Archive Page 2
I was in a meeting on the West coast this week. The topic was advocacy (why are you not surprised?). When the question was posed.
OK, not exactly in the way this blog post’s title suggests. And, no, there was no rousing Cole Porter-styled big-band score you’d expect to go with it. Or any fancy footwork a la Fred Astaire. Just the bland illumination of ubiquitious PowerPoint. And a spilled cup of H20.
The question was pretty straightforward in fact, and you don’t have to be a fan of the American Songbook to appreciate it: When does advocacy really start?
Here’s what was at issue. Is advocacy, as the classic purchase funnel has it, the desired end state a marketer strives to achieve with a customer after she’s been acquired and has experienced the brand? Is it about, then, creating programs that enlist customers to help sell to other ones? So brand loyalty, ambassador and “friends and family” type programs. This was essentially the POV of the questioner, and perhaps represents the view of other veteran marketers as, in effect, this is in large part the way advocacy programs have been created heretofore.
The on-the-other-hand was this. Why not also see advocacy as not solely an end but a means? For spreading postive word-of-mouth and recommendations on the path to purchase. When consumers turn to colleagues, friends and family for information and advice as they form opinions and make decisions about what to buy or not to as the case may be.
This school of thought is rooted in some of the big shifts we’ve seen taking place in communications. How individuals are increasingly looking to each other for advice and recommendations about products, services and brands, and less to traditional institutions and authorities as a result. How they tend to make decisions faster. And how some, who are highly connected to others, are highly influential. In some cases more so than traditional opinion leaders or influentials. Full disclosure: yes, this is our POV at Weber Shandwick, and what we’ve seen in our research and work. But we’re hardly a choir of one here.
So back to the question: When does and should the beguine–that spirited dance (which is what a beguine apparently is according to wikipedia) between brand and consumer–really begin when it comes to advocacy?
You should decide for yourself (naturally). But there’s room enough for both views these days, if not the POV that there’s now a continuum of advocacy activities that are happening from the outset of the purchase cycle, and that we should be seeking to understand and harness. Social networking research makes clear that you don’t have to be a customer to be an effective advocate, just someone whose advice your audience seeks out and trusts. In fact, the most valuable customers are no longer necessarily the ones who buy the most, according to Kumar, Petersen, and Leone. Writing last year in their HBR piece entitled “How Valuable is Word of Mouth?” they showed how consumers who don’t buy much at all can be some of the strongest marketers for your brand.
Others, like Forrester, have observed that the purchase funnel itself is fundamantally broken, and a new marketing model based on engagement is needed. Our views on advocacy and the role it plays–and how harnessing it should start earlier today–are more in line with this kind of thinking.
But perhaps there’s only so much the data can tell us about a topic we know really comes down to passion. And who better than the crafty composer himself to shed some light on the subject.
So in the words of Cole Porter (click here for the full lyrics)…
When they begin
the beguine
it brings back the sound
of music so tender
it brings back a night
of tropical splendor
it brings back a memory of green
And as for the steps that go along with this tricky ryhme, nobody could make it look easier than Fred Astaire. Forget making marketing moves so smoothly. How about just dressing that cool?
As a follow up to my last post about what it takes to be the world’s top mom blogger, here’s a recent piece from Brandweek about the flip side that caught our attention: what major companies are doing to court social media moms. Featured are Johnson & Johnson’s campbaby.com and P&G’s vocalpoint (pictured above) and the strategies each is pursuing to reach this ultra connected and influential community of advocates.
Be sure to read what Brandweek reports about the 3-day conference J&J recently hosted for 56 influential mothers / bloggers. And check out some of the stats quoted about vocalpoint: that up to a 30% increase in sales is witnessed after the site’s 350,000 members chatter about products on the site or off it. That certainly meets our definition of advocacy!
Want to know what it takes to be a professional advocate online? Check out today’s article (and discussion) about 32-year old Heather Armstrong (pictured above), the hip often outrageous but always influential mom and author of the 59th most popular blog going on the Web: Dooce.com. As the reigning top blogger on all matters parenting and mom, she is one of the new faces of influence today.
