Archive for the 'Badvocacy' Category
Here is some interesting evidence that badvocacy exceeds advocacy. If you go to Fortune’s Most Admired Companies section on the Fortune web site, you will find that people post their thoughts on whether the top most admired companies deserve the kudos or not. Fortune asks readers: What do you think of the corporations on Fortune’s top 20 Most Admired Companies list? Should they be in the top 20? Tell us what you think. The best replies will be published here, and possibly in a future story on CNNMoney.com.
As of this writing, there were 156 postings. We did the analysis one week ago when there were 129 comments. Over one-half (54%) of the comments in our analysis about the top 20 most admired companies were negative vs. over one-third (38%) which were positive. The remaining 8% were neutral. The comments are pretty interesting and are certainly a peek into what people think about companies. As our research on advocates and badvocates shows, badvocacy gets spread more frequently.
As an example, here is a positive one about Costco:
“I was a 20 year kid when I started working for Costco. Almost instantly I was looked at as a celebrity in the town I worked. People would stop me on the street and ask me about Costco and tell me about their love of the store. In the eight years I worked there I was wa paid well and given full time employment. I worked in the regional office and learned more about the company then I ever thought I would. I know that they are not perfect and have some improvements to make but they do a good job taking care of their employees despite pressure from Wall Street to limit their compensation. I personally met the CEO. I bought in the company philosophy that the member comes first and I felt good about making sacrifices for company (like time away from my family and not getting everything to make my work life better). Costco is truely an innovative business model that could treat their employees a lot worse but they don’t because they chose not to. Needless to say I drank the Kool-Aid and 4 years away from the company I still shop there every week just to remember how it tastes. If Costco doesn’t deserve to be there no company does.”
Here is a negative one that is referring to recent problems that Southwest Airlines has had with the Federal Aviation Agency about flying planes with safety concerns:
“Southwest + FAA = Not a trusted top 20.”
Badvocacy often rules.
Starbucks has now joined the growing list of corporations that have recognised the power of putting customers in the driving seat. In the last few days they have launched Mystarbucksidea which like Dells Ideastorm asks customers for ideas on how to improve their offering and then gives them the chance to vote. So if you want a free cup of coffee from Starbucks on your birthday or free Wifi access in all Starbucks stores, click on the link above and vote!
It’s an interesting experiment and one that I’m sure will work. It’s a lot better engaging openly with your customers on your own turf, than fighting a rear guard action on somebody else’s
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.]
