Thought I’d share another finding about advocacy from our study with the Economist Intelligence Unit - Risky Business: Reputations Online. This research snippet is about where Badvocacy meets Web 2.0.
Although global executives identify major media as the most threatening to company reputation (84%), plenty of executives (42%) recognize the damage new media can impose. Blogs and discussion forums are the most feared with online videos, comments on social networking sites, Wikipedia entries, and online pictures compounding potential destruction. Considering that fast-rising Web 2.0 new media and social networking tools can literally rally advocates and badvocates overnight, more executives should be concerned about new media as a reputation killer. Here’s how each of these rank in terms of global executive fear:
While the blog is considered the king of Web 2.0 badvocacy risk now, it will be interesting to see how the other technologies evolve as badvocacy threats.
If you’re like me, you asked “Toto, are we still in Kansas?” last week when McKinsey published a study declaring that a new consumer decision journey has replaced the traditional purchase funnel. I honestly thought I was opening a McKinsey Quarterly e-mail from my Outlook archive and not 2009. OK, so that’s not exactly going back to the birth of technicolor. But the purchase funnel as we know it was detonated years ago by experts too many to list and that new phoenix, the dynamic consumer decision making journey, has risen from its ashes in more articles than I can count.
But I’m glad I looked twice. Not because the report provides yet another way to model what the consumer decision making journey looks like now in four stages (though I think it’s fair to say it’s a pretty good one). But because it includes what looks like some new research backing it up. Research that was conducted among 20,000 consumers on three different continents in several kinds of categories. OK, now you’ve got my attention.
One important finding from the report (perhaps more of a confirmation really) is the degree to which brand awareness continues to matter, and the role advertising and other company-controlled marketing and communications play in this regard. That’s because, according to the authors, brands in the “initial-consideration” set–the first stage of their consumer journey–can be up to three times more likely to be purchased eventually than brands that aren’t in it. That’s a big deal. Especially when you consider that media fragmentation and product proliferation mean that people consider fewer brands today. And they don’t miss to point that out.
Another is how the number of brands under consideration during their second phase of the consumer journey, what they call “active-evaluation,” may actually expand instead of narrow as consumers seek out advice and information. That’s not insignificant either as it means you can get beaten to the cash register if a competitor has its integrated marketing act together, and you are just relying on what used to work. Phase three, by the way, is “closure” or the moment of purchase, and phase four they call the “ongoing purchase experience,” where loyalty can take an active or passive form.
But the bigger deal, and it’s just my view, is how powerful the McKinsey report shows advocacy has become. It labels this “consumer-driven marketing” but best I can tell it includes the impact of what is traditionally thought of as influentials or opinion leaders or expert third-parties, too. What’s nice is that they go beyond the nostrum that the things a brand can’t control are increasingly more influential in how consumers make purchase decisions and actually measure the degree to which advocacy and other groups of touch points– including a consumer’s own experience, what happens in-store and company-controlled communications like advertising and direct marketing–are effective at each stage of the journey.
Now, it wouldn’t be very sporting to divulge McKinsey’s numbers here (and a full subscription to the MQ can easily be had). What can be said is that their research ranks advocacy as the #1 or #2 most influential group of touch points in 2 out of the 3 phases of consumer decision-making they provide numbers for (note: they don’t provide them for the fourth phase). Of note, advocacy is the dominant influence during the active-evaluation second phase.
It would have been nice if the report had also provided data on the fourth phase of the consumer journey, where the loyalty loop occurs. But such a strong body of research on loyalty, such as the Net Promoter Score, already exists that it’s not such a shortcoming. We already know how powerful the loyalty loop is. So taken together, we now have a much fuller and robust picture of just how “over the rainbow” effective advocacy has become. Not just at a single stage of the consumer decision making journey. But throughout the entire dynamic cycle, and particularly in all the phases after initial consideration. Thanks to the new research from the wizards from McKinsey, that’s now much less a bunch of Oz.
They just buried the lead, that’s all. Nobody’s perfect. Or at least so I’ve seen in the movies…
One of the more interesting facts about advocates is that they are likely to wear their cause on their sleeve….or should I say on their Tshirts, wrists or bodies somewhere. We asked this question in our research and although there were so many compelling learnings about what advocates do and say, the wearing of clothes to telegraph one’s advocacy is more compelling than ever as we watch the events in Iran unfold. Citzens of Iran wear green wristbands to show their support for opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi. They wear green headbands and scarfs. Advocacy carries deeper meaning as we watch people in Iran rise up and protest their rights.
