The Face-to-Face Book: Love it or leave it?

The Face-to-Face Book is not the kind of book you'd expect to read in a social media class. Authors Keller and Fay really stressed the power of offline word of mouth and discredited the effectiveness of social media marketing throughout much of the text. The book sparked more debates and conversation in our class than any other book we've read about social media; so for a few reasons, I can understand why The Face-to-Face Book made the reading list. A quote on the front of the book by Chuck Porter, chairman at Crispin Porter + Bogusky, reads: "Everyone who's on the social-media-is-the-future bandwagon should get off for a minute and read this book." I could not agree more. 

Why do you think Dr. Aggie assigned The Face-to-Face Book?

I think Dr. Aggie's most prominent reason for assigning this book was to play devil's advocate. As I mentioned, most of the books we read in class are “social-media-is-the-future” themed, and by this point, many of us understand the power of real-time digital communication. Not only are we learning it in class, but we are living it. By selecting The Face-to-Face Book for the Digital Branding reading list, Dr. Aggie made our class question the effectiveness of social media marketing and take on a new perspective. While many classmates (myself included) disagreed with Keller and Fay a number of times on the effectiveness of social media, the book did force us to take a position, one way or the other, and further explore the practice of social marketing.

By proposing a book with unconventional themes for a social media class, Dr. Aggie not only engaged the class, but brought new viewpoints to the class. I think the book was assigned to emphasize the importance of integrated strategies in PR, marketing and communications. When we focus so closely on the evolution of digital communication, real-time social engagement and the power of Web 2.0 in social media courses, it can be easy to neglect the importance of offline word-of-mouth strategies, even though we know how critical they are.

Should the book be kept on the Digital Branding reading list? Why or why not?

I would argue that The Face-to-Face Book should be kept on the Digital Branding reading list, mostly for the reasons mentioned above. I understand why Dr. Aggie selected this book: to incite healthy debate, to make the class explore social marketing from a new perspective and to remind the class of the importance of integrated strategies (offline included). Because The Face-to-Face Book accomplished all three of these objectives, I found the reading to be beneficial to the class curriculum.

What did you learn from reading the book that is applicable to digital branding?

Although Keller and Fay often discredited the value of social media and digital communication, I believe this book is relevant to digital branding practices. Most importantly, the book reinforced the idea that any online efforts in digital branding should be complemented by offline branding efforts. For example, social media and digital communication can be used as effective PR and marketing channels (even if Keller and Fay don’t agree), but if brands aren’t sparking word-of-mouth conversation offline, their strategies are hardly effective. For me, The Face-to-Face Book provided enhanced snapshots of the power of word of mouth in collaboration with digital practices. For instance, Proctor & Gamble identified the most social and outgoing individuals within their online community, Tremor, and encouraged them to share their love for P&G products and advocate for the brand offline.

The Face-to-Face Book also discussed general goals for social marketing that I believe are relevant to digital branding. For example, social marketing and digital branding need to focus on humanness, connectedness and genuine mutually beneficial relationships. I could not agree more with Keller and Fay’s claim that branding efforts (digital or otherwise) must put the customers (real people) at the center of plans, strategies and implementation. It always has been and always will be about relationships, and even though Keller and Fay focused on offline branding, many of their theses on relationship building in The Face-to-Face Book are also applicable to digital branding.

What did you like about the book?

I liked that the book offered a new perspective and a variation to typical social media lectures. It is common to read PR books that favor social media strategies, but to read a book that challenged most of what we’ve already learned in social media courses kept the class on our toes. I liked that the book sparked more debate and conversation (both in agreement and disagreement with the authors) because classes became more engaged and hands-on than previous social media/digital branding lectures.

What did you dislike about the book?

However, I disliked that Keller and Fay seemed to offer very little support, reasoning and/or research to authenticate the numerous facts they presented regarding word of mouth. The authors commonly stated statistics like "one million offline word of mouth conversations resulted from the campaign, and two dollars were raised for every one dollar spent," but where did these stats come from? How can the authors verify one million offline conversations took place? Were they present during each of the one million conversations? I would have been interested to read more into their measurement practices. 

Connect The Face-to-Face Book to the other two books we've read in class.

In comparison to the other two books we’ve read in Digital Branding (Delivering Effective Social Customer Service by Blunt and Hill-Wilson and Branded! by Brennan and Shafer) The-Face-to-Face Book is very anti-social media. Authors Blunt, Hill-Wilson, Brennan and Shafer all seem to be on the “social-media-is-the-future bandwagon” Keller and Fay warn readers about. Delivering Effective Social Customer Service and Branded! offer successful strategies and case study examples of companies taking advantage of our culture’s digital transformation and utilizing social platforms to offer valuable customer service and customer engagement. On the other hand, Keller and Fay argue against digital communication and stress the importance of offline engagement. I think the authors of the previous two books would agree with Keller and Fay to an extent – an integrated PR/marketing approach is necessary; social media cannot do it all. However, I believe Keller and Fay would disagree with much of what Blunt and Hill-Wilson’s and Brennan and Schafer’s theories.

In some ways, I can see slight connections between the books: it’s always all about the relationships. Whether you’re using word-of-mouth strategies, digital strategies or a combined approach, it’s all about connecting with your audience and building mutually beneficial relationships.

Even though I didn’t love everything Keller and Fay had to say in The Face-to-Face Book, I wouldn't leave it. The book did have some valuable takeaways, and adding new perspectives to class discussions can be truly beneficial. 

