Archive for January, 2008
For those who spend any part of their day thinking about the flip side of advocacy: badvocacy (i.e., when people detract against brands, issues or causes), or just enjoy deep thoughts (though not the Jack Handey kind from SNL-days-gone-by)… then you’ll want to read this bigger picture article in today’s New York Times when you get a chance. How this is related to the Wife-Carrying World Championships in Sonkajarvi, Finland (pictured above) I’ll get to in a minute. But I realize I’ve possibly set the bar too high on this one…
“Economists Dissect The ‘Yuck’ Factor” is about how repugnance–at least, how our national culture and the times we live in define what is and what isn’t perceived to be repugnant, how it’s different by country, and how it changes over time–affects decisions about what can be bought and sold. Take a minute to read it if your first reaction is huh?
In plain English the article is about moral outrage and the trade-offs people are willing, or unwilling as the case may be, to make. The PR corollary is the snowballing backlash that’s fueled when something crosses the line. It can be quotidian, such as a YouTube video of a cable technician asleep on a customer’s couch from having tried to get through to headquarters. It can be nationalistic, such as the refusal to serve “French” fries in the Congressional dining room. It can be life-and-death, when a disastrous accident occurs for a company and loved ones don’t get the information they need. Whatever form it takes, the resulting badvocacy from moral outrage moves fast, far and wide. Reputation recovery is often a steep uphill climb.
At a time when companies are increasingly “putting their values out there” by making how they behave, not just what they do, a more public part of how they communicate and compete, the article is a timely reminder. Values are not necessarily universal and are subject to change over time with public sentiment, depending on which way the pendulum swings. We’re entering new territory here — a very positive development in my view but bringing with it new uncertainties too. This makes Leslie Gaines Ross’ new book 12 Steps to Safeguarding and Recovering Reputation a must read.
So where does that leave us with respect to the sport of Wife Carrying? Repugnant or righteous? Yessiree or yuck? On this score, I’m happy to put my own values out there: for me neither the reward nor the quest. In my household anyway, the economics are clearcut.
Congratulations to the editors of PR News for their new blog. Diane and Courtney share some refreshing perspectives and blunt commentary about things that are happening in the PR industry — something we need much more of in the industry.
In particular, Courtney’s post about the recent CMO Leadership Forum in NYC was spot on. After several hours of hearing speakers talk about PR-related topics like social media, customer advocacy, thought leadership, word of mouth, measurement and other initiatives — but never once mentioning “PR” in their comments — Courtney spoke up and challenged them on it. Which is *exactly* what we as a PR industry need to be doing on a regular basis. Thanks, Courtney, for “representin’”!
As an advocate for advocacy, one of the most shocking things I saw last year was Sprint’s announcement that it was going to “fire” about 1000 customers for being too high maintenance. Now, granted, some customers are unprofitable and some might complain too much. But a mass firing? Of vocal complainers? Who are already frustrated with Sprint’s service?
Yeah, this one’s obvious. And not surprisingly, six months later, the “price of badvocacy” became very clear and very tangible via an unplanned announcement Sprint Nextel had to make Friday. The bottom line: Sprint Nextel lost 885,000 customers during the quarter — and now has to lay off 4,000 staff, cut a bunch of contractors, close 125 retail locations and eliminate 4,000 third-party distribution points.
Of course, Sprint’s bad performance isn’t entirely attributable to bone-headed customer service decisions. But I’m sure every Sprint employee must be wondering: Will the brainiacs who fired those 1,000 customers now be on the firing line themselves?
[Disclosure: Weber Shandwick represents Verizon Wireless. I don't work on the account, and I share this not to attack Sprint, but to remind other companies of the "price of badvocacy" as they make their own daily business decisions.]
For C-level executives, what better way is there to advocate your company, product or issue than at highly acclaimed business conferences attended by the people you want to impress the most: your competitors, vendors, customers and targeted talent pool?
Apparently, a growing number of the world’s most elite C-level execs find the conference circuit a worthwhile advocacy platform. Reflecting the trend, the number of events available for such opportunities is multiplying.
We just issued the results of an analysis of speaking engagements at top-tier, or “Five-Star,” events among CEOs, CFOs, CMOs and CTO/CIOs from companies appearing on Fortune’s top 50 World’s Most Admired Companies list (”All-Stars”). Here are the big findings…
*The number of Five-Star events increased 50% from 2005 to 2007 indicating the rising popularity of executive conferences.
*All-Star CEO speakers at Five-Sar events increased 35% from 2005 to 2007. In all, more than four-in-ten (43%) have spoken at these events in the past three years.
*C-team executives (CFOs, CMOs, CTO/CIOs) have increased their visibility at these events. In 2005, only 4% of them spoke at these important conferences while in 2007, 25% of them spoke - a five-fold increase.
Companies are certainly leveraging the major forums as advocacy podiums. More will likely join the wave, as business leaders realize that advocacy is a strategic force of influence.