Tags: Advocacy, advocates, green, wristbands
If you’ve been following this blog you know that we at Weber Shandwick firmly believe in the “return on advocacy.” Simply, it’s the business benefits of finding and connecting with your advocates. Now maybe it’s time to kick off the “return on BADVOCACY.” Can there be such a thing? Afterall, our own study, Risky Business: Reputations Online™ clearly identified the fear instilled in global executives by customer and employee badvocates.
Employee badvocates are a big concern: executives ranked employee criticism (41%) in a tie for first place with leaked confidential information as the greatest online risk to their own company’s reputation. As employees wrestle with declining pensions and possible layoffs, reputation bandits will be even harder at work online.
The Internet provides innumerable platforms for employees to strike, usually anonymously, at a company’s reputation. However, rather than being immobilized with fear about the potential for such strikes, Nokia, as noted in an article in this week’s BusinessWeek, is embracing employee badvocacy. They are allowing their employees to rant anonymously on an intranet soapbox called BlogHub. “Workers can be savage as they flame thier employer…Nokia managers want them to fire away.” Nokia believes that innovation is accelerated by encouraging employees to say what is on their minds. I would surmise that the other benefit is that by allowing employees to release their frustrations in a “safe” environment, they won’t be tempted to go outside Nokia’s four walls and vent.
It will be interesting to see if Nokia sees a Return on Badvocacy as it struggles in a tough economy with strong competitors. In the meantime, we’ll keep on eye out for other examples of turning badvocacy into a positive return.
Tags: Badvocacy, Badvocate, BusinessWeek, Nokia, Weber Shandwick
We’ve been looking deeper into the differences between male and female advocates from our research on Advocacy. We will continue to report on some of these findings on this blog. One that recently caught our attention could easily be titled, “Company actions speak louder to women than to men.” As seen below, female advocates are significantly more likely than male advocates to recommend something to others if they feel engaged and hear about actions that signify a company’s behavior of responsibility or character. A company’s philanthropy, cause-related behavior or environmental actions matters more to women than men. Companies that want to attract the support of women should amplify their corporate responsibility activities and do what they can to articulate the company behind the brand. Advocacy is all about finding your passionate supporters and arming them with what matters to them. Women advocates want the details before they commit their advocacy.
| |
Men
|
Women
|
|
What motivates a recommendation to others…
|
%
|
%
|
|
Personal experience with a brand or product
|
71
|
78
|
|
What the company behind the brand or product does to protect the environment
|
23
|
37
|
|
Whether the company behind the brand or product contributes to causes I care about
|
17
|
29
|
|
Whether the profits from a brand or product benefit a cause I care about
|
18
|
27
|
|
Motivated to support an issue/cause by charities that benefit community
|
34
|
41
|
Tags: charitable causes, company behind the brand, engagement, environment, Female advocates, Male advocates, purchase decision-making
June 2 was a proud day for badvocates - they had finally been affirmed as a group when MarketingProf’s selected Weber Shandwick’s “Badvocate” as The Marketers Addictionary’s Word of the Day. Weber Shandwick was congratulated for our talent on word play. The Badvocacy terminology was created when we developed our Advocacy Starts Here thought leadership initiative. The word of the day is a pretty cool site - you should check it out and add your own if you have a creative word to share.
Great article (A Stress Test for Good Intentions) about company CR or CSR (call it what you want!) commitments during these tough economic times. The big question that has been asked and written about over the past 12 to 18 months is what will happen to company’s sustainability and corporate responsibility initiatives? Will all the company advocates fade away? After all, the money spent on CR could come in handy when budgets are stripped.
My sense has been that companies have slowed down their CSR march but have not wiped the slate clean. The Economist article says that budgets have indeed been reduced but the mainstays of the programs are being kept. Additionally, cuts were mostly made to corporate philanthropy budgets. For example, they cite Citigroup’s charitable foundation which went from making $90m in grants last year to $63m this year. The article says that bankers “argue that scrapping such activities altogether would be extremely damaging to their reputations and profits—or, at least, what’s left of them.” Corporate advocacy for CR programs clearly remains strong and that’s good news. When the ashes are all cleared, we will be able to see who the true CR advocates are and I believe there will be plenty still standing. CSR is embedded in company strategy and values these days.
