Archive for the 'Influentials' Category
Apparently April was Advocacy Measurement Month. I collected a number of fantastic and enormously valuable reports and articles published during April or so that are highly relevant to evaluating the impact of advocacy. I’ve summarized interesting findings and stats from each piece below that I thought are worth noting but hope that you’ll find the bytes interesting enough to click-thru to read the full analyses.
1. The McKinsey Quarterly: A New Way to Measure Word-of-Mouth Marketing (April 2010)
- Word-of-mouth is the primary factor behind 20 to 50 percent of all purchasing decisions
- McKinsey has developed the “word-of-mouth equity” index which measures a brand’s power to generate messages that influence the consumer’s decision to purchase
- In the mobile-phone market, McKinsey has found that the pass-on rates for messages can increase a company’s market share by 10 percent (positive messages) and reduce it by 20 percent (negative messages) over a two-year period. [If you are familiar with Weber Shandwick’s advocacy research, you may recall that badvocacy, or brand criticism, reaches nearly twice as many people as brand advocacy.]
- Marketers tend to build campaigns around emotional positioning, but McKinsey found that consumers actually talk and generate buzz about product functions
- About 8 to 10 percent of consumers are influentials, whose common factor is trust and competence in a particular subject area. Influentials generate three times more word-of-mouth messages than noninfluentials do, and each message has four times more impact on a recipient’s purchasing decision. About 1 percent of these people are digital influentials—most notably, bloggers—with disproportionate power to influence
- Marketing-induced consumer-to-consumer word of mouth generates more than twice the sales of paid advertising in categories as diverse as skincare and mobile phones
2. AdvertisingAge: Spotting the Creators of Peer Influence, by Josh Bernoff (April 20, 2010)
Through online word-of-mouth, people make over 500 billion impressions on each other about products and services annually. Forrester Research estimates that U.S. social network users create 256 billion impressions on other social networkers per year and blog posts, blog comments, ratings and reviews, etc. generate another 250 billion impressions per year (hence the roughly 500 billion impressions)
Forrester concludes:
- People’s influence on each other rivals online advertising. For comparison, for a 12-month period ending September 30 last year, Nielsen Online estimates advertisers created 1.974 trillion online advertising impressions, compared to the 500 billion impressions people make on each other about products and services. And peer impressions are more credible than advertising, since they come from friends.
- A minority of people generate 80% of the impressions. About 6.2% of the online adults generate 80% of the influence impressions. Around 13.8% of the online adults generate 80% of the influence posts.
3. Nielsen/Facebook Report: The Value of Social Media Ad Impressions (April 20, 2010)
One common form of advocacy on Facebook is through social ads. That is, if a user’s friends are fans of a brand on Facebook, the ad unit itself will contain the names of those friends. But does this lightweight form of endorsement actually impact the effectiveness of the advertising? Nielsen and Facebook compared the responses of users who had seen ads with social context against users who saw ads with no social context from the same campaign. A user would be eligible to see social context if one of their friends had previously “Become a Fan” of the brand running the advertisement.
The result? Social advocacy impacts consumers three-fold: Ad recall is substantially higher with social advocacy with a lift of 16% (vs. 10% for non-social ads), the awareness lift is doubled, and the purchase intent lift increases from 2% to nearly 8%.
4. Altimeter Group and Web Analytics Demystified: Social Marketing Analytics – A New Framework for Measuring Results in Social Media (April 22, 2010)
This report provides methods for quantifying your social media advocates, their reach/influence and their impact. It assumes that a company already has an agreed upon definition of advocates and a process for identifying them, for example, the individuals generating positive or negative discussion about your brand.
Finally, having nothing at all to do with measuring advocacy, April saw the release of a movie called “The Joneses.” David Duchovny and Demi Moore star as a couple planted by a consumer marketing company in a gated community to spread word-of-mouth about its goods and services with the upscale community. The intent, of course, is to drive demand for the products. When I read the review for this movie (haven’t seen it), I thought of how the value advocacy has become so acknowledged by the mainstream.