It’s always interesting to see what happens when new media and old media collide, intermingle and morph — sometimes all at the same time. Two stories today reminded me that the typically binary view of “new” versus “old” is completely off the mark.
Case in point #1: Some “old media” vets from the Charlie Rose show have launched a new video-driven “new media” site called Big Think – funded in part by “old academia” guy Lawrence Summers from Harvard and tech/web pioneer Peter Thiel (disclosure: Peter’s a former client and Stanford student journalist colleague of mine). The site uses an interviewing technique created by “old media” documentary maker Errol Morris, and brings the thinking of “opinion leader” types from places like Davos and TED into the public arena. Definitely not your vanilla consumer-generated YouTube videos — but nothing like “60 Minutes” either.
Case in point #2: Ad Age has a new video interview segment hosted by their EIC Rance Crain, and the first interview is with the outgoing chairman of Newsweek Rick Smith. Smith talks a lot about the evolution of Newsweek’s digital properties and the blending of extensive video coverage with a traditional print outlet. Sounds “new media” for a moment. Then he sounds decidedly “old media,” lamenting how reporting is less valued, that the “exclusive” only has a half-life of seven minutes, and is followed by a “gusher of opinion” on cable, Internet — concluding that “talk is cheap” and “opinion is cheap.”
So, who’s old and who’s new? I would certainly argue that a notion like “opinion is cheap” is old school thinking, and a dangerous one for today’s media and marketers, but I would also contend that quality reporting is more important than ever. Does that mean people like Smith and the Big Think founders are old school, new school or a little bit of both? I’m not sure it really matters — as long as they keep listening, engaging and evolving, I think they’ll be all right.
Weber Shandwick made an important announcement last week. The appointment of Leo Rayman from the adv agency DDB as European Head of Planning. Leo sent me a book over Xmas - Pollitt on Planning.
Stanley Pollitt is considered by some to be the father of modern day advertising account planning. I believe his story holds important lessons for the PR industry.
Stanley introduced the role of “strategic planner” to the ad industry as “someone who would decide when research would be done and what information was relevant to the creative development process and would remain independent of the pressures of the client and the creative directors”. Fundamentally Stanley saw the role of the strategic planner as the data literate consumer champion who would ensure that the agencies output was always kept on track.
The PR industry has transformed itself in recent years, by putting measurement at the heart of its agenda. Today insight is increasingly being adopted as the new agenda as clients provide increasingly complex challenges that require much deeper insights into the influences behind today’s customer behaviours. As a result we are commissioning research reports, buying into new consumer panels and uncovering new streams of data in a way that never happened before. And this of course is the issue. Does a fantastic publicity person also have the necessary skills to sift through all of this data and identify what is relevant or not? Can a creative guru always separate dreams from reality? Can the slick account man say no?
Historically the PR industry hasn’t divided its roles in the same way as the ad industry. But, as clients see the growing importance of advocacy within their marketing mix and recognise that PR is best equipped to deliver against their needs, things are changing. Every agency man knows that clients buy on trust and for the PR industry that trust is coming from demonstrating, consistently it’s ability to navigate client brands through an increasingly complex and cluttered world. It’s an exciting time for the industry and an exciting time for my company. Welcome on-board Leo!
Since the presidential election has underscored new trends and shifts in public engagement, advocacy seems top of mind. Many of the advocates for the Democratic and Republican candidates came out in force to cast their vote (so to speak) in Iowa and New Hampshire. Not surprising to us, high intensity advocates (see our research, New Wave of Advocacy) are more likely to be influenced by political parties than low intensity advocates or non-advocates (39% vs. 24% vs. 11%, respectively). These hyper-advocates are engaged whether it’s an issue, cause, brand or political candidate. They are passionate and driven and intent on making a difference in a wide variety of spheres. Even the low intensity advocates have some mojo as my colleague Josh Gilbert says. The non-advocates need to get movin’ and get engaged.
A January 6th New York Times op-ed from Mark Mellman and Michael Bloomfield addresses the power of advocacy in this year’s election. The authors describe how word-of-mouth is as potent if not more potent than TV ads on influencing what people think. The example is the Iowa showings by Huckabee and Edwards - a surprise given they were outspent by their rivals on a grand scale (in traditional ad dollars anyway). While their luck didn’t make it to New Hampshire, the op-ed raises a great issue, which is the importance of transforming “talkers” into advocates.
The power of advocacy is no new news to us. Our New Wave of Advocacy research showed that personal sources (friends, family, coworkers) have more than 3 times the influence as political parties when it comes to triggering support for an issue or cause (60% vs. 18%, respectively). Here are some demographic nuances candidates who rely upon word-of-mouth might be interested in:
- Men are more influenced by political parties than women (22% vs. 13%) and so, presumably, party-sponsored TV spots.
