I don't like the use of the term "buzz" when used in marketing circles to describe word-of-mouth advertising. In fact, I don't even like the term "word-of-mouth advertising".
Let's review the definition of advertising.
Advertising is any paid form of non-personal presentation and promotion of ideas, goods, or services by an identified sponsor.
Unlike advertising which relies on purchasing power to get a message across, publicity relies solely on the quality of content to persuade others to get the message out.
Therefore, I favor the use of the term word of mouth publicity to describe genuine buzz. You know, the buzz that happens when people start talking about your brand without you directly greasing the skids or without you investing resources of any kind to directly propagate the discussion.
If you are blogging or directly encouraging bloggers to talk about your brand, then I don't believe that is genuine buzz.
When marketers launch a campaign to get the blogosphere talking about their brand, then it is no different than advertising. Resources are being invested to directly get people talking about your brand. That is artificial. That is paying for advertising. It is also potentially misleading because you are not making it clear that you are paying to get people talking.
The difference is the shift in focus of who is driving message about the brand. The difference is also where you are investing your resources--into the product or into the discussion about the product.
Strong brands focus on the quality of the product to get people talking on their own. Strong brands generate grass-roots buzz. Strong brands cause people to talk based purely on the quality of the product.
If you are paying for buzz, then it is not really buzz at all.
Copyright 2006, Dave Dolak. All rights reserved.
