Public relations strategies

Offline Word of Mouth More Positive and Credible than Online Buzz
http://kellerfay.com/?page_id=222
Extracts: In a first of its kind study comparing word of mouth (WOM) in online and offline venues, the Keller Fay Group (www.kellerfay.com), a market research consultancy specializing in word of mouth, and media agency OMD (www.omd.com) find that offline WOM is more positive and more likely to be judged highly credible than online talk. The findings are part of a paper scheduled to be released today at the ARF Audience Measurement 3.0 conference in New York.

Study results include:

• Word of mouth expressed face to face and by phone is viewed as highly “credible” more often than online talk (59% vs. 49%).
• Offline communication has more purely positive content than online discussion (65% vs. 59%) and is less likely to contain negative or “mixed” content (235 vs. 30%).
• A comparison between face to face communication and content via online blogs and chatrooms reveals an ever wider gap, with 66% of face to face communication “mostly positive” compared to 57% for blogs/chatrooms.
• Offline WOM is more likely than its online counterpart to lead to strong purchase intent (50% vs. 43%).

One possible explanation for the “credibility gap” between online and offline word of mouth is that online communications often can occur between people who don’t know each other very well. The study examines this possibility, and results suggest that the gap in credibility still exists even in communications between people of the same relationship. Specifically, content from a spouse, relative or best friend is rated more believable when it is shared offline, either by phone or face to face, as opposed to online via email, text messaging or blogs.

Persistence of Myths Could Alter Public Policy Approach
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/03/AR2007090300933_pf.html
Extracts: The conventional response to myths and urban legends is to counter bad information with accurate information. But the new psychological studies show that denials and clarifications, for all their intuitive appeal, can paradoxically contribute to the resiliency of popular myths.

The research also highlights the disturbing reality that once an idea has been implanted in people's minds, it can be difficult to dislodge. Denials inherently require repeating the bad information, which may be one reason they can paradoxically reinforce it.

Furthermore, a new experiment by Kimberlee Weaver at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and others shows that hearing the same thing over and over again from one source can have the same effect as hearing that thing from many different people -- the brain gets tricked into thinking it has heard a piece of information from multiple, independent sources, even when it has not.

The experiments by Weaver, Schwarz and others illustrate another basic property of the mind -- it is not good at remembering when and where a person first learned something. People are not good at keeping track of which information came from credible sources and which came from less trustworthy ones, or even remembering that some information came from the same untrustworthy source over and over again. Even if a person recognizes which sources are credible and which are not, repeated assertions and denials can have the effect of making the information more accessible in memory and thereby making it feel true, said Schwarz.

Mayo found that rather than deny a false claim, it is better to make a completely new assertion that makes no reference to the original myth. Rather than say, as Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) recently did during a marathon congressional debate, that "Saddam Hussein did not attack the United States; Osama bin Laden did," Mayo said it would be better to say something like, "Osama bin Laden was the only person responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks" -- and not mention Hussein at all.

The psychologist acknowledged that such a statement might not be entirely accurate -- issuing a denial or keeping silent are sometimes the only real options.

So is silence the best way to deal with myths? Unfortunately, the answer to that question also seems to be no.

Another recent study found that when accusations or assertions are met with silence, they are more likely to feel true, said Peter Kim, an organizational psychologist at the University of Southern California. He published his study in the Journal of Applied Psychology.

Myth-busters, in other words, have the odds against them.