Note: This is a reprint
You can now get real-time reactions to your Web site, Internet software, and product offerings by means of online focus groups*: Connect respondents via telephone focus groups over their standard phone lines. Respondents are at their own computers, so they can all look at the same stimulus materials. They can:
· visit web sites together
· look at new software features
· retrieve and read concept statements and diagrams
· react to new ideas
· learn a new program in the days before the sessions, or in real time.
*In other words, you get telephone focus groups coupled with Internet access. You get total interactivity in real time, in people’s real life situations. This is not like the usual “online focus groups.”
For a comparison of the usual online focus groups with both telephone focus grousp and face-to-face focus groups, click here: Online Focus Groups.
This methodology replicates the best features of face-to-face focus groups, while removing the disadvantages. You get the rapid-fire interactivity, openness and depth of face-to-face focus groups. In addition, you get nationwide representation and access to hard-to-reach respondents. You also get greater speed from project inception to completion, higher-level participants, people working on their own familiar equipment in their own natural environment. The groups are also less expensive than face-to-face groups.
The current financial crisis provides a rare opportunity to study Word of Mouth under crisis conditions. It turns out that Word of Mouth works differently under these conditions.
It’s interesting to watch almost everyone get the current financial crisis wrong, watching the spread of misinformation, the lessening of the ability to listen, the growing list of “That Which Must Not be Questioned” and the elevation of nonsense into dogma in a crisis, i.e. a perceived necessity to act immediately. Fascinating. Instructive. Scary.
In periods of extreme uncertainty coupled with an urgent necessity to act, WOM becomes more important, but of much lower quality. False information spreads. Simple questions don’t get asked by our designated questioners (the press). Simple questions like, “yes, but what made THAT possible, encouraged it, blinded people to the problems, etc.” Simple but wrong explanations are very appealing. No one wants to ask the deeper questions out of fear of looking stupid or or getting overwhelmed with too much confusing information.
One of the functions of WOM is to piggyback on others’ knowledge and experience, thereby saving us time, effort, uncertainty and risk. That may be fine for buying a product, but it’s not so good when the matter at hand is extremely important, urgent and complex.
However, there is a silver lining to this. Dissenting opinions and evidence are getting passed around. For instance, I’ve seen a NY Times article predicting the crisis in 1999 being passed around and laying it at the feet of Fannie Mae’s — and other GSEs — granting of more mortgages to people who obviously couldn’t repay. Some people are questioning why people would do such a thing, and not accepting “greed” as the “obvious” answer. (Wouldn’t a greedy person do the opposite?) There have been many mentions of the Community Reinvestment Act and the “mark to market” requirements (regulation, not deregulation) that are also at the root of the situation. Anyone who wants to access WOM from knowledgeable people can now do so, unlike in previous crises. Wikipedia, perhaps the most amazing result of the WOM revolution, is surprisingly accurate, clear and concise in describing these controversial issues, objectively. For instance, the “mark to market” issue, while the TV pundits say it’s too difficult for us to understand, is a trivially simple concept that Wikipedia easily explains.
While most people are analyzing the symptoms of the problem, some wiser people are asking what are the root causes and what really allowed these causes to happen.
When the conventional WOM is saying that something is too complicated for you to understand and that we have to act now on the “obvious,” run for the hills holding your wallet. Actually, run for Google and read, read, read — not just the first few entries. You will eventually find entries that are crystal clear and easily understandable.
We can now question what we hear, and get answers.
We can — and should — shop for our Word of Mouth carefully, critically and cynically.
The age of being able to manipulate and control information is over, but is still operative in the short run.
WOM can never replace thinking — except when we allow it to, which is sometimes desirable.
Professional Word of Mouthers, such as TV pundits, are often pushing a hidden agenda or hiding the fact that they don’t have a clue. This is particularly true of reporters. Reporters report, that is, they repeat what at least two people say. They call this corroboration. Criminals are found guilty on the basis of corroborating witnesses. But so did “witches” get burned at the stake.
WOM is inherently self-correcting under conditions of transparency, high feedback, reward for success and/or penalty for failure and a high standard for evidence. Wikipedia is a shining example. But this self-correction can be shut down by “The Sky is Falling” urgency and desperation, by telling us that the situation is too arcane for us to understand, by PC dogma that forbids questioning, by intimidation, by distraction (such as the real unfairness of things that don’t make a difference, such as executive salaries and immunizing people from their poor judgement), by illusions masquerading as facts, by wishful thinking and by Political Correctness and other dogma (unquestionable beliefs).
WOM can accelerate the spreading of speculation, misinformation and panic — and make it more credible before it makes it less credible.
WOM in this Information Age increases the chances that the small number of people who correctly understand the situation can eventually be heard.
Beware of WOM that attempts to complicate.
People can sell almost anything in a neatly packaged story. President Bush’s story about the necessity for the bailout was almost identical in structure to his speech about the necessity for invading Iraq, which I suspect that at the time, but which was frighteningly driven home in a split screen episode on The Daily Show.
<embed FlashVars=’videoId=186052′ src=’http://www.thedailyshow.com/sitewide/video_player/view/default/swf.jhtml’ quality=’high’ bgcolor=’#cccccc’ width=’332′ height=’316′ name=’comedy_central_player’ align=’middle’ allowScriptAccess=’always’ allownetworking=’external’ type=’application/x-shockwave-flash’ pluginspage=’http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer’></embed>
Note; take this out and re-insert in html mode.
Eventually, even under conditions toxic to the truth, some kid will step forward and say “The Emperor has no Clothes.” That kid is invariably a pain in the ass who increases our discomfort and who should therefore be treasured.