Does your DM get talked about?

Yet the problem with word of mouth as a marketing force is that it is not always positive -- and it cannot be controlled.

Truth be told, the majority of us are far more likely to regale our friends and family with negative tales of our brand encounters -- simply because they are typically more numerous and more entertaining.

As a result, we tend to hear stories of unsolicited 'junk mail' blocking the front door or apoplexy-inducing contact centre ineptitude way in advance of less entertaining stories about service excellence. 

But whose direct marketing communications actually get the thumbs-up, to the extent that they are most likely to avoid a tongue-lashing and possibly even generate positive comment?

In qualitative research where I have frequently covered this subject, brands that crop up with monotonous regularity are old favourites such as First Direct and Virgin. Why? Well, upon further investigation it doesn't appear to be because their marketing communications are necessarily any better than those of the competition.

Instead, the research indicates that these brands have managed to create such levels of relevance, tangibility and differentiation that they become legitimate topics of conversation with examples being drawn from what they do and what they say.

Don't get me wrong --I am not suggesting that direct marketing will ever displace the weather or politics as a primary source of dinnertime conversation. However, the research does suggest that within this context direct marketing plays a vital role, offering the potential to make or break positive word of mouth relating to the wider brand experience. 

So how have our brand conversation pieces achieved this? Firstly, respondent feedback indicates that they manage to demonstrate a level of customer understanding and empathy that sets them apart. How?

Well, probably by using qualitative research to uncover fundamental and differentiating customer insights to drive brand experience and marketing communications development. And probably not by relying upon a thin layer of mass-produced customer segmentation data with a thick layer of creative icing on top.

Secondly, feedback suggests that our conversation pieces give the appearance of being three-dimensional. Why? Typically, because instead of ignoring their brand's own capacity to deliver inspiration and differentiation, they have managed to combine compelling customer insight with a fundamental understanding of their own brands. This has created the additional empathy that is ultimately capable of setting them apart from the competition in everything they do and say.

Thirdly, research feedback suggests that these brands appear to do things differently. They have combined customer and brand understanding with operational insight and left-field thinking to ensure that their differentiating brand elements are made tangible across all touch points and channels -- including those involving marketing communications.

Finally (and this comes right back to marketing communications) they treat every interaction with the customer -- no matter how apparently mundane -- as an opportunity to contribute to and draw from the wider brand experience. This is in contrast to their more one-dimensional brand competitors who have little more to fall back upon than an uninspiring list of features and benefits delivered in an ad hoc fashion.

Why not try an experiment with your brand right now. Run a research group looking at your most recent direct marketing. First and foremost -- does it avoid a tongue-lashing? If so, does it provide evidence of real customer understanding and brand differentiation? Does it stand up to comparison with our brand conversation pieces -- and is it capable of sparking spontaneous and positive brand comment in its own right?

If you're honest then I think you'll know the answer already and can save the money on the group. 

If you have an opinion on this or any other issue raised on Brand Republic, join the debate in the Forum.