Avid readers of this blog probably know that Weber Shandwick is not only obsessed with advocacy but also with corporate reputation. As part of the Reputation Research team, I was thrilled to see the results of the Harris Interactive Reputation Quotient (RQ) survey proclaiming that a “strong statistical correlation exists between a company’s overall reputation and the likelihood that consumers will purchase, recommend or invest in a company or its products and services.” In other words, companies that attend to their reputations are rewarded with advocacy. Of course, we’ve known this for a long time (check out our Return on Advocacy white paper) but it’s really gratifying to see esteemed third party substantiation! Don’t miss Leslie Gaines-Ross’ blog, reputationXchange, and Weber Shandwick’s web site, reputationRx, to learn all about reputation.
Today’s New York Times includes a story about how Wal-Mart’s badvocates are retreating (“Wal-Mart’s Detractors Come in From the Cold”). It’s a great case of why it is so critical to know your badvocates, understand why they badvocate, and authentically respond to and/or act upon their criticisms.
Wake-Up Wal-Mart is a union-backed campaign group that often criticizes the business practices of Wal-Mart. The group claims Wal-Mart offers its employees substandard wages and health care benefits. Wal-Mart Watch is another agency whose mission is to benefit Wal-Mart communities. Three years of pressure from these groups prompted Wal-Mart to expand its health care coverage to workers (although not to the extent the unions would like) and increased its “green” programs. Given such progress, Wal-Mart and these groups have concluded that it is more effective to engage one another on the issues than to live as adversaries.
While both Wake-Up Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart Watch report that they will remain vigilant watch dogs of the world’s largest retailer despite progress, some signs that they are, as the NY Times writes, lowering their pitchforks are:
•Wal-Mart disbanded a campaign-style war room to deal with these groups
•Wal-Mart disbanded their own advocacy group, Working Families for Wal-Mart
•Wal-Mart Watch and Wake-Up Wal-Mart both reduced their staffs
Badvocacy can be deflated when companies are willing to face up to the damage badvocates can cause, recognize legitimate concerns of their badvocates and inoculate themselves from badvocacy by doing the right thing. At the same time, badvocates need to know when they can back off from their campaigns so that future criticisms and actions will be considered credible. Here’s to healthy badvocacy!
At Weber Shandwick, we’ve been warning companies about badvocacy as long as we’ve been encouraging them to tap into the power of advocacy. Badvocacy is simply the act of criticizing companies, brands or products and it’s becoming rampant as social media accelerates (as my mother recently gleefully declared after dealing with a customer service injustice, “You don’t even need to picket the store anymore, you just go on the Internet!”). Highlighting this trend, the Society for New Communications Research recently released the results of a survey sponsored by Nuance Communications that shows that 59 percent of active Internet users use social media to vent about a customer care experience. That’s a lot of venting.
Lest companies make the mistake of shrugging off online critics or dismissing social media as a valid communications channel, the study also finds that the majority of online consumers are using the Internet to research companies’ customer care reputations before making the purchase (72 percent) and choose companies or brands based on others’ experiences they read about online (74 percent). Most consumers (81 percent) believe that blogs, discussion forums and online ratings systems give consumers a greater voice (our own research supports this newfound sense of empowerment: more than half of online respondents say they have more power to influence company success or failure today than ever before).
So even if customers aren’t writing about negative experiences, they’re reading about, and heeding, the experiences of others. Companies can’t hide from badvocacy – they need to recognize that the function of customer service has been forever changed. They need to respond to situations in new and inventive ways that minimize the risk of an unhappy customer escalating his or her problems to the world.
Looking forward to the full report from SNCR and Nuance due out later this year.
Nielsen Online recently released a study that finds that blogger buzz around sustainabilility grew by 50 percent in 2007. Early 2007 buzz was dominated by global warming, but issues such as renewable energy and resource conservation increased.
The study also reports that corporations that greenwash their advertising and PR will quickly turn bloggers into the dreaded Badvocates. Sustainability bloggers’ number one greenwashing discussion topic is “contradictory actions.” As most companies know these days, there is no hiding from Badvocacy, so they need to be sure their messages are consistent with their products and services.
Eliot Spitzer’s political career is likely over, but considering his personality (many have called it arrogance), he will certainly not fade into the sunset like so many other politicians brought down by personal misconduct scandal (a few examples: Gary Condit relocated to Arizona to open Baskin-Robbins stores and Mark Foley is selling real estate in Florida). It will be fascinating to see how Spitzer repairs his reputation. Unlike Bill Clinton, Spitzer seems to lack ADVOCATES. You can’t help but notice that no one has come forward publicly to support him or vouch for his record, a la “he’s a great guy who made some mistakes.” His base of badvocates may only grow as he prolongs his inevitable resignation.
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?
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.
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.
Came upon 2 insightful advocacy articles from academia recently about the power of influence. The first, “How Valuable is Word of Mouth” comes from Harvard Business Review” written by V. Kumar, J. Andrew Petersen, and Robert P. Leone. The authors advise businesspeople to gauge customer value based on those who bring in the most referrals: “In these interconnected days, how your customers feel about you and what they are prepared to tell others about you can influence your revenues just as much.” The article provides a model for measuring a customer’s total value, not just his lifetime value which so many companies have embraced as being the ultimate measure in the world of CRM.
The second, “Influentials, Networks, and Public Opinion Formation,” is from the Journal of Consumer Research, authored by Duncan Watts (Columbia University) and Peter Sheridan Dodds (University of Vermont). This paper expands upon the segment of consumers known as Influentials – the minority of individuals who influence an exceptional number of their peers. The authors find that “large cascades of influence are driven not by individuals, but by a critical mass of easily influenced individuals.” This provides added dimension to what we have always been told about WOM.
Both papers are worth a read and are a great advocacy resource.
There’s a great paper in the latest McKinsey Quarterly that reports on the opportunity organizations should leverage by addressing the challenges of aging baby boomers. What caught my eye was McKinsey’s premise that boomers will need to turn to new sources of community as they face approaching health and loneliness issues. Couple this idea with the finding that many over age 50 view retirement as a time to contribute to society and we have a perfect formula for Boomer Advocacy.
Our own research on boomer communications (B2F Connections) found that boomers have vast personal networks, are trusted advisors and are socially and environmentally conscientious. Our New Wave of Advocacy study went even deeper and found that 42% of boomers are already Advocates. Their influence even goes beyond word-of-mouth — nearly half of boomers wear something like a pin, bracelet or T-shirt to show their support for an issue or cause and take just hours to act upon their decision to support an issue or cause. This is a powerful segment and not only because of its size and wealth.
Watch out for the Advocacy boom. It’s approaching quickly.
Avid readers of this blog probably know that Weber Shandwick is not only obsessed with advocacy but also with corporate reputation. As part of the Reputation Research team, I was thrilled to see the results of the Harris Interactive Reputation Quotient (RQ) survey proclaiming that a “strong statistical correlation exists between a company’s overall reputation and the likelihood that consumers will purchase, recommend or invest in a company or its products and services.” In other words, companies that attend to their reputations are rewarded with advocacy. Of course, we’ve known this for a long time (check out our Return on Advocacy white paper) but it’s really gratifying to see esteemed third party substantiation! Don’t miss Leslie Gaines-Ross’ blog, reputationXchange, and Weber Shandwick’s web site, reputationRx, to learn all about reputation.
