I was wondering what was taking so long. This week a group of brokers and traders started their own advocacy group to stick up for Wall Street. The nonpartisan group can be found at restorewallstreet.com. The CEO of John Thomas Financial, a fairly new investment house, is the head advocate of this rallying cry. At this week’s first meeting, CEO Thomas Belesis said that he formed the group to counter “the repeating, relentless attacks on Wall Street.”The tag line under Restore Wall Street on the web site is “putting the pride back into Wall Street.” This is a group to watch, just as the Tea-Baggers were months ago.I think that Wall Streeters have had enough of the name-calling and are smartly adopting similar counter-insurgency tactics as their critics. Stay tuned.
As this blog has addressed many times before, there are many ways people demonstrate their advocacy for a company or brand. They talk or act on its behalf and actively spread word of mouth. They may wear their causes on their clothes and discuss them in social networks. They might carry branded products. They will pay a premium price for brands they support. In doing so, these advocates can have a significant impact on a business’ success (or failure if the business does something to damage its advocates’ trust).
Consumers aren’t the only ones with the ability to influence company success. Employees have increasing influence (see my first post on The Employee Advocate) and more opportunities to advocate for their employers. They often set up fan or group pages on Facebook for example. Of growing importance is their ability to “vote” their companies onto acclaimed “best employers” lists. These lists, awards and rankings not only help to recruit more great talent but signify to the world that the company values employees and in turn the valued and proud employees work harder for their customers. A client once told us that her company’s salesforce uses these honors as a sales tool because their customers want to do business with a company that treats its employees well. Happy employees, happy customers.
As close observers of these rankings (Weber Shandwick’s SCOREBOXX™ database includes approximately 900 awards of all kinds, roughly 100 of which recognize companies for its employee satisfaction and/or training and development), we’re seeing the popularity of these rankings growing. Most glaring has been an increase, particularly in the past year, in the number of our clients who want to understand how their strengths can be recognized by their industry, talent prospects and other stakeholders through unbiased third party recognition. Aside from that anecdote, here are just a few facts…
A Google search of “best companies to work for” generates 661,000 results for the 2009 time period, compared with 190,000 in 2007 and 309,000 in 2008. That’s a stunning 248% increase of the topic’s online visibility.
50% of chief communications officers at North American Fortune 500 companies told us in our annual The Rising CCO study that awards and recognition are an important way their company leadership measures communications effectiveness.
CNBC dedicated a five-minute segment to this week’s release of the the Fortune Best Companies to Work For list. Perhaps one of the most well known of the best employer rankings, this list uses a rigorous method to identify the best place to work in the U.S. with employee ratings accounting for most of the score.
Glassdoor.com’s annual Employees’ Choice Awards of the 50 Best Places to Work included reviews of 11,000 companies among nearly 75,000 employees in 2008 and 37,000 companies among nearly 100,000 employees in 2009.
Based on facts like those above, and by the growing demand from clients to better understand and leverage these lists, we think that ‘best employer’ awards will take on more significance for promoting and rewarding good corporate cultures. Companies with less than stellar environments may be pressured to listen much more closely to employee opinions.
The outpouring of help for Haiti is a prime example of Advocacy in action. All eyes are on the devastation and the many forms of relief being sent to the victims reminds us of what people (Advocates) can do when the chips are very down. Of course, it has to get into the hands of the Haitians quickly. As a resident of Brooklyn where 61,000 Haitians live, nearly everyone feels like they know someone whose family has been hit by this tragedy.