June 2 was a proud day for badvocates - they had finally been affirmed as a group when MarketingProf’s selected Weber Shandwick’s “Badvocate” as The Marketers Addictionary’s Word of the Day. Weber Shandwick was congratulated for our talent on word play. The Badvocacy terminology was created when we developed our Advocacy Starts Here thought leadership initiative. The word of the day is a pretty cool site - you should check it out and add your own if you have a creative word to share.
No one can argue that the challenge of managing and protecting company reputation is an enduring leadership agenda item, taking on priority status as the online co
mmunity becomes more sophisticated. Opportunities abound for companies to connect with their staunch, passionate, and highly influential supporters – their advocates – to help build and protect reputation. New technologies seem to surface every day that allow organizations to build relationships with these advocates and cultivate new advocates.
To assess the online reputation risks and vulnerabilities in business today, and how advocacy can reduce threats and create opportunities, we recently completed a large global study about online reputation management, called Risky Business: Reputations Online™. We conducted it in cooperation with the Economist Intelligence Unit, surveying more than 700 senior executives from 62 countries.
Risky Business determined that executives believe the threat level to their companies’ reputation is high – a striking 67% of top executives regard their company’s reputation as vulnerable. However, the study also found that advocacy helps safeguard company reputations in many ways. Below are a few highlights to whet your appetite, but we’ll be releasing more from the study over the next few weeks.
-
Reputation threat levels are lower at companies with loyal advocates. Less than 6 in 10 executives (56%) who believe that most of their company’s advocates would stay with them if they faced a reputational crisis (i.e., those with “very loyal” advocates) report high or moderate threat level to their company’s reputation today. Comparatively, 79% of executives whose company’s advocates are not loyal (i.e., most would abandon them in the face of a reputational crisis) consider the threat level to their company’s reputation high or moderate.
-
Executives at companies with very loyal advocates are far less worried about online badvocacy from dissatisfied customers or critics than executives at companies that lack loyal advocates (31% vs. 47%, respectively). This confidence is probably a result of their companies’ rigor in managing reputation online: those with very loyal advocates report having a more rigorous approach to online reputation management than those whose advocates are not loyal (65% vs. 44%, respectively).
|
|
Companies with very loyal advocates
|
Companies without loyal advocates
|
|
The threat to my company’s reputation today is high or moderate
|
56%
|
79%
|
|
I am concerned that a dissatisfied customer or critic will launch an online campaign against my company
|
31%
|
47%
|
|
My company is very/somewhat rigorous today about managing its reputation online
|
65%
|
44%
|
More proof to come of the benefits of finding and nurturing advocates…
Just read a very smart post about social network analysis by technology marketer Paul Barsch. Paul provides a good example of how social network analysis can contribute to a company’s decision about “how profitable” a customer really is — by not just looking at the revenue and costs associated with that customer, but also looking at the Advocacy and influence that customer has with other profitable customers. Paul also provides some perspective on why social network analysis “isn’t a savior to marketing decision making” and is just one of many measurement tools to get the job done.
I couldn’t agree more. Social network analysis is one of the many exciting new approaches to measurement and strategy that are available to today’s communicators and marketers. Surveys and focus groups continue to be powerful tools, but we now also have a broad set of other tools — including media content analysis, web site analytics, search engines, word-of-mouth metrics and a whole host of emerging online and offline tools.
As you might expect, we’re big advocates for social network analysis as part of our work with clients to drive Advocacy for their products, brands and ideas. It’s not the only measure, by any stretch, but it helps add critical dimensions to ensure a more holistic and extended view of an organization’s stakeholder relationships. It’s also a good counter-balance to the “linear” view that dominates a lot of marketing, which assumes companies have a 1:1 relationship with their customers that is driven by direct marketing, advertising and other communication in isolation.
The reality, of course, is that influence is multi-dimensional and can be impacted by many sources — whether they’re Advocates or badvocates or somewhere in between. Fortunately, more and more organizations are realizing that’s the case, and today’s communicators have more and more tools available to shine the light on that reality.
Just read some interesting news about Google’s “Big Tent” plans for the Democratic and Republican conventions — which will have 500 and 200 credentialled bloggers working onsite, respectively. For $100 each, Google will provide Net access, workspace, couches, candy buffet, smoothies and massages — which is almost like working at the Googleplex for a day!
