Buzz-o-phone Word of Mouth

Matt Galloway, by all respects, seems to be a very nice guy. He is an independent blogger trying something different in his online activities.

Someone sent me a link to Steve Rubel’s blog where he posted a notice about Matt’s site - Buzz-o-phone. So, I thought I’d go look at what she was talking about.

Since Steve and Edelman have recently announced he “will be charged with helping the team win new word of mouth business as well as in developing/executing client programs” in his new role as a Senior Vice President for Edelman Worldwide, I thought he would be the perfect person to speak about the good and bad of these types of sites.

I thought an SVP would likely have some opinions about this kind of tactic. So, I commented on the post with some questions.

No commentary on the value of this? Good or bad?

How will businesses deal with the WOM this may generate? How would you counsel businesses to approach this new feed of consumer backlash for their product(s), service(s), brand(s) or company?

I would like to hear your counsel on these issues. I bet others would, too.

Richard Edelman believes Steve knows about WOM. He wrote, “I have always been impressed with his honesty, his passion for his craft and his commitment to changing the public relations business.” Even more important, in relation to this post - Edelman wrote, “What do we hope to achieve together? In short, we want to persuade our corporate clients to commit to the blogosphere.”

Well, I think this discovery of yet another WOM site is worthy of Rubel’s commentary - as a leader online. It deserves more than just a mention … a link. As of today, no response from Rubel.

But, I did hear from the site’s creator - Matt Galloway. His site is getting attention. Today Matt made it to RocketBoom with Buzz-o-phone.

Matt saw my comment and contacted me. Matt wrote, “I saw your comments on Buzz-o-phone over on Steve Rubel’s blog. You ask some great questions. It will be interesting to see if Buzz-o-phone gets enough momentum to be taken seriously by marketers. If you write about this in the future, please let me know. I’d love to read your thoughts.”

So, I wrote back with some questions. The questions, and Matt’s responses are below. I appreciate and respect his open and honest sharing of information. I have only edited for some stray characters that were created by the email transmission. His responses, and my questions, are in their original form.

A Note: There are some references in here that might offend the truly faint of heart, but they are - compared to some of the things I hear students say - quite tame by comparison. Nonetheless, I offer that warning. Some might say, “Robert, that’s silly.” However, I think about audience a lot. And the audience for this post could be anyone in the world. So, there ya’ go.

Danger, Will Robinson. This is long.

Q: Are there any liability issues at stake here for you, or those that call?

Matt’s Answer: Probably. If somebody gets way off topic then I suppose it could be a problem, but you have to look at consequence and recourse. First off, libel and slander go out the window as long as the speaker is clearly stating an opinion. I think, almost regardless of what the speaker says that the context of the site itself clearly demarcates the “rant” as just that. Secondly, if someone gets too far off base, I’ll probably pull the opinion (more on this later). Thirdly, if someone does get miffed to the point of legal action it will likely start with a cease and desist, which I would probably obey - at least until I could seek legal counsel on that particular issue. As long as the site is framed as opinion, and I comply with cease and desists, it would be pretty hard (and expensive) to pull me into court. And if they did, what are the _real_ damages? But let’s say they did. Buzz-o-phone is not a business. It’s just me. I’m not a wealthy guy. Someone _could_ go after me but we have a blood from a turnip situation.

This is one of the points that I’m trying to make with Buzz-o-phone. In regards to free speech, in most cases the consumer is more free than the companies. Consumer can and do say anything they want in any forum. As long as we stick to opinions and anecdotes that are honest, they are very defensible - no matter how damaging. Companies, on the otherhand, are much more resticted in what they say - by regulation, by stockholders, by culture - and they have much more to lose.

Think of the Jeff Jarvis-Dell thing. Form a practical standpoint, can Dell openly bad mouth Jeff Jarvis? No. Can Dell refuse to sell Jeff Jarvis computers? Not really. Can Dell tell HP and Lenovo and Apple not to sell stuff to Jeff Jarvis because he’s a “bad customer”? Of course not.