The amount of money raised through texting is encouraging and makes Americans proud of their generosity–over $10 million has been raised in the U.S. alone. Here are the many ways to help via texting (from the Washington Post) :
*Text HAITI to 90999 to donate $10 to the American Red Cross
* Text HAITI to 25383 to donate $5 to International Rescue Committee
* Text HAITI to 45678 to donate $5 to the Salvation Army in Canada
* Text YELE to 501501 to donation $5 to Yele
* Text HAITI to 864833 to donate $5 to The United Way
* Text DISASTER to 90999 to donate $10 to Compassion International
* Text HAITI to 90999 to donate $10 to the American Red Cross
* Text RELIEF to 30644 to get automatically connected to Catholic Relief Services and donate money with your credit card
* Text HAITI to 25383 to donate $5 to International Rescue Committee
*Text HAITI to 45678 to donate $5 to the Salvation Army in Canada
* Text CERF to 90999 to donate $5 to The United Nations Foundation
*Text YELE to 501501 to donation $5 to YeleText RELIEF to 30644 to get automatically connected to Catholic Relief Services and donate money with your credit card
*Text HAITI to 864833 to donate $5 to The United WayText CERF to 90999 to donate $5 to The United Nations Foundation
*Text DISASTER to 90999 to donate $10 to Compassion International
Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, and Andrea Weckerle, founder and president of CiviliNation, wrote this oped for the WSJ at the very end of December. I took some time off from blogging over the holidays (sanity check!) but saved this for my next blog post. It is the perfect coda to 2009 where incivility online and “badvocacy” seemed to explode exponentially, particulary as politics heated up. CiviliNation is a global non-profit education and research organization based on advancing how individuals communicate and engage online in a responsible and accountable way. This is an important advocacy group that deserves all of our attention and support. The oped is a call to action for many of us who advocate for fairness in conversations online and preserving reputations. Wanted to share with our followers.
Keep a Civil Cybertongue
Rude and abusive online behavior should not be met with silence.
by Jimmy Wales and Andrea Weckerle
In less than 20 years, the World Wide Web has irrevocably expanded the number of ways we connect and communicate with others. This radical transformation has been almost universally praised.
What hasn’t kept pace with the technical innovation is the recognition that people need to engage in civil dialogue. What we see regularly on social networking sites, blogs and other online forums is behavior that ranges from the carelessly rude to the intentionally abusive.
Flare-ups occur on social networking sites because of the ease by which thoughts can be shared through the simple press of a button. Ordinary people, celebrities, members of the media and even legal professionals have shown insufficient restraint before clicking send. There is no shortage of examples—from the recent Twitter heckling at a Web 2.0 Expo in New York, to a Facebook poll asking whether President Obama should be killed.
The comments sections of online gossip sites, as well as some national media outlets, often reflect semi-literate, vitriolic remarks that appear to serve no purpose besides disparaging their intended target. Some sites exist solely as a place for mean-spirited individuals to congregate and spew their venomous verbiage.
Online hostility targeting adults is vastly underreported. The reasons victims fail to come forward include the belief that online hostility is an unavoidable and even acceptable mode of behavior; the pervasive notion that hostile online speech is a tolerable form of free expression; the perceived social stigma of speaking out against attacks; and the absence of readily available support infrastructure to assist victims.
The problem of online hostility, in short, shows no sign of abating on its own. Establishing cybercivility will take a concerted effort. We can start by taking the following steps:
First, and most importantly, we need to create an online culture in which every person can participate in an open and rational exchange of ideas and information without fear of being the target of unwarranted abuse, harassment or lies. Everyone who is online should have a sense of accountability and responsibility.
Too frequently, we hear the argument that being online includes the right to be nasty—and that those who chose to participate on the Web should develop thicker skin. This gives transgressors an out for immoral behavior.
Just as we’ve learned what is deemed appropriate face-to-face communication, we need to learn what is appropriate behavior in an environment that frequently deals with purely written modes of communication and an inherent absence of nonverbal cues.
Second, individuals appalled at the degeneration of online civility need to speak out, to show that this type of behavior will no longer be tolerated. Targets of online hostility should also consider coming forward to show that attacks can have serious consequences. There are already several documented cases of teens taking their own lives because of cyberbullying.
A third step has to do with media literacy. People need to know how to differentiate between information that is published on legitimate sites that follow defined standards and also possibly a professional code of ethics, and information published in places like gossip sites whose only goal is to post the most outrageous headlines and stories in order to increase traffic. People can and will learn to shun and avoid such sites over time, particularly with education about why they are unethical.
Fourth, adult targets of online hostility deserve a national support network. This should be a safe place where they can congregate online to receive emotional support, practical advice on how to deal with transgressors, and information on whom to contact for legal advice when appropriate.
Finally, it’s time to re-examine the current legal system. Online hostility is cross-jurisdictional. We might need laws that directly address this challenge. There is currently no uniformity of definition among states in the definition of cyberbullying and cyberharassment. Perhaps federal input is needed.
The Internet is bringing about a revolution in human knowledge and communication, and we have an unprecedented opportunity to make the global conversation more reasonable and productive. But we can only do so if we prevent the worst among us from silencing the best among us with hostility and incivility.
