If that\’s the case, are there any non-shill virgins left in the world?

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?????

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.

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

\"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!

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

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!

I must agree with you too then! =)

Kristofer

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

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!

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

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

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!

\"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!

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

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