Jeff Jarvis, on the otherhand can publically denigrate Dell to his hearts content - as long as he’s clear that it is only HIS opinion and that his accounts are accurate. Who has the power here?

Q: Did you consult an attorney before beginning this project?

Matt’s Answer: Nope. I talked with an attourney a few times when I started blogging. I also did some research on slander and libel. My general strategy at this point it to monitor for clear attacks - stuff that’s beyond heated opinion - and proactively pull it. I hope that I don’t have to do this but I am prepared to. Also, if I got a cease and desist, I’d pull a recording and then seek legal counsel.

Q: What safeguards (if any) have you installed to assure that no slander occurs using your service? Or would it libel because, although spoken words, they are actually data files? I don’t know.

Matt’s Answer: First off, I _think_ it’s slander. Second, no safegaurds other than faith in the consumer. I know that sounds silly but because of the reasons stated above, I haven’t risked a lot here. Since Buzz-o-phone was created in about 15 hours with a total investment of about $65, I can shut the whole thing down without losing any sleep if I have to. And again, as long as folks stick to clear opinion - there is no recourse. Of course someone could lie - and if that’s brought to my attention I’ll respond. I have caller-id info on all the calls and, if needed, I can pull the call.

Q: Where does the ‘responsibility’ for ethical practice fall here …. with you … the callers … both? Or no one?

Matt’s Answer: Well, I certainly strive to act ethically and I feel that I have a responsibility to do so. We’ve been talking about detractors here - and I admit I’m afraid that Buzz-o-phone will skew negative - but so far there have been lots of positive calls. This whole thing is predcated on trust and also that CGM tends to be self-correcting. So I place a lot of trust on callers. If someone abuses that trust, I’ll take action. There are all kinds of things that I _could_ do to prevent abuse but I wnat to see if this can be done without those measures. If someone is out of line, I’ll pull their call.

Now, there is one call so far that I’ve gotten email about. The call sounds to be from a teenaged boy and he’s going on about getting a rash from applying K-Y Jelly to his “pecker”. I’ve chosen to leave this call alone. Why? Well, first off - as silly as it is - it represents how teenaged boys really talk about K-Y Jelly. Second, it’s clearly a prank - this is different from a shill or stealth marketing in that no reasonable person will listen and leave with the impression that K-Y Jelly causes skin irritation. Third, I think by leaving this recording up I create a sense of trust with the individual that left it - perhaps he’ll call back with a sincere contribution. And lastly, because it’s funny in its own juvenille way.

Now, if the boy had been more graphic than “pecker” then I would probably pull the call.

Can I tell when people are lying? Probably not but neither can you when you’re standing in the line at the grocery store and overhear a conversation. I think the platform of Buzz-o-phone is clear enough that people will be able to make up their own minds about what to trust.

As for legal ramifications - I’m taking a hide and watch approach.

Q: Since you are on iTunes, have you considered the inability to “un-ring the bell” in this practice. Once recorded and posted - then downloaded - there is no way to recall or recant anything malicious that has been posted. Do they now have liability in this process?

Matt’s Answer: Well, yes and no. When you have a podcast in the iTunes store, Apple only sydicates the RSS feed - not the MP3 files - they are still on your server. So I can always adjust the number of episodes available in the iTunes store.

However, once someone who is subscribed to the podcast downloads the file to their local computer, there is nothing I can do to “un-ring the bell”.

This is really the same thing that happens, for example, with television stations and ads. Here in Tulsa a while back, SBC ran some DSL broadband tv spots that talked about how horrible cable modem was. The local cable company (Cox Communications) sued SBC to stop airing the ads. Cox won.

Now, the televisions stations were not liable for SBC’s commercial content and all they had to do was stop distibution. The television station is not responsible for the TiVo’s and VCR tapes that now had that content on it. All you can do is stop distribution… and maybe publish a retraction.

To be clear though, I can prevent further distribution - even through iTunes.

Q: Certainly, if anyone gains from the service it will be great. But, like email stock hype scams, how will you defend that occurrence? Do you have any safeguards in place to monitor that?