I’ve been monitoring the coverage of our Good Book of Badvocacy since we released it last May. We didn’t do a press release for it – just put it on the Weber Shandwick Web site, shared it with clients and the Weber Shandwick network, and discussed it in events and social media forums (including, of course, this blog). Needless to say, we’re more than pleased that a book about the power of word-of-mouth has made its way around purely on the power of word-of-mouth. In fact, as Leslie Gaines-Ross blogged, the Book was presented in an IT meeting at a company that is not in anyway affiliated with Weber Shandwick. The review was glowing. One of the meeting attendees was my husband so you can imagine his surprise when the book appeared (in case you’re wondering, he had not discussed it at work nor does he carry it around with him but I think he should).
And who can forget when “badvocate” became Addictionary’s Word of the Day! Or when Forbes.com interviewed Jack Leslie, chairman of Weber Shandwick, about badvocacy. Certainly I don’t want to overlook the many bloggers and Tweeters who kept the discussion rolling along. Many thanks to these folks for being badvote advocates:
True, the H1N1 influenza is now receding. True, it has not proven to be the population threatening pandemic strain the hyperventilating media made it out to be. True, that is, until we look at kids. Here the picture is different.
The swine flu hashad a tragic impact on the young.
Despite it being December, well past the prime of the flu season, the number of pediatric deaths due to H1N1 remains alarmingly high. According to the CDC, the total number of pediatric deaths since the end of August is 204; since the end of April, 267. There are usually less than 100 pediatric deaths from the seasonal flu every year.
Reports show that complications brought on from the swine flu are the major cause of these deaths among our youngest citizens, such as from pneumonia and staph. So while conditions like asthma and diabetes can certainly increase a child’s risk, it doesn’t take a pre-existing health condition for a kid to be vulnerable.
It’s with these unsettling stats in mind that I was further unsettled to read a recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine by Danielle Ofri, M.D., Ph.D. about why, at least from one physician’s standpoint, parents have been choosing not to follow the recommendations of the medical community to inoculate their children against H1N1.
As someone who looks at both advocacy and badvocacy, I found her description of the emotional epidemiology of H1N1, particularly of parents who say they “don’t do flu,” of great interest (my personal judgments and feelings about vaccination aside). It makes it clear just how badvocacy, not advocacy, is what can take root in a hyped-up health crisis. How, as she says, “suspicion has its own contagion.” And how unless there is an aggressive public health/public relations effort to counter it demand will not meet even the readiest supply of vaccine. And we wind up with the worst kind of results: too many sick kids and worse.
Below is the article for those who just want to read it here and now. We welcome your thoughts and comments about the public relations aspects of responding to H1N1. Please refrain from sharing views on what you think about vaccination or the H1N1 vaccine itself. Let’s just not go there.
Last spring, when 2009 H1N1 influenza first came to our attention,my patients were in a panic. Our clinic was flooded with callsand walk-in patients, all with the same question: “When willthere be a vaccine?”
It was all so new then, and we didn’t have an answer. That lackof answer seemed to fuel anxiety to a fever pitch. A substantialcohort of my patients continued calling, almost on a weeklybasis, to ask about the vaccine.
These, of course, were the same patients who routinely refusedthe seasonal flu vaccine. Each year we’d go through the samedrill: I’d offer them the flu shot. I’d explain the clinicalreasoning behind this recommendation. I’d strongly encouragevaccination.
“No, thanks,” they’d say. “The vaccine makes me sick.” Or “Mybrother had a bad reaction.” Or, simply, “I don’t do flu shots.”
The irony was painful. No matter how often I trotted out thestatistics of 30,000 to 40,000 annual deaths from influenza,the patients would not be moved. So when they demanded the H1N1vaccine last spring, I reminded them of their reluctance overthe seasonal flu shot. “Oh, that’s different,” they said.
Six months have passed. Flu season is now here. After repeateddelays, H1N1 vaccine finally arrived in our clinic earlier thismonth to the uniform relief of the medical staff. But my formerlydesperate patients were now leery. “It’s not tested,” they said.“Everyone knows there are problems with the vaccine.” “I’m notputting that in my body.”
I was unprepared for this response, but maybe I shouldn’t havebeen. For weeks now, in the schoolyard of my children’s elementaryschool, other parents had been sidling up to me, seemingly inneed of validation. “You’re not giving your kids that swineflu shot, are you?” they’d say, their tone nervous, if a bitderisive.
How to explain this dramatic shift in 6 short months? It certainlyisn’t related to logic or facts, since few new medical databecame available during this period. It seems to reflect a sortof psychological contagion of myth and suspicion.