- Women are more influenced by WOM than men (63% vs. 58%) and are also more influenced by charities than men (41% vs. 34%). Clearly, this is something the male candidates should be thinking about this year (and hopefully for many elections to come!).
Our study also showed that in the US, religious leaders hold less sway on triggering support for an issue or cause than political organizations (11% vs. 18%). Might be one of the reasons we’re not seeing the once-outspoken religious leaders of our day pounding the campaign trail (yet, anyway).
We all know that this election is like nothing we’ve ever seen before, a sea change has hit the way society communicates. It will be some time before the final analysis of the candidates’ campaign efforts is complete but without a doubt, no candidate should underestimate the power of his or her adovacates. Successfully tapping into that power will mean win or lose.
It was a retail paradox that caused me to freeze mid card swipe. There I was, returning a gadget I didn’t want, on the one hand. While, on the other, still singing its praises to anyone that would listen. Now, you typically don’t see positive advocacy like that on the return cue (least of all in the Big Apple). But this was no mere gadget. It was the biggest Apple going today of all: the iPhone.
This reminded me of an important lesson about advocacy: the who, when and where of advocacy is not always what you expect.
We see this time and again in our work. But this particular pearl came from a study to gain insight into who smart phone buyers turn to when seeking information, advice and recommendations; sources of advocacy in other words. We used a proprietary Weber Shandwick model called a Hub Analysis comprised of four main hubs. The day-to-day hub representing core ties, such as family and close friends. The social hub covering on- and off-line social groups and networks. The expert hub representing opinion shapers of scale from traditional and new media. And the mega hub for the world of celebrity and influence of culture and entertainment, even advertising.
You’re right if you guess the center of the model is the day-to-day hub. This is advocacy’s wheelhouse. Where it is most familiar, trustworthy and powerful. Not some unknown influential somwhere–no disrespect to Gladwell’s mavens (though his “law of the few” sure sounds good on paper). While the other hubs play a very important role, the relative influence weight they have will depend on the characteristic of the consumer group itself. We found in our study that some were brought into the category through the mega hub (as style cues were important). Others by the expert hub (as making the smartest decision possible was the driver). But it’s the day-to-day hub that’s most often the deciding factor and final arbiter.
But it wasn’t who shoppers turned to for recommendations that caught our attention this time. It was what they did right after purchase. Instantly, actively and some quite virally, many became advocates themselves about their brand new purchase. Spreading brand WOM and recommendations back through their day-to-day and social hubs (easy to do when trying out your new all-connecting smart phone). Stopping to show strangers in line at Starbucks or the airport. And more. Been there done that too?
The lesson here is don’t assume you know who and what makes advocacy tick for your consumer, or when it can be harnessed to the hilt. It requires looking at the world in a different way. Not top-down as in traditional marketing research. We must seek out advocates on a human scale. Look for more on this topic in future posts.
For myself, it took returning an iPhone (that I received as a gift and hadn’t even taken out of the box) to truly take the lesson to heart. And marvel again at how the game-changing iPhone can spur positive advocacy even among those who don’t own one. At least not yet anyway…
A close friend told me to wait for the next release, which will sync better with my corporate e-mail and have other improvements. Whoops–there goes that day-to-day hub again!
It remains to be seen if it will last. But, with one democratic victory under his belt in Iowa already and another upset potentially in the making in the New Hampshire primary, Barak Obama’s “it moment” in American politics is already one incredible ride. Conventional political wisdom about advertising spend and primary voter behavior is a poor guide to understand why, especially when it comes to the young people and independents who are turning out in droves.
No, you’ve got to throw away the old playbook (and I don’t think Mark Mellman and Michael Bloomfield quite got it right in their recent New York Times Op-Ed talking about word-of-mouth either). This is about something new: the advocacy mojo of a very different brand of candidate. Authentic, multi-cultural, positive, engaging, and utlimately electric, Obama not only delivers the right message about change to today’s newest voting generation. He literally embodies it. “It’s not something he’s doing… it’s something he’s being,” is how one commentator put it. And, if you’ve been following our blog or research at Weber Shandwick, you know that’s when advocacy is at its strongest. This transcends any ad spot and explains the why behind the word-of-mouth that’s at work in the Obama campaign and how it can be sustainable.
Small wonder then, as reported by the New York Times today, that fifty-seven percent of voters ages 17 to 24 said Mr. Obama was their first choice in Iowa, compared with just 14 percent for John Edwards and 10 percent for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Even Howard Dean’s celebrated net roots campaign only turned out 23 percent of the youth vote during the last presidential primary in the state.
Advocacy is the most powerful and trusted form of communication today, particularly for a new generation of young people who are cynical not only about traditional politics but traditional methods like advertising that try to persuade them. When it’s core to your brand, like it is for Senator Obama, look out. No traditional campaign or candidate may be able to touch it. The race has already been historic. That it will continue to be exciting and interesting is an understatement. Stay tuned.
