they sent me???
If that\’s the case, are there any non-shill virgins left in the world?
i agree what this guy says about that kind of stuff like pols and survays and ect