Just as there are patterns of infection, there seem to be patternsof emotional reaction (”emotional epidemiology”) associatedwith new illnesses. When 2009 H1N1 influenza was first detected,it fit a classic pattern that Priscilla Wald recently outlinedin her book Contagious1: It was novel and mysterious; it emergedfrom a teeming third-world city, and it was now making its insidious— and seemingly unstoppable — way toward the “civilized”world.
This is the story line for most headline-grabbing illnesses— HIV, Ebola virus, SARS, typhoid. These diseases captureour imagination and ignite our fears in ways that more prosaicillnesses do not. These dramatic stakes lend themselves quitenaturally to thriller books and movies; Dustin Hoffman hasn’tstarred in any blockbusters about emphysema or dysentery.
When the inoculum of dramatic illness is first introduced intosociety, the public psyche rapidly becomes infected. Almostlike an IgE-mediated histamine release, there is an immediateflooding of fear, even if the illness — like Ebola —is infinitely less likely to cause death than, say, a run-inwith the Second Avenue bus. This immediate fear of the unknownwas what had all my patients demanding the as-yet-unproducedH1N1 vaccine last spring.
As the novel disease establishes itself within society, a certainamount of emotional tolerance is created. H1N1 infection waxedand waned over the summer, and my patients grew less anxious.There was, of course, no medical basis for this decreased vigilance.Unusual risk groups and atypical seasonality should, in fact,have raised concern. By late summer, the perceived mysteriousnessof H1N1 had receded, and the number of messages on my clinicphone followed suit.
But emotional epidemiology does not remain static. As autumnrolled around, I sensed a peeved expectation from my patientsthat this swine flu problem should have been solved already.The fact that it wasn’t “solved,” that the medical professionseemed somehow to be dithering, created an uneasy void. Notknowing whether to succumb to panic or to indifference, patientsinstead grew suspicious.
No amount of rational explanation — about the naturalvariety of influenza strains, about the simple issue of outbreaktiming that necessitated a separate H1N1 vaccine — couldallay this wariness.
Similarly, reassuring fellow parents that I was indeed vaccinatingmy own children did little to ease their apprehension. Whenthe New York City public school system offered free vaccinationsfor both students and families, there was an abysmally poorturnout. Less than one quarter of the consent forms sent homein kids’ backpacks were returned.
The dramatic shift in public sentiment over the course of thisH1N1 epidemic is both fascinating and frustrating. It is clearthat there is a distinct emotional epidemiology and that itbears only a faint connection to the actual disease epidemiologyof the virus.
We cannot combat H1N1 influenza merely by ensuring adequatesupplies of vaccine and oseltamivir. Unless the medical professionconfronts the emotional epidemiology of H1N1 with a full-courtpress, we run the risk of an uncontrollable epidemic.
There is no doubt that we are far behind the curve in termsof public relations. Our science has not been dithering at all,but our articulation of that science has often seemed that way,from the unfortunate initial appellation of swine flu to ourinability to clarify distinctions between vaccine-productionissues and clinical-risk issues. Suspicion has its own contagion,and we have not been aggressive enough in countering it.
Every practicing clinician is, to some degree, an armchair epidemiologist.We register patterns of disease as they play out among our patients.We are also keen detectives of emotional epidemiology, thoughwe often aren’t aware of this as such. Keeping tabs on the emotionalepidemiology as well as the disease epidemiology, and treatingboth with equal urgency, are the essential clinical tools forthis influenza season.
Thought we should point out that advocates are everywhere, including the Army (client). Take a look at what Army advocates are up to. They are putting some companies to shame. They have 61 soldiers blogging and answering questions about what life in the Army is really like. They provide a genuine window into the human side of the military. Instead of the old way of walking into a recruiting station to learn what the Army does, they are going where people are today….and that is online. Some of their lessons are worth noting if you want to build advocates for your company, organization or cause.
I pulled out an article from the Financial Times on Wednesday night before the Thanksgiving holiday in the U.S. It was about Room to Read, an organization I had recently heard about but which I really did not know much about. It was going to be my relaxing subway ride home reading and I was looking forward to it. I look forward to my reading about things that interest me as the subway winds it way to Brooklyn. Turns out that Room to Read is the FT’s seasonal appeal this year. Now I understand why. It is the story of an advocate extraordinaire. Here is what the article said about how it got started.
