WOMMA recently announced its 2009 Summit in Las Vegas on Nov. 19 & 20. The conference theme is CREATING TALKABLE BRANDS using the original social media (word of mouth) and digital social media (online stuff).

The conference agenda is still being put together. If you have a case study that showcases how a brand uses WOM and Social Media to become talkable … submit a proposal to get on the agenda. Act now, the deadline is Aug. 31.

WOMMA wants to know what we think a talkable brand is.

WOMMA has their take (video). I have my take. No doubt you have a take. Share it, like this video shares my take…

Chuck McKay is convinced Word of Mouth marketing doesn’t exist. Writing on AllBusiness.com, Chuck believes Word of Mouth is not marketing because it can only happen person-to-person and the message that gets passed around cannot be controlled.

Chuck does believe customer experiences can lead to great to stories and those stories can have tremendous influence when shared from one person to another. However, as Chuck explains, “Word-of-Mouth in any of its forms is always about the experience of the buyer. Only indirectly is the seller involved.”

I totally agree with Chuck that marketers don’t decide what is talkable, people decide.

We do think differently when it comes to defining how marketing can spark conversations.

WOMMA defines Word-of-Mouth Marketing as giving people a reason(s) to talk about products and services, and making it easier for that conversation to happen. The playing field for businesses to give customers reasons to talk is wide open.

Perhaps one of the best, most long-lasting ways to give customers reasons to talk is WOM TRUTH #11:

When I talk with businesses about word of mouth marketing basics, I begin by telling them that a company’s personality will always be its best form of advertising. A case study example I use is Pizza Patron.

Pizza Patron is regional, 81-unit pizza chain based in Dallas, TX. As you now, the pizza business is crowded with lots of options. Pizza Patron separates themselves by catering to a Hispanic customer base. They also have separated themselves from every other pizza place by accepting pesos as payment. Accepting pesos personifies the unique personality of Pizza Patron.

Apple Inc. also follows this WOM TRUTH. Yes, Apple spends millions on traditional advertising. They also spend millions on non-marketing activities like product design, software design, and store design in order to showcase Apple’s unique personality.

Method Home is another example. Method also spends money on traditional advertising but most of their “marketing” efforts are about adding style to the staid product category of cleaning solvents.

Word of Mouth to companies like Pizza Patron, Apple, and Method is less a marketing issue and more a business issue. By focusing on developing and personifying a unique style, these companies strive to do business every day in such a way that encourage people to talk.

So Chuck and I do agree. Word of Mouth is not marketing.

Word of Mouth is about designing a business to showcase its unique personality in ways customers are compelled to tell others about.

That’s the fundamental WOM Truth. Deception is ultimately counterproductive. Dishonest word of mouth marketing will always be exposed and deplored.

Urban Nutrition has learned this lesson the hard way. The New York Times recently reported Urban Nutrition knowingly mislead consumers by failing to disclose it paid bloggers for online reviews and by marketing websites as being from independent voices when they were from undercover company shills.

Tipped by a complaint, the Electronic Retailing Self-Regulation Program (ERSP) investigated the marketing activities of Urban Nutrition and discovered the deception.

The ERSP has asked Urban Nutrition to prominently disclose bloggers have been financially compensated for their online reviews and to be forthright in disclosing the websites the company owns and operates.

According to a lawyer representing Urban Nutrition, the company is in the process of making all the changes the ERSP is recommending as well as other changes to become more honest in its marketing efforts.

The lesson is simple: Don’t Fake Your Marketing. In today’s Googlized, the truth can be discovered through savvy searching. If you insist on hiding the truth, someone somewhere will find it and expose it.

A paragraph in the WOMMA Ethics Code says it best…

“Deception, infiltration, dishonesty, shilling, and other attempts to manipulate consumers or the conversation are bad. Honest marketers do not do this, will not do this, and will get caught if they try. Sleazy behavior will be exposed by the public and backfire horribly on anyone who attempts it.”

A very interesting conversation took place last week on the Social Media Insider blog. David Berkowitz pondered the need for a advertising pricing model to better distinguish the relational elements of Social Media activities from more traditional media advertising models.

CPM (cost per thousand), CPC (cost per click), and CPI (cost per impression) are all examples David cites as existing traditional pricing models. Each of these models is based upon exposure, traffic, conversion, and interaction levels.

David offers up CPSA (Cost Per Social Action) as a social media metric from which an advertising pricing model could be based. David explains…

“The main benefit of CPSA is that marketers know they’re paying for something social and relationship-oriented. More importantly, marketers know they’re not specifically paying for exposure, traffic, conversions, or interactions (though those can all provide additional value). It’s an acknowledgement that social media is something else, so it’s deserving of a new model, one that stresses relationships above all else.”

Read the article in full and also read the comments. Readers have added-on to David’s original concept with lots of valuable insights.

I agree totally with David that Social Media (and Word of Mouth) marketing activities differ from traditional media activities because of the relational aspect. The pass-along measurement is huge with Social Media and Word of Mouth. If something isn’t pass-along worthy, then it fails to be socialable or talkable.

The problem as I see with this leads me to another WOM TRUTH …

It’s true. Marketers do not decide what’s sociable or talkable, people decide.

In 2005, WOMMA provided marketing agencies and brands with nomenclature and basic models for pricing and buying word of mouth marketing campaigns. At the center of the WOMMA Terminology Framework is the term WOMunit. A WOMunit is defined as a single unit of marketing-relevant information shared by a consumer.

I was never enamored with the term WOMunit. Still not. Here’s why…

A WOMunit to me might not be a WOMunit to someone else. What I find talkable about a brand or business, someone else might find boring and not worth talking about.

Case in point, MIGHTY FINE BURGERS in Austin. On my Brand Autopsy blog, I did a breakdown of what I felt made this local burger spot talkable. I included eleven talkable elements (or WOMunits if you prefer) of the Mighty Fine customer experience [see image]. However, these elements might not be deemed talkable to someone else. They were to me though.

Same thing goes for Social Media activities. Marketers can create videos, contests, and iPhone apps. However these activities will only become relational if they earn enough of an opinion from someone who is compelled to share it with others or interact with it online.

Yes. Measurement is important. Metrics are needed. And maybe the CPSA model is a vast improvement over the WOMunit measure. However, marketers must not get too entangled with metrics and lose focus on making their word of marketing activities more talkable. The more compelling and interesting marketers make products, services, and or brand experiences, the more people are likely to talk about it. (And the more data there will be to measure WOM success.)

Trending Topics on Twitter are viewed by marketers as a success measurement.

Positive Online Reviews are viewed by marketers as a success measurement.

Search Engine Optimization is viewed by marketers as a success measurement.

Yet, each one of these success measurements can be manufactured. Once someone has deemed a result worth measuring, someone will devise a way to manufacture that result.

Spammers are infiltrating Twitter trending topics and manufacturing results. Legit businesses like Squarespace have manufactured results. It’s a common tactic that is receiving backlash.

Lifestyle Lift, a cosmetic surgery company, published anonymous positive reviews online about its services (and got spanked for doing it). Belkin, a computer accessories brand, was caught paying people to write positive reviews about its products on Amazon.com

Unethical search engine optimization is rampant. There are countless ways websites can artificially increase their ranking and increase website traffic.

Yes. Any marketer can find ways to game the system to achieve desired results. However, is it worth it? Is the blip of success worth the stain of a brand forever living with a tarnished reputation?

If you believe your business has fallen into the “what gets measured gets manufactured” trap, consider using the WOMMA Ethics Assessment Tool. It’s a listing of 20 vital questions to ask to help guide your brand/business to making purposeful and ethical marketing decisions.