Imagine my surprise when I typed “badvocates” into Google and found a blog titled badvocates by Craig Ritchie. The reason I am surprised is that we coined the term badvocates last year in May. Weber Shandwick conducted research on what drives advocacy and badvocacy worldwide…who are these people who champion or detract from companies, causes and organizations. The badvocates are the advocates with their thumbs down. His blog has a tag line that says “You wouldn’t like them when they’re angry. And own a blog. Or a webcam. ” He also has a cute UN-smiley face….>:( for badvocates. Our research found that badvocates spread negative word-of-mouth faster and to more people. Don’t get on their bad side! That’s okay if Craig wants to borrow the term. We believe in open sourcing.
Everyone is talking about Starbucks and whether it can turnaround its reputation once again as founder CEO Howard Schultz takes the reins. It’s like Coca-Cola and Pepsi wars. People like to talk about the relative merits of Starbucks and Dunkin Donuts coffee. It is perfect water cooler talk, as omnipresent as Obama and Hillary conversations which you can find on any street corner. A recent poll I read about in PRWeek (2.14.08) found that of 62 percent of consumers who regularly visit coffee shop brands, 16 percent “actively avoid Starbucks.” We would call them badvocates although the article refers to them as “active avoiders.” I was taken with the term which is why I wrote this post just now. I like “badvocates” better. That’s my vote.
It’s not really a new concept…a company enlists its customers to protest an establishment, rule or convention that might be inhibiting its business (regardless of whether or not the enlisted customers actually realize a profit motive or even care). Advocacy at work, right? Or would you say Badvocacy? Hmmm.
Burton, the snowboard manufacturer, provides a magnificent case study in how to drive advocacy through badvocacy (or is it the other way around?). It has launched a campaign to pressure the four US ski resorts which still don’t allow snowboarding to open their trails to boarders through the “Sabotage Stupidity” contest. Contestants “poach” these resorts by snowboarding down their trails. The purse is $5,000 for the boarder who submits the best video documentation of a trail poaching experience. Rest assured, Burton encourages its contestants to be respectful and law-abiding “brofessionals.”
Legal questions aside, the campaign seems to be a worthwhile business opportunity, as Evo Gear, the ski and snowboard retailer, joined the effort by adding another $5,000 to the contest pool. And one of the four resorts, Toas, just announced that it is lifting its snowboarding ban in March. Just imagine the financial rewards from the sales and rentals of boards and accessories as a major resort opens its doors to such a target so passionate about its sport.
Some quick parting lessons…
1. Advocacy vs. badvocacy depends on your perspective
2. Exploit your advocates to be your rival’s badvocates
3. Beware your competition’s advocates
4. There’s badvocacy in all of us, cash helps it surface
So…what do you readers think? Did Burton launch an advocacy or badvocacy campaign? Or does it even matter as long as a company gets what it wants in the end?
The Death Star is alive and well… At least, that was my take away from this NPR Morning Edition piece about the impact of cutomer reviews on Amazon.com.
These days, it’s hard to remember a time when online customer reviews were not a mainstay of the way we go about buying everything — from entertainment to travel to fashion to food to books. The impact of the reviews is huge. And of some individual reviewers it turns out. Try to fathom the draw dropping number of books Amazon’s top reviewer, Harriet Klausner, has read and rated: 15,000 books and counting to date, according to the newstory. Now where can I get me some of that kind of productivity?!?
But do these ratings, which tend to be overwhelmingly positive (4 or 5 stars on Amazon’s 5 point scale), do any good? You bet was the upshot of a 2005 study by two Yale School of Management professors (Judith Chevalier and Dina Mayzlin), who put the business impact of customer reviews at Amazon.com and BN.com to the test. They found that an improvement in a book’s reviews leads to an increase in relative sales for the book on the sites.
And what about the 1-star reviews, you ask? What impact do they have? As Mayzlin explains on air, the “bad stuff hurts you more.” They found that the relative impact of the few 1-star reviews is greater than the impact of the entire galaxy of 5-star reviews.
While it’s tempting to think about these 1-ratings as Death Stars, that’s likely so much hyperspace. But one thing seems clear from the research. When it comes to buying online, or not buying as the case may be, it’s advocacy buy the book… badvocacy not. Yet another interesting data point to add to the growing body of research on why we should beware of badvocacy. Along with the Sith…
Last week I was interviewed by PR Week on the European Brand Advocacy research that Weber Shandwick conducted across Europe. The video is a useful summary of what we found and what we believe business and brands should be considering when building their communications strategies.
