没有人否认口碑拥有成就或毁灭一个新产品的强大力量，只要问问那些曾被消费者大肆抨击或赞扬的厂商，你自然就会明白。由于未能处理好对其去年提出、如今已臭名昭著的“宽带永远免费”服务的质询，英国手机零售商Carphone Warehouse迄今受到消费者口诛笔伐的折磨。

与此相反的是，英国宠物食品制造商Masterfoods同时推出的一种猫粮，却由于消费者的正面推荐而销量飙升。

营销专家早就认识到了好口碑或坏口碑对新产品命运的重要性。但网络、互联网论坛和社交网站的出现，却让口碑拥有了以惊人的速度将一个产品从全球英雄变成狗熊的能力。

有一个已被视为经典的案例：2004年，一个互联网论坛上的帖子，展示了如何用圆珠笔就能撬开美国Kryptonite生产的自行车车锁，于是乎，这个品牌50年的声誉在短短几天内就受到了侵蚀。这家公司在8个工作日内便推出了一个免费换锁计划，这个速度已经够快了，但却不足以阻止全世界都知道那令人尴尬的设计缺陷。

营销研究机构ClickAdvisor.com的保罗·马斯顿(Paul Marsden)说：“互联网的作用，就是通过博客、论坛和网站赋予了消费者权力。最近的一项研究表明，比起30年前，口碑在消费者决策中的重要性提高了 50%。”马斯顿认为，消费者对口碑的日益依赖，部分原因在于对标准广告宣传的不信任，另一部分原因在于信息实在太多。“一天之中，人们会接触到上千条广告，”马斯顿指出。“通过个人推荐，口碑帮助人们走了捷径。”

难怪市场人士对于理解口碑现象的兴趣日益增大。专门从事此类营销方式的咨询公司正如雨后春笋般纷纷涌现，而且据业内人士称，英国可能不久就会成立一个行业协会，类似美国在2005年成立的“口碑营销协会”(Word of Mouth marketing Association)。

但考虑涉足口碑营销方式的公司应谨慎行事。新的研究表明，一些老话往好里说是误导性的，有时则甚至是完全错误的。

长期以来，营销大师们一直声称，消费者更有可能苛责不满意的产品或服务，而不是推荐好的产品和服务。这当然是合理的：多数人都期望对购买的产品满意，因此不大可能花时间去告诉所有人——这和那些不满意的人不同，后者乐于把他们的失望告诉全世界。

虽然上述现象看似合理，但英国金斯顿大学(Kingston University)消费者行为学教授罗伯特•伊斯特(Robert East)领导的小组即将发表的研究结果显示，这一假定的对坏口碑的偏好并不存在。该小组采访了来自从咖啡店到信用卡等15个消费类别的2000名消费者。在每个案例中，被访者都被问及在过去6个月中，他们对商品和服务进行推荐或提出反对建议的次数。即将发表在《国际市场营销研究》 (International Journal of Research in marketing)杂志上的采访结果表明，在每一个消费类别中，人们都更有可能告知别人好的消费体验，而不是对不好的产品服务提出警告。伊斯特教授表示：“我们发现，在所有15个消费类别中，好口碑比坏口碑更常见，比例为3比1。”

重要的是，该研究小组还发现，品牌领导者往往会得到最好的口碑，从而使它们比潜在竞争对手拥有强大的优势。相比之下，放弃某个品牌的消费者尤其有可能将糟糕的体验告知他人，这种现象占到了所有坏口碑的近一半。

伊斯特教授表示，作为一般规律，传播坏口碑的消费者也最有可能散布正面内容——对于任何能赢得其芳心的商家来说，这都使他们拥有了极其宝贵的价值。

这些研究结果包含着有用的营销见解，比如说不要放弃不满意的用户等。伊斯特教授表示，巧妙利用意见簿以及当前和已流失客户的数据库，将有助于找出最可能对产品或服务进行负面宣传的消费者。这样做是值得的：有不良个人体验的消费者进行的负面宣传，通常会“传染”给那些甚至从未尝试过某项产品的人。伊斯特教授说：“当用户中传出坏口碑时，它真的会迅速传播开来。”

马斯顿认同消除坏口碑的重要性。他表示：“坏口碑可能没有正面宣传那么常见，但可采取措施的空间更大。”马斯顿2005年为伦敦经济学院 (London School of Economics)进行的研究显示，相比于提升某种产品的好口碑，将其坏口碑降低同等幅度，对销售增长的影响几乎是前者的3倍。

这种影响绝不是理论上的。马斯顿和其同事发现，在研究期间，那些不能很好地平衡好口碑与坏口碑的公司——在这次研究中，有Lloyds-TSB，J. Sainsbury和T-Mobile——增长速度都慢于其竞争对手。

虽然声音不一定大，但口碑似乎真的很重要。嘘，传下去。

对Masterfoods来说，口碑营销就是猫的胡须。

作为新品种猫粮发布战略的一部分，这家英国宠物食品制造商去年引入了伦敦口碑营销专业公司Wildfire设计的战略。

该公司找出了1万名消费者，这些消费者如果他们喜欢该公司的产品Whiskas Oh So，就有可能向其他人进行正面口头宣传。随后，该公司向这些“影响者”邮寄了免费样品和优惠券，供他们送给家人和朋友。为评估这一战略的成功程度， Wildfire委托伦敦的消费者数据分析公司Dunnhumby来研究三类人群的反应：一是收到免费样品和优惠券的消费者；二是收到满意用户转送的优惠券的消费者；三是被排除在邮寄名单之外的对照组消费者。

Wildfire的伊凡•帕默(Ivan Palmer)表示，分析结果非常引入注目。“从朋友处得到口头推荐和优惠券的消费者带来的产品销售量，是对照组的销售量的11倍还多。”

本文作者系英国伯明翰阿斯顿大学(Aston University)科学系访问讲师。

There is no gainsaying the power of word of mouth to make or break a new product. Just ask those who have been on the receiving end of consumer brickbats or bouquets. The UK-based mobile phone retailer Carphone Warehouse is still smarting from the consumer bad-mouthing prompted by its failure to handle inquiries about its now-notorious “free broadband forever” offer last year.

