onlineuniversalwork

Media companies have always operated in an uncomfortable space between audience and advertiser. And now with WOMF they are in the really schizophrenic position of operating between an audience which should be allowed to control the conversations and businesses advertising and using the forum for their purposes.

No wonder they’re lurking! At least in the old days they could control the content as well. Any affiliate trying to control the conversations on their WOMF is going to end up losing their audience. (And on that point, kudos to media companies with the guts and vision to make the jump).

So how do you nurture your tribe without blowing it (still have to read that one!)? It will be interesting to watch WOMF, it’s got a lot of things going for it that marketers, and web commentators, are punting as trends to watch: local, WOM, etc.

I agree though, they certainly need to improve transparency, possibly to the point of involving users in the forum itself, I think.

I’m not sure about the software play though – anybody can put forum software together, it’s the thought that counts.

Much of what WOMF is doing is very cool. But it seems like a software, get rich quick play to me – and IMO the buyers need much more training in the cultural aspects of building and supporting a social network or user forum – would you agree?

I often find myself in the minority – as I do see some forums as a place for users and companies to co-exit and talk to each other as well as to themselves. The notion of companies lurking instead of adding to the conversation is also old school in many ways IMO.

I prefer to see the companies themselves participating instead of the marketers actually – as the people developing products and services often are more interested in truthful feedback than those whose only job is the market and sell. They get easily frustrated by the objections when people don’t just take it. (You might want to read my post on “Customers are Messy”.)

I do think WOMF “affiliates” would be better served though to state who they are – anytime I can’t find an About page I am instantly suspect, which speaks to your issue I think.

I hope WOMF can tweak a few things as I would like to see a more nuanced use of the social web that keeps the transparency and yet also does not assume all business is evil.

Bottom line I really appreciate your points – as I think more users would side with you than me in wanting to have places to discuss things. That certainly then influences how the ads are rolled out on the site and calls into question what do you do when a small biz owner wants to be a user re: other businesses? We are not just a business owner; we are consumers too. I did not have a solution for that myself.

Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

WOMMA is just the same old same old – the Meatball marketers trying to use the Sundae, Seth would say. In fact, WOMF seems much closer to some of the messages Seth Godin has given over the years than most models WOMMA has come up with.

For example, the reason for WOMMA’s transparency issues are exactly that they are promoting forums run by advertisers themselves. This at least is not the case for WOMF.

I don’t think WOMF is perfect, by a long shot, and you make some excellent points.

But it certainly is a completely different approach to social media which places the interruption advertising in the context of forum debates about specific types of goods or services.

@Crystal – LOL! Remember, this was “free advice” – part of the spirit of the web is sharing knowledge (I know you know this!) and I am thrilled if someone finds my opinions informative.

P.S. – I love your signature. Nice touch

Aloha