Archive for the 'Influentials' Category
As we’ve been discussing here, more and more companies are getting their online efforts on track these days with smart blogging and social media strategies. That’s good, since individuals are not only increasingly looking to online sources for news and information about companies, products and brands and everything under the “sunflowers,” they are also contributing mightily to that content as well. Chief among these contributors are the top bloggers, those with high “authority,” as defined by Technorati, or numbers of other blogs linking to them.
That makes these top bloggers influential, right? The answer is yes and no. They are certainly influencing other bloggers. And any media relations professional worth their salt knows that a juicy story that starts on the blogosphere can become front page news soon after. Just ask Bill Clinton and Barack Obama about the stories the Huffington Post broke during the recent Democratic primary campaign.
There’s sometimes so much focus on bloggers today that the larger truth, and opportunity, can get missed: bloggers as an emerging source of authority are not highly trusted overall–not yet anyway. In fact, research shows that people–consumers, customers, people like you and me–have headed in the opposite direction to date. We are reserving our trust for the people we know in what we call our day-to-day hub, the inner circle of friends, family members, colleagues and others we know well and regularly communicate with.
Jeremiah Owyang of Forrester recently did something of a research summary on this issue on his blog post, “Who do people trust? (It ain’t bloggers).” It’s certainly not the only reference point out there (my colleague at Jack Morton, Liz Bigham, did a nice summary last fall on the Jack Morton 360 blog). But it’s an updated discussion (with 94 comments) that drew my attention to a study published in April by Canadian research firm Pollara which had the following finding: social media is still more a channel for sharing opinions and learning about products, services, organizations, and brands than it is a channel for influencing people’s ultimate decision-making.
One possible explanation is that the “mode” of how people seek advice and recommendations is still largely face-to-face and offline. But the interesting thing is that Pollara’s findings apply to social media users themselves, as summarized by this write up:
“According to a new study from Canadian research firm Pollara, self-described social media users put far more trust in friends and family online than in popular bloggers, or strangers with 10,000 MySpace ‘friends.’
Of more than 1,100 adults polled in December, nearly 80% said they were very or somewhat more likely to consider buying products recommended by real-world friends and family, while only 23% reported being very or somewhat likely to consider a product pushed by ‘well-known bloggers.’
‘This shows that popularity doesn’t always equate to credibility,’ said Robert Hutton, executive vice president and general manager at Pollara. ‘Marketers might have to reconsider who the real influencers are out there.’
…Overall, social media remains chiefly a mode of communication and personal expression, rather than a source of credible information.”
Some active social media users will strongly disagree (I know from reading the comments on Jeremiah Owyang’s post). But I think it’s a good reminder for agencies and marketers alike to not miss the forest for the trees when developing campaigns or simply communicating and building relationships. Yes, by all means, engage in the blogosphere and other social media. Case in point: I found Jeremiah’s blog post by following him on Twitter and then to friendfeed. By all means, harness social media to listen to your audiences, build a dialogue, and spark word-of-mouth conversations in the offline world, one of the key roles online plays in the marketing mix in diverse categories from banking to technology according to research.
But don’t overlook the larger opportunity to engage influencers and identify advocates in the real world where the lion’s share of word-of-mouth discussions are taking place, and where traditional sources of expertise and influence still matter and need to be in the mix. The biggest impact we can make will undoubtedly be when we bring the best of the online and offline worlds together in compelling and authentic ways, including those who are influential among bloggers and have large social media followings but also the people who truly influence customer and consumer decision-making when push comes to shove: the people in their day-to-day hubs.
Image source: Digital vision, Getty images
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!
Very interesting data and insights from a new PR Week and PR Newswire survey of 1,231 journalists/bloggers released Monday. I can’t yet figure out what’s more amazing — the number of journalists who see the clear web road ahead, or the number that don’t see the speeding web semi-trailer in the rear-view mirror chasing down their Prius.
Now, I’m a big fan of print media. Wrote for a major daily. Edited my college paper. Even launched a magazine in my younger carefree days. And based on a recent Churchill Club event, I have renewed faith that some print media will continue to thrive — especially the ones that truly engage their audience and represent a community of interest.
At the same time, I’m a big advocate for social media. Which is why a few of the stats surprised me:
* Only 22% are blogging for their publication, and only 19% on their own;
* 38% say they’re asked to do more on the web, but only 13% cite increased competition as the top change driver;
* 70% to 89% rely on web sites, Google searches and direct PR engagement for information — but only 14% are using RSS feeds and only 14-15% tap executive blogs or podcasts as important sources.
Of course, this may reflect that blogging and podcast content is still fairly uneven. Or that some respondents didn’t make hard distinctions between “blog” and “web” content. Or that a generational gap will create big divides in the media world. Whatever the case, it’s evident that PR Week nailed the headline on this one: “State of transition.”
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.
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.
The Journal of Consumer Research published fascinating research that speaks to Weber Shandwick’s thought leadership research-based initiative on advocacy (see a previous post by Liz Rizzo on the topic last week — we are on the same wave length). The research by Columbia University’s Duncan J. Watts and University of Vermont’s Peter Dodds reports that opinion elites – that group of influentials that everyone endlessly chases – are not really the ones that make the greatest impact on public opinion. In fact, the researchers found that there is a large group of “easily influenced” people who influence other “easily influenced” individuals. For decades, the two-step flow of influence was the dominant theory of influence — when media’s influence on opinion leaders (step one) impacts the wider general population (step two). Instead, Watts and Dodds posit that although there are situations where influentials are responsible for triggering large-scale “cascades” of influence, these conditions are the exception rather than the rule: “…that under most of these conditions influentials are less important than is generally supposed, either as initiators of large cascades or as early adopters.” The question that has been raised in various postings is finding those easily influencable individuals and seeding their recommendations.
Weber Shandwick’s Advocates are those individuals who behave in such ways that they influence many people and create cascades of influence by virtue of their passion, personal investment and championship. Finding a company, brand, issue or cause Advocate is in fact easier today because of the Internet and also because nearly one-half (45 percent) of the global population is now an advocate of sorts. The ring of influence has broadened considerably and although we agree that “influentials” and offline influence should not be ignored, Advocacy represents a new shift in communications and success.
