Remember References
References. They’re not just something your 5th grade teacher required in your report about snails. References show respect of other people’s intellectual property. And, in an age when anyone can publish, they’re a CRITICAL sign of online credibility. Customers have to believe your claims are true before they will act. What’s more, references associate your brand with other influential brands.
So, I’m fed up with big companies forgetting references. Take this gem from the content marketing of a health service from a large consumer health company.
Much of this text is copied or paraphrased from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, specifically the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. How do I know? Because I published the original back in my webmaster days at CDC. (Insert age joke here.) While this content is free for anyone to use, it’s a little shady to use someone else’s content without disclosing the source. If a customer can’t trust you to communicate, why should a customer trust that your product or service will work?
Just as important, failing to cite CDC misses a mega opportunity to influence customers. In this case, the customers are seniors and their adult children. These people know how to do their research. CDC is an internationally respected scientific research organization and the most trusted government agency in the U.S. Not citing CDC to customers who do sophisticated research is like leaving money on the table.
References are an easy win-win for businesses and customers. Remember them.
You also spread good Google karma when you link to others with relevant content.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by BrainTraffic, Rahel Anne Bailie and Colleen Jones, Roxanne Landon. Roxanne Landon said: RT @BrainTraffic: Remember, you gotta reference sources.Why? Because @leenjones says so. http://tinyurl.com/yb8p63w [...]
Colleen, your arguments for citing a source are solid and compelling. But I’m going to play the devil’s advocate and try to go inside the head of the marketer who made the decision not to cite.
In the market you took the example text from, the customers are often buying the \fall alert\ service for their parents (living elsewhere) and not for themselves. So the customers don’t necessarily have to believe all of the marketer’s claims before they act (especially since the CDC findings say nothing about the effectiveness of the marketer’s own product); customers simply have to believe that they are doing the right thing in a situation where they are already feeling a bit guilty (for inadequately caring for their parents).
How to create that belief? Provide evidence that using the fall alert service will probably save the parent’s life. Or–if the company doesn’t have such evidence–insert a claim that sounds like evidence into a text that is full of other clear statements of fact, in the hope that the credibility of the latter statements will just \rub off\ on the weak statement.
Specifically, if the marketer had cited the CDC as the source for the above research findings, then the marketer would have needed to indicate that the sentence \Lifeline can intervene in close to 80% of all calls\ was not attributable to the CDC. That would create a problem, because casting attention on that lone unsupported sentence would create ‘unnecessary doubts\ in the buyer–doubts that even the buyer may not wish to have. The sentence’s cautious words \can\ and \close to\ suggest that, if the elderly person falling fails to contact the service, the % of intervention could fall to 0%. Looks to me like the marketer is trying to avoid making a health claim that could be challenged by the FTC.
Blame the marketer for failing to substantiate the one weak sentence? Well, yes. But, as I understand it, trying to make stronger health claims that the FTC would accept can be very challenging, so even large reputable firms end up in situations where they, like classic propagandists, mix solid and not-so-solid claims together.
In the end, the business question is, for this particular company: which presentation of the content generates more long-term profits? Not mentioning the CDC so as to fold a weak effectiveness claim in more smoothly, may or may not generate more profits. We can predict an answer based on experience or test-and-learn research on the target audience, but I’m not sure that the general rule–that it’s good to cite one’s sources–can always provide the answer.
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by BrainTraffic: Remember, you gotta reference sources.Why? Because @leenjones says so. http://tinyurl.com/yb8p63w...
Hi Chris!
Interesting points. A few points to clarify…
1. Do marketers consciously decide not to cite?
In my experience, citing is often an afterthought or not a thought at all, rather than a conscious decision. The pharmaceutical / health / medical industries do have a lot of legal restrictions, but that’s around reporting their own research and going through extensive procedures to make claims of effectiveness.
2. Is this article claiming the product solves the problem?
No, it’s establishing that a problem or need exists. It’s not making claims about the product effectiveness in addressing the problem or need. As content marketing grows, articles like this will become more common. So, marketers better get a handle on references!
3. If there is a perceived risk in citing, what should a marketer do?
Explore adding a disclaimer about the relationship of the product to the cited source. If that isn’t possible, then don’t include the content at all.
I don’t see any reason for marketers (or anyone who creates content) to claim statistics or copy intellectual property and not cite the sources. So, if you can’t cite the content due to a perceived risk, you need to not use the content. I see no exceptions to that, even in marketing. The risk of damaging your brand’s credibility seems as bad–if not worse–as any legal or other risk. So, just avoid the risk altogether.