Matt’s Answer: Right now all I’m doing is listening closely and recording caller ID information. I’ve already called some of the numbers back and talked with the people that left the messages. Right now I only have 19 calls and they all sound pretty reasonable and are all clear opinions. If this thing explodes than I might start thinking about doing something else, but I’ll also have to start thinking about revenue stream. And again, since it’s not a business and is not neccessarily intended to be, I can pull the plug on the whole thing if it all turns nasty.

Q: And, finally … if someone or some company does suffer discomfort (or worse, injury - whether financial or to reputation / brand) by any malicious or mis-stated commentary, do you feel any responsibility for that act?

Matt’s Answer: Well, if somebody clearly steps over the line I feel that I have an obligation to act. I won’t feel responsible if someone does post something out-of-line but I will take responsibility to take corrective action. If the experiment falls into chaos, then I feel that I have a responsibility to shut it down.

At this point though, how much harm could a call on Buzz-o-phone cause? Now, if it grows exponentially, I might have to rethink that. At this point though, I’m getting 2 to 4 calls per day and there is a very small listening audience, it’s pretty easy to stay on top of it.

I liken it to owning a movie theater. I can’t stop somebody from spontaneeously standing up in the front and yelling obscenities at kids. But once they start, the theater owner has a responsibility to react.

One of the amazing things about CGM though is how rarely this actually happens. Jeff Jarvis never seemed irrational when berating Dell. If you listen to the people that have actually taken the time to call Buzz-o-phone so far, they all sound amazingly sincere. Even the detractors seem to be offering suggestions for positive change more so than flat out bitching.

People, especially online posters, seem to be a lot more reasonable and compasionate than marketers tend to give them credit for.

Matt’s closing comments:

Thank you for your interest. You’ve really given me some food for thought.

I do want to re-emphasise that Buzz-o-phone is a hobby experiment and not a business model. I’m not professionally involved in marketing, PR or business communications. Some of the comments I’ve gotten feel like folks overlook this fact. This is really more about consumer empowerment and new media experimentation than it is about the viability of Buzz-o-phone as a business - which, at least at this point, it’s not.

Once you’ve digested this stuff, feel free to call 800-591-5375 and share your opinion about Buzz-o-phone -

good, bad or indifferent.

Thanks for your time,

Matt

My Comments

I appreciate Matt’s willingness to answer these questions. He appears open and honest in his replies.

I have added my thoughts about WOM - in general - in this post from earlier today. Please note that I raise the questions, not only for myself, but for my students to consider in their thoughts about social media and the effect it will have on their future PR experiences.

I do not think that Matt is malicious in his intent. I do think that the site poses risks for him and everyone out there.

There is a saying that comes to mind when I see sites like this. “Just because you *can* do something, doesn’t mean you should.” Now, the reality is that blogs are doing this kind of thing every day. They are spreading word of mouth opinions and claims - often sans evidence or credibility - and I wonder about the consideration given by the site owners (and participants) as to those pitfalls. Matt has simply taken podcasting and blogs and tied it into a social sharing experience not unlike the numerous 1-800 numbers out there today - just a lil’ bit different.

Matt’s site, even if well-executed technically, is also - sadly - just another open hole for juvenile nonsense to be poured into. Can it be postivie? Sure. Do I think it will be a positive experience overall? No.

I think of the possible victims. Who, in their creation of site’s like Matt’s or Facebook or any other site that encourages the sharing of “your recorded diatribe or approbation” thinks about those people - before creating their sites. In PR, this is called continency (or outcome) planning and strategy. I don’t see much of that kind of planning going on here. Yes, it is a reality. This site is here and there will be numerous spinoffs to social communities and sites like this down the road. So, we have to consider how to deal with them. We need strategic thinking from those touted as leaders in the field. And, we need that information shared in the community those experts profess to love, but often fail to use for these types of activities.

I doubt Facebook or MySpace has *really* considered what might happen if someone misuses their sites. Do they have PR counsel? Matt doesn’t. Should they both have it? You bet they should.

Most of these sites have not done much (if any) training - or heightening of awareness - among their users with regard to the possible harm that may come their way.

That, as a person, makes me sad. As a PR practitioner, it scares the heck out of me.