Forbes reports that MySpace feted marketing and PR types after the release of new data that suggests that marketing dollars spend on MySpace go far. *Really* far. All because of the power of word of mouth.

Wheeee.

Super low acquisition costs are being tossed around, with Electronic Arts used as a model — something in the range of 0.30-0.40 cents per customer, because although they actually spent over a dollar per customer, all of those individuals told their *friends*, some of whom now expressed a desire to purchase said game. If their numbers are to believed, almost four times as many “friends” who were never exposed to the advertising now wanted to buy said game, thanks, we presume to word of mouth buzz.

Sounds good, but I have a few questions / issues.

1. The study was produced *by* MySpace: So of course its going to be a positive study, with great results. We should all take it with a grain of salt (as I know you all are already doing).

2. We need independent confirmation of these results: Can the results be replicated if it was tracked and followed by an independent firm on MySpace? Would MySpace ever allow marketing firms this level of access to create their own set of metrics?

3. Operationability of tracking users? How are these users tracked? How do we know that there was a direct connection between individuals exposed to advertising to individuals who weren’t (but still wanted to buy?)

4. Potential customers does not equal actual customers: You cannot talk about return on investment with *potential* customers. You have to follow them all the way to check out, and even then, a great study would follow up on purchases to see how many returned the game. Customers with an intent to purchase might be different in their ability to complete a sale with respect to direct advertising and word of mouth. Would those directly exposed to ads be more likely to purchase? Or would those who were getting “buzzed”? (If you could in fact prove that they were the recipient of said buzz)

I think it makes a great deal of intuitive sense that word of mouth marketing ought to work. It ought to have lower acquisition costs. Its message should spread, and it should spread quickly. And in environments of highly networked individuals, its an attractive thought that word of mouth marketing is an idea whose time has come.

But am I the only person who is wondering about this particular study — funded and commissioned *by* MySpace *about* marketing in MySpace?