Archive for the 'Research' 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.
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.”
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.
Last week I was interviewed by PR Week on the European Brand Advocacy research that Weber Shandwick conducted across Europe. The video is a useful summary of what we found and what we believe business and brands should be considering when building their communications strategies.
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.
Since the presidential election has underscored new trends and shifts in public engagement, advocacy seems top of mind. Many of the advocates for the Democratic and Republican candidates came out in force to cast their vote (so to speak) in Iowa and New Hampshire. Not surprising to us, high intensity advocates (see our research, New Wave of Advocacy) are more likely to be influenced by political parties than low intensity advocates or non-advocates (39% vs. 24% vs. 11%, respectively). These hyper-advocates are engaged whether it’s an issue, cause, brand or political candidate. They are passionate and driven and intent on making a difference in a wide variety of spheres. Even the low intensity advocates have some mojo as my colleague Josh Gilbert says. The non-advocates need to get movin’ and get engaged.
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.
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!
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.
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.