It’s a smart move for Google, of course, but John Murrell’s comment below really got me thinking:
>>> With all that coddling, the bloggers should be in fine form to try to do what mainstream media outlets have trouble doing at such carefully scripted events — dig up some news. <<<
On the surface, that sounds fairly traditional. Simply the difference between mainstream/broadcast news and microstream/narrowcast news coverage. But with 500 or 200 “embedded” bloggers — and traditional media likely following their lead as much as the reverse — could it actually impact the nature of the event? Could it turn the stodgy, overly scripted, boring conventions of recent history into a more raucous old-school debate with real issues being argued and discussed in the light of day by real people?
As a political junkie and a news junkie, I’ll hold out some hope that social media might help — or more likely, force — the parties to “loosen up” a bit at the conventions. If not, maybe we can get some of the rule-breaking social engineers who gave us “un-conferences” in business to apply their talents to create the country’s first “un-conventions” for 2012.
Move over Queen bee. That consumer who expressed her status through the clothes, homes, and cars she purchased. Even through career and family. A new force for the new media age has arrived: the Gamma woman, or girl as the case may be.
Who is she? Using Hollywood as a guidepost (with all the caveats that apply), forget Meryl Streep in “The Devil Wears Prada”– major Alpha. Think the hip and tech-savvy Ellen Page in “Juno.”
The new hero/archetype on the silver screen may also be the new prize for marketers. At least that’s one of the implications of the latest news from media powerhouse Meredith, publisher of such established and far-reaching women’s titles as Better Homes and Gardens, Family Circle, Ladies’ Home Journal, MORE, Parents, Fitness, and American Baby.
A Gamma, the company reports on its new microsite, is one of 55 million American women whose “choices are about expressing their creativity and personal style… and doing their part to preserve the environment.” She is guided by her “internal beliefs, passions, and priorities… [and] motivated by the desire to interact, rather than to impress.” Take that alphas.
Now if Juno is not who leaps to mind when you read about Gammas (especially in light of that, um, teen pregnancy thing), that’s OK. What stands out for me is the emphasis on expression of creativity and personal style. As it apparently does for the ever increasing number of women and moms publishing blogs and Twitter tweets. In this sense, the difference between Alpha and Gamma does feel a lot like the difference between Anna Wintour’s Vogue and, say, a Heather Armstrong of dooce.com. (see previous post Mom as the Truman Show for more about dooce)
Gammas are “creating a groundswell in today’s new media and marketing landscape,” says Meredith on its microsite and materials. “Using multiple media—both online and off—to share ideas, information, and recommendations with her vast network.”
Perhaps not totally new news to some consumer marketers who’ve followed this emerging discussion over the past years. But the deeper dive they provide gives shape to what looks like a trend–if not a conversational or a cultural shift–that’s worth a harder look at. Particularly the social networking virtues Gamma women possess.
Sounds like another part of the new wave of advocacy to me. And whether it’s a Greek letter like Gamma that helps define your audience mindset or something else, the key is to understand the conversation that engages them. And if your audience is anything like Juno, what she’ll tell you is that: “I could so go for like a huge cookie right now like with a lamb kabob simultaneously.” I’m hungry how about you?
Image: Sheryl Nields
I was meandering around Google today and came across my colleague’s blog that featured a cool video on digital advocacy. I thought it would be a good addition to the site so I am including it here too. My colleague in London, Jonny Rosemont, will probably say it is okay. He is an interactive and media consultant with Weber Shandwick London and in fact, designed this great looking web site. So we are used to stealing his great work and ideas.
Click here for a brief history of digital history to present day. It is very interesting and describes how far we have come as digital advocates and believers. Digital advocacy had just about reached the White House until the secret service put a stop to it. Watch and learn why.
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.”
Apparently April was Advocacy Measurement Month. I collected a number of fantastic and enormously valuable reports and articles published during April or so that are highly relevant to evaluating the impact of advocacy. I’ve summarized interesting findings and stats from each piece below that I thought are worth noting but hope that you’ll find the bytes interesting enough to click-thru to read the full analyses.