Always on the lookout for clues to what makes an advocate truly an advocate, this look into Heather’s life, and the toll it can take, caught our attention. Knowledge, passion, committment, openness, a unique POV and voice, and willingness to flout convention. These qualities and more of a parent advocate, some suprising (like her penchant for vulgarity) some not, are on full display on dooce.com, along with quirky items like a daily photo of her “SuperMutt,” Chuck. See what is outshining the 200,000 plus other parenting bloggers in the world today and generating a whopping 4 million page views a month. Plus advertising from the likes of BMW and Verizon.
Peter Weir, director of “The Truman Show,” commenting on how the 1998 movie starring Jim Carrey predicted the rise of reality television once said: “This was a dangerous film to make because it couldn’t happen. How ironic.” Heather’s story, and bouts with mental illness, need for therapy, lack of privacy, show that it is indeed no cake walk.
Truman, in a quest for freedom, walks off the make-believe set at the end of the movie and into a life (a happier one we hope) out of the 24/7 public eye. How will Heather’s own life-as-movie end online? After seven years of blogging, it’s not clear it will or even has to.
Sometimes it’s the advocacy of individuals that matters most. Other times it’s the unexpected that delivers the big boost: the endorsement from someone important you hadn’t counted on.
New Mexico Governor Richardson’s endorsement of Senator Barak Obama today? Not just big… gigantamente grande. Not just unexpected… una sorpresa total.
Sure, maybe too little too late for the upcoming Pennsylvania primary (then again, maybe not). But think of the impact his support, as a former Clinton adminstration cabinet secretary and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and our country’s highest-ranking Hispanic elected official, will have on the insider super-delegates. And it will have positive ripple effects not to mention the needed switch to some positive word of mouth for the Obama campaign.
Say what you will about the intensity and length of the democratic primary, and whether that does more harm than good. But it certainly is a historically rivoting contest. What possibly will be next?
When the bulls run in Pamplona every July, who gets gored–and dozens always do, some fatally–is indiscriminate. Herd of terrified animals… stampeding for their lives… stay clear. Got it.
It’s harder to fathom the herd panic this past week of the most sophisticated investors in the world, Wall Street sharpies, which led to the unprecedented Fed-backed “controlled demolition” of Bear Stearns. Perhaps better than bankruptcy, perhaps not.
So why did they run? Was it a wild implosion of confidence as one opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal put it today?: ”As rumors of Bear’s troubles started early last week, counterparties stopped trading with Bear seemingly as quickly and carelessly as they had traded with it before.” Or was it a more rational response to temporary market failure, as another opinon piece in the same paper suggests?: ”Bear Stearns made the error in these skittish times of relying on short-term borrowing, in the form of of overnight repo agreements, to finance its holdings of mortgage-related secuirities.” You can read the full pieces here (if you subscribe).
There’s a stampede of opinions out there. And we’re interested to hear what you think. By the way, for a great review of the overal credit crisis and how we got here read David Leonhardt’s ”Can’t Grasp the Credit Crisis? Join the Club”
Having spent some time in Spain myself (as a younger, more foolish man), and seen a charging toro or two up close, you won’t have to guess where I stand. There’s nothing rational about a locomotive of panic. Or the shockwave of badvocacy that sent counterparties, creditors and even loyal Bear customers running for the exit doors a few short days ago, and vaporized billions in wealth. This was madness and mayhem like on the streets of Pamplona during San Fermin. People got trampled.
Here’s hoping Fed Chariman Bernake proves to be one helluva a matador. He appears to be for now anyway. One thing’s for sure: volatility will continue to be the norm as will huge tilts in word-of-mouth and confidence.
What’s also clear is that aggressive communications responses, like the one led by Richard Fuld at Lehman last week, will be required. But that’s a topic for another post.
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…
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.
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.