“Room to Read started out nearly 10 years ago with smaller ambitions. It all ?began with a trekking holiday to Nepal. A casual encounter with a school inspector led Mr Wood, then Microsoft’s head of business development for greater China, to a Himalayan school three strenuous hours up a mountain path. There he found a classroom so bereft of educational materials that the only books available – a few cast-offs from trekkers, including the absurdly inappropriate Finnegan’s Wake – were precious objects kept under lock and key.
It was there that the headmaster uttered a phrase that was to change Mr Wood’s life: “Perhaps, sir, you will some day come back with books.”
Back in Kathmandu, the Microsoft executive furiously dispatched e-mails to his friends, urging them to send him picture books. The following year, he returned to Nepal with eight donkeys bearing 37 boxes of children’s stories. He was so overwhelmed by the reception at Bahundanda school, where children decked him in marigold garlands, that he quit to devote himself to the cause of education.”
Literacy is a basic right and alters individuals and communities. The San Francisco-based charity builds and stocks libraries, constructs schools, offers scholarships for girls and publishes books in local languages. What could be a better advocacy appeal. As an avid reader, mother of girls, author and education advocate, I was moved and intend to contribute this season.
Fur is back this holiday season! “Furry” to be more precise. And of the electronic hamster persuasion no less. No, not the hamster-dancing-fools of Internet past. This time it’s personal. This time it’s pets. This time it’s the Zhu Zhu electronic pet hamsters.
While these super-lovable Wonder Pets can’t fly, there’s little that can be done to stop them rocketing off of retailers’ shelves right now. Or to keep their prices from reaching a dizzying $100 on eBay and Amazon. So move over Pyrus Dragonoid, Ventus Skyress and you so many Bakugan Brawlers. That’s boy’s play. There’s a new must-have gift A-team in town–four in all. Pipsqueek, Num Nums, Chunk, and (sorry Mr. T), the sensational Mr. Squiggles.
So just how did this overnight marketing phenomenon happen? A big helping hand from some ground up, influential seeding and grassroots marketing, as reported by Beth Snyder Bulik in Advertising Age today. In plain english: word-of-mouth advocacy.
Tune in next week when we ask Philip K. Dick “Do Zhu Zhu’s Dream of Electronic Sheep?” The lucky reader who nails that reference might even get their very own Mr. Squiggles, that is if there are left to be had!
As if “High School Musical” wasn’t enough. Yes, as if?!? With this weekend’s record shattering box office gross of New Moon, the sequel in the unstoppable Twilight series, the world has been introduced to what Simon Dumenco of AdWeek called the “billion dollar Twilight economy.” Perhaps this, and the fandemonium you see below in the offline world for YouTube teen-music sensation Justin Bieber, is the stimulus we’ve all been waiting for?
All About Advocacy is a blog written by and for people who believe in the accelerating power of Advocates in society today.
Contributors include a wide range of Weber Shandwick Advocates (plus any other Advocacy fans like yourself) who share their unique perspectives about this new shift in communications.
We encourage comments from our readers! That’s what advocacy is all about!
For further information about this blog go to the About page. For author biogs please go to the Contributing Advocates page.
Disclaimer
Everything posted in this blog represents personal opinion of the individual authors. It does not necessarily represent the views of Weber Shandwick or its clients.
I was wondering what was taking so long. This week a group of brokers and traders started their own advocacy group to stick up for Wall Street. The nonpartisan group can be found at restorewallstreet.com. The CEO of John Thomas Financial, a fairly new investment house, is the head advocate of this rallying cry. At this week’s first meeting, CEO Thomas Belesis said that he formed the group to counter “the repeating, relentless attacks on Wall Street.” The tag line under Restore Wall Street on the web site is “putting the pride back into Wall Street.” This is a group to watch, just as the Tea-Baggers were months ago. I think that Wall Streeters have had enough of the name-calling and are smartly adopting similar counter-insurgency tactics as their critics. Stay tuned.
The outpouring of help for Haiti is a prime example of Advocacy in action. All eyes are on the devastation and the many forms of relief being sent to the victims reminds us of what people (Advocates) can do when the chips are very down. Of course, it has to get into the hands of the Haitians quickly. As a resident of Brooklyn where 61,000 Haitians live, nearly everyone feels like they know someone whose family has been hit by this tragedy.
Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, and Andrea Weckerle, founder and president of 
I pulled out an article from the 
