Social Media Versus Word of Mouth
Social media enables individual users to quickly and efficiently disperse information to large groups of people. Social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter are used to share political views, purchasing decisions, events and more. As such, it would seem that in person, word of mouth communication has become obsolete, as it is much slower and energy intensive than social media platforms. However, in Brands Heed Social Media. They’re Advised Not to Forget Word of Mouth. Janet Morrissey argues that opposite, noting that social media activity often fails to predict the success of retailers.
Morrissey begins by examining the effects of a social media outcry against Nordstrom, instigated by an angry tweet from the president. Surprisingly, Nordstrom escaped essentially unscathed, and even saw stock prices rise. Morrissey noted that Nordstrom’s situation was not unique; numerous other businesses including Chick-fil-A have also faced social media backlash without accompanying declines in business. In fact, Wendy’s experienced the exact opposite, despite gaining popularity on social media following a “fresh, never frozen beef” campaign, sales failed to rise.
Ultimately, Morrissey attributes this phenomenon to a profound difference between what people share online, and their actual opinions. Customers who may be quick to condemn a business over ethical concerns may still value it for practical reasons, and continue to patronize it. Furthermore, social media communication is much less personal than in real life, and people often go along with movements they are not actually committed to.
This contrast between social media and word of mouth is well explained by the framework for diffusion in networks covered in class. Information is quickly spread through weak ties and local bridges which connect disparate portions of networks. As such, information most effectively spreads over social media, which is largely dominated by loosely connected individuals. In contrast, actual practices are usually spread through strong ties indicated by triadic closure. Individuals tend to adopt behaviors from close friends and family in their own “clusters”, where knowledge is often shared via word of mouth. As such, even though an individual may learn damaging information about a company through social media, he or she will still probably continue to patronize that company as long as his or her close friends and family continue to do so as well.
In order to truly effect a business, it appears that one would need to take a grassroots approach. Instead of simply issuing condemnation via social media, one would need to organize locally and begin a cascade through word of mouth either in favor or against a company or cause.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/26/business/media/advertising-social-media.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Ftechnology&action=click&contentCollection=technology®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=6&pgtype=sectionfront