22 Sep Review of TwitterMom’s Seal of Approval
Part of what we do at Ignite is engage with target audiences on behalf of brands, primarily through blog outreach. So when I heard that TwitterMoms has set out to create the first “social seal of approval” by engaging with moms – I got really excited and dove into learning about what it is and how it functions. In the following sections, I’ll relay an overview of how this new outreach opportunity works, as well as what I personally feel works about the program and what doesn’t work about the program (as it is now).
Overview
Twittermoms.com is an already established network of influential moms on Twitter, but now with their new “Seal of Approval” program, they are organizing moms within this network to collectively review a product based on a set of established criteria. Once the product has received a rating from this group, the overall scoring can be accessed by scanning a QR code on the product itself. So far, the first brand to use this feature has been the Quickie Microfiber Twist mop (although P&G has also jumped on board).
How does the “Seal of Approval” process work? You can read more on TwitterMom’s seal of approval , or read the bullet points below to understand how the process works from a brand perspective:
- Brands submit to TwitterMoms with their product to have reviewed
- Brand works with TwitterMom to define the evaluation guide (how the product will be tested/rated)
- This evaluation guide is given to a small panel of moms for initial feedback
- Evaluation guide is edited based on initial feedback
- TwitterMoms determines around 25 moms to review the product
- The evaluation guide is sent to participating moms via online survey
- If the survey exceeds expectations 85% of the time, it receives a “Seal of Approval”
- A QR code can be placed on the product, linking to a review page
What Works
- Reviews are structured: It is nice to see that the reviews conducted by these moms have consistency through a series of well thought-out tests. After performing each test, the mom performing the task ranks how well the product performed the action. This gives structure to the reviews and I think this makes these reviews more accurate in some cases by providing specific parameters on how the review is conducted.
- QR Code Reviews: The fact that this review could be accessed via a QR code on the packaging just makes me giddy. This is a movement to bring online closer with offline, and I think is what makes this whole program attractive to consumers and brands.
- High Res Images: The landing page created for the Quickie Microfiber mop also included high res images of the product. This is helpful content to provide for others who may be inspired to generate a review on their own blog.
What is Missing
- Transparency of Moms: One of the reasons I love reading blog reviews is I know the type of person reviewing the product. Generally, if I can identify with the person who reviewed the product, I’m more likely to make the purchase. Keeping the identities of the moms doing the reviews hidden actually detracts from the review itself from both the brand and consumer perspective. Sure, I can generally tell whether others think it is a credible product, but I don’t have the juicy commentary or tips that help me form a strong emotional connection to the product.
- Qualitative feedback: By keeping the scoring or qualitative feedback of the bloggers confidential – the real voice from the reviewers is lost in this model. As you can see from the screenshot to the right, the aggregate feedback is encapsulated by Twittermoms. Perhaps if the full qualitative feedback was provided in addition to this score, I’d trust the review more and also get a better feel for why the product received a particular score.
- Twitter: The TwitterMom’s seal of approval conveys to me that the actual reviews are going to be in 140 characters on Twitter. Instead, the participants are chosen because they have over 1,000 followers on Twitter, with the actual reviews happening through a web survey, and with the Twitter handles of the moms confidential. In my mind, this made understanding the program quickly quite difficult, and made me wonder if the moms participating in these reviews actually leverage their networks. On one hand, I feel as if the whole marketing benefit to brands is lost if they don’t. On the other hand, if they promote but never disclose they were provided the products – how would this be any different than blog reviews that don’t disclose this information?
- Scalability: Personally, I think the close connection with Twitter could limit the ability of this “Seal of Approval” system to reach the masses. As we see Facebook continue to grow, and as bloggers reach larger audiences – it becomes increasingly questionable why they are hanging their hat primarily on Twitter. However, in an overview of the program, they have used strong language specifically against blog reviews – calling most blog reviews “suspect.” This seems to indicate that future integration or adoption of other moms from other networks or platforms won’t likely be included in future plans. This is also likely to limit and skew the diversity of women reviewing the products, which would also limit the amount of brands involved or overall scalability of the program.
Despite these concerns, I do think this concept has a lot of potential. It is one of the first attempts to standardize and create criteria for reviews. It also attempts to bridge a closer connection to social reviews to the in-store purchase decision making moment.
What is your opinion? What changes would you make to the current program model? I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments below.
