Walter,
Great analysis. I think this model is intellectually interesting, but unlikely to be adopted in any widespread way by marketers. It doesn't seem to address the cost of the paid media in the equation. It's only relevant for very large consumer campaigns. The execution seems complex -- what's the cost of setting up and maintaining the measurement system in relation to the value of the measures? And, quite frankly, I'm not sure the measures will resonate with the C-level execs who want measures tied more closely to business metrics.
One reason that the Net Promoter Score has been adopted so widely is that it's easy to implement and easy to understand.
Marketing and communications desperately need new measurement models in view of WOM and Web 2.0, but they need to be pragmatic.
Lois
Hi Walter - nice balanced overview.
Surely R value will change and ultimately decay over time as because of changing resistance levels in population (lack of new news). This is the case for infectious disease (otherwise any disease with R>1 would spread through all susceptible population)
But is word of mouth marketing (product seeding panels) SO very different to viral marketing (pass it on ads)? The success of both depends on the quality (infectiousness) of what is being passed on (measured by the R value) (ads, recommendations or adoption).
One implication is that Bzzagent or any other product seeding panel activities can only accelerate diffusion - not increase it absolutely. It also means that mass seeding (of products) is just as necessary as mass seeding of ads. Hence the success of Bzzagent and Tremor. Size does seen to matter...
I am doing a research on viral marketing for my master, if you want to participate, please click this link:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/
s.as...WIbqTy1QQ_3d_3d
Thanks
Commenting by HaloScan