In contrast, a catfood launched at the same time by the UK petfood maker Masterfoods saw sales soar as a result of positive recommendations from consumers (see below).

marketing experts have long recognised the importance of both positive and negative word of mouth (WOM) to the fate of new products. But the advent of the web, internet forums and social networking sites has given WOM the power to turn a product from global hero to zero with frightening speed.

In what is already regarded as a classic case study, the 50-year reputation of the cycle locks made by US-based Kryptonite was undermined in just a few days in 2004 by one internet forum posting showing how the locks could be picked using a ball-point pen. The company had a free lock exchange programme in place in just eight working days – fast, but not fast enough to stop the whole world from knowing about the embarrassing design flaw.

“What the internet has done is to empower the consumer through blogs, forums and websites,” says Paul Marsden of the marketing research agency ClickAdvisor.com. “A recent study showed that word of mouth is now 50 per cent more important to consumers in making decisions than it was 30 years ago.” According to Mr Marsden, the increasing reliance of consumers on word of mouth is being driven partly by distrust of standard advertising and partly by sheer information overload. “During the course of a day, people are exposed to thousands of adverts,” he points out. “Word of mouth helps to cut through all that using personal recommendations.”

Not surprisingly, there is mounting interest in understanding the word-of-mouth phenomenon. Consultancies specialising in such marketing methods are springing up and, say industry insiders, a UK equivalent of the Word of Mouth marketing Association, established in the US in 2005, is likely to emerge soon.

But companies thinking of dabbling in word-of-mouth methods should be wary. New research suggests that some long-held claims are at best misleading and sometimes just plain wrong.

marketing gurus have long claimed that consumers are more likely to bad-mouth unsatisfactory products and services than to recommend good ones. This certainly makes sense: most people expect to be satisfied with their purchase, so they aren't likely to spend time telling everyone about it – unlike their disgruntled counterparts, who are happy to tell the whole world they feel let down.

While plausible, this supposed bias towards negative word of mouth is a myth, according to research about to be published by a team led by Robert East, professor of consumer behaviour at Kingston University. The team interviewed 2,000 people across 15 consumer categories, from Coffee shops to credit cards. In each case, those interviewed were asked how many times they had recommended or advised against using the product or service in the previous six months. The results, about to appear in the International Journal of Research in marketing, showed that in every sector people were more likely to tell others about good experiences than to warn about bad ones. “We found that across the 15 categories, positive WOM was more common than negative by an factor of 3 to 1,” says Prof East.

Significantly, the team also found that brand leaders tended to generate most positive word of mouth, giving them a powerful advantage over potential competitors. In contrast, consumers who have abandoned a brand are especially likely to tell others about their bad experiences, and account for almost half of all negative word of mouth.

As a general rule, says Prof East, the consumers who spread negative word of mouth are also most likely to spread the positive variety – making them especially valuable to whoever can win them over.

Such findings contain useful marketing insights – such as not giving up on disgruntled users. Canny use of complaint logs and databases of current and lapsed customers will help identify those most likely to bad-mouth a product or service, says Prof East. And it is worth the effort: the negative word of mouth spread by consumers with bad personal experiences has a habit of “infecting” even those who have never tried the product. “And when negative word of mouth escapes from the user base, it really takes off,” he says.

Mr Marsden agrees about the importance of combating negative word of mouth. “It may be less frequent than the positive variety, but there is more scope for doing something about it,” he says. Research conducted by Mr Marsden for the London School of Economics in 2005 revealed that cutting the level of negative word of mouth about a product has almost triple the impact on sales growth as trying to boost levels of positive word of mouth by the same amount.

The impact is anything but academic. Mr Marsden and his colleagues found that companies with a poor balance of positive to negative WOM – in this study, Lloyds-TSB, J. Sainsbury, and T-Mobile – grew more slowly than their competitors over the period studied.

Whisper it quietly, but it seems word of mouth really does matter. Psst – pass it on.

Word of mouth marketing is the cat's whiskers for Masterfoods

As part of its launch strategy for a new variety of catfood, UK petfood maker Masterfoods last year adopted a strategy designed by the London-based word-of-mouth specialists Wildfire.

The company identified 10,000 consumers likely to generate positive word-of-mouth reports to others if they liked the product, Whiskas Oh So. These “influencers” were then mailed free samples and coupons to pass on to family and friends. To gauge the success of the strategy, Wildfire commissioned the London-based consumer data analysts Dunnhumby to study the responses of three groups: those who received the free samples and coupons, those who were then sent the coupons by contented users, and a control group who were left out of the mailshot altogether.

According to Ivan Palmer of Wildfire, the results were dramatic. “sales of the product among those who received word-of-mouth recommendations plus coupons from their friends were 11 times higher than among the control group.”

The writer is visiting reader in science at Aston University, Birmingham, UK