Another reason that CR will continue to be on CEO agendas is that consumers find corporate responsibility important and akin to their values and purchase decision-making. Plus no one should overlook a company’s CSR activities as a talent magnet for the best and brightest.
The Economist wraps up its piece on Corporate CR advocacy with the following insightful commentary:
“There is one other important reason for thinking that companies will maintain their commitments to sustainability through the downturn and beyond: the need to restore confidence in business. The financial crisis was triggered by a bout of corporate social irresponsibility on a massive scale that has tarnished the reputations of even the bluest of blue-chip companies. Now corporate leaders have a chance to show that they are not just motivated by short-termism after all.”
Tags: Advocacy, Citigroup, corporate responsibility, CR, CSR, Economist, reputation
How often can a senior executive say his or her biggest ally in the company is the CEO? Well, frankly, I don’t know what the average senior executive says, but I do know that the chief communications officer (CCO) can proudly make the claim.
We conducted our second annual study among CCOs at the world’s largest companies with Spencer Stuart and KRC Research - The Rising CCO II - and found that the CCO’s #1 organizational ally in both North America and Europe is the CEO. Investor Relations is a distant #2 (a predictable ranking given how closely corp comms and IR have had to work together in the tough economic climate).
Our survey asked about top organizational allies and rivals (respondents could choose just one department for each). As communications professionals, we were quite relieved that only 1 person in our sample said his or her biggest rival is the CEO. Worldwide, Marketing is the CCO’s stickiest thorn (as we saw last year) but in North America Human Resources is nearly tied with Marketing.
Why the admiration from the corner office? As our study partner George Jamison, who leads Spencer Stuart’s Corporate Communications and Investor Relations Practice, says, “When many organizations endure critical times, CEOs are increasingly looking to the CCO for their strategic crisis communications and ability to quickly react to a variety of scenarios.”
And Weber Shandwick’s Chief Reputation Strategist Leslie Gaines-Ross adds: “CEOs and boards are under tremendous pressure to navigate through the stormy seas of the current economic tsunami. Like never before, CEOs are depending on CCOs for crisis and issues counsel to steady their company reputations and calm stakeholders. CEOs who do not communicate using traditional and social media do so at their own peril.”
We’ll see when we do the same study next year if the love continues to flourish. But for now, if you’re going to have an advocate in your company, may it be the CEO!
Big shout out to Chris Brogan, Justin Levy and all the folks here at Inbound Marketing Summit in Dallas. Just finished my presentation on how Advocacy and Badvocacy are impacting marketing, and the various apple carts that are being upset in the process. For those who can’t make it, you can watch the proceedings live here or join us at the Boston event late September. Here’s my deck, BTW — would love your feedback…
IMS09 Dallas: Advocacy, Badvocacy & Upsetting Apple Carts
Imagine my delight when I picked up Friday’s Wall Street Journal and on the front page was an article about people going after those unwarranted auto-warranty calls. The calls go like this, “This is the second notice that the factory warranty on your vehicle is about to expire.” I regularly receive these calls on my cell phone and I eventually became so annoyed that I called them back a few times. However, the company only had voice mail and I could not reach anyone. I left a voice mail telling them to take me off their list and please not to call me again. Of course they did. The reason I had reached my limit and turned into a “badvocate” was that I received one of those calls while in Beijing last summer. The call came in the middle of the night and I thought that something terrible had happened at home. After the infuriating call, I had trouble falling back asleep and my jet lag was prolonged.
The article described how an individual began an Internet crusade by leaving music recordings on the company’s voicemail and how an entire posse of angry badvocates or are they rightful advocates? soon overloaded the phone lines at the company in question. Eventually the online mob took down the company’s voice mail system and it started to get too personal. Some people stalked outside the owner’s home (who said his company was not involved) and wanted to take pictures of employees leaving the premises. Although I did not join this online swarm attack with elevator music, songs and rants, I understood how ordinary citizens might want to retaliate. What could be worse than an online army of enraged advocates turned badvocates.
Tags: advocates, Badvocates, Mob, Online, Swarm