Imagining a new social marketing

The entire Face-to-Face Book has in my opinion stressed the importance of face-to-face and word-of-mouth communication and devalued the power of social media. Personally, I’ve disagreed with authors Keller and Fay a number of times, as I believe social media has evolved to a point that it can truly complement offline word-of-mouth marketing. I agree that face-to-face communication will always be the most powerful and genuine to consumers, but social media allows companies to reach audiences they may not be able to otherwise and engage in real-time with fans and consumers who are invested in the brand. 

In the final chapter of The Face-to-Face Book, I think Keller and Fay contradict themselves. It’s sometimes hard to tell whether the authors believe in or doubt the value of social media. According to Keller and Fay, “The rise of social media is an outgrowth, not a cause, of our social nature, and though their effects are important, they are more limited than many marketers believe” (p. 234). I agree and disagree with this statement. I understand that humans have always been social creatures – we take social cues from those around us, and we have since before the creation of social networks. Our emotions, ambitions and consumer behaviors are often social decisions. However, I think social media has more power to influence our emotions, ambitions and consumer behaviors than Keller and Fay give credit for. 

I agree completely with The-Face-to-Face Book in the idea that social marketing encompasses so much more than social media. Social influence should be at the core of companies’ marketing strategies, and these strategies need to incorporate a variety of tactics and messaging channels to survive: not only social media, but PR, direct marketing, customer service, digital marketing and promotions all must work together to achieve word of mouth and social influence. “Facebook and other social media have blazed a trail toward a future in which social influence will be a critical factor in marketing, in business, and in our culture. But theirs is not the only pathway, nor even the primary one, toward the success that can be achieved through the inherently social nature of human beings” (p. 243). 

The fine line in word of mouth marketing

Keller and Fay pose an interesting debate in Chapter 7 of The Face-to-Face Book about the ethics and efficacy of transparency in word of mouth marketing. Throughout the entire book, the authors have discussed how the power of word of mouth is the most important marketing channel brands can utilize.

They give the example of Kraft Foods hosting “house parties” across the country in 2011. Through a marketing agency, Kraft rounded up some of their most social consumers and supplied them with “party packs” filled with new Philadelphia Creme Cheese products, cook books and cooking utensils. Kraft asked the party hosts to gather 13 guests and socialize while enjoying the Kraft products. The result: after the parties the attendees talked to 8 people about their experience, and those people talked to three more people, and so on. Overall, the house parties resulted in about 6 million offline conversations about Philadelphia Creme Cheese’s new cooking creme and each person-to-person conversation yielded about 26 cents profit for Kraft.

Word of mouth is powerful, but what happens when brands don’t disclose their word of mouth marketing efforts?

In 2002, Sony Ericcson launched a new mobile phone that could also double as a digital camera. This technology was extremely innovative at the time, and they knew how powerful word of mouth could be if the right people were exposed to the product. They wanted the product interaction and the resulting word of mouth buzz to appear natural, so they hired actors to take the product with them to touristy cities and ask passerby to take their pictures by large attractions like the Empire State Building and the Space Needle in Chicago. When the unsuspicious tourists got ahold of the phone they thought they had happened upon a trendy new product, but in actuality, they were just the target of a fake word-of-mouth marketing campaign. Eventually the word got out and the Sony Ericcson brand received harsh feedback.

Would you consider such a marketing campaign clever or deceptive? I can understand both sides. I can understand how marketers would think, “Who cares how consumers stumble upon products if they are happy with the product and find value in what we are exposing them to?” These marketers clearly understand the power of word of mouth, but is it ethical for brands to generate word of mouth themselves without publicly disclosing that they are doing so? Both Kraft and Sony Ericcson created buzz for their new products; Kraft did so honestly and transparently and Sony Ericcson did so secretively and undercover. Sony Ericcson wanted their consumer-product introduction to seem natural, but once consumers found out that the buzz wasn’t genuine, the lack of transparency from Sony Ericcson overpowered the consumers’ appreciation of the innovative camera phone. As a consumer, I think I would much rather be aware of the fact that I was taking part in a word-of-mouth marketing campaign like Kraft’s house parties than to be duped by actors at Sony Ericcson. Transparency is always key. 

Klout is not clout

Online tools like Klout and PeerIndex are intended to give social media users an "influence score" between one and 100 for their activity on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and even YouTube. However, many social media experts argue that tools like Klout are unable to truly measure social media's biggest influencers because they base their numbers on quantity of followers and shares rather than the true quality of shared messages. According to Keller and Fay in Chapter 3 of The Face-to-Face Book, "it's the quality of each interaction that matters far more than the total quantity of people reached by any influencer" (p. 53).

To understand the controversy behind Klout, Keller and Fay looked at a specific tweet sent by Kenneth Cole in 2011 in the midst of political Arab uprisings : "Millions are in uproar in #Cairo. Rumor is they heard our new spring collection is now available online." The tweet caused a major PR crisis for the Kenneth Cole brand, but it also increased Kenneth Cole's Klout score. Thousands responded to Kenneth Cole with disapproving retweets and condemning feedback, but because social audiences were flocking to the Twitter controversy, Klout recognized Kenneth Cole's message as influential and gave the brand a 30-point bump in Klout. 

Cole's Twitter mishap goes to show Klout's 100-point scale does not accurately define social influence, because it does not take into account the credibility of messages shared or depth of the conversation. Measuring influence by numbers of followers and retweets says nothing about the grassroots, word-of-mouth influence users may have outside of their social networks, which is an important part of the equation (quite often the most important part) if you are trying to calculate the true magnitude of an influencer's clout.