Archive for the 'Social media' Category
I guess you are sucessful when you see others doing similar surveys on advocacy. This one is definitely more fun than most because of its cool infographics. The study on brand advocacy was done with Dr. Kathleen Ferris-Costa at the University of Rhode Island, College of Business Administration. Some of the findings are similar to what we learned and reported on about advocacy in 2007 and continually report on in this blog.
- Brand advocates are 83% more likely to share information about a product than typical web users, and 50% more likely to influence a purchase.
- They are 75% more likely to share a great product experience and three times more likely to share product opinions with someone they don’t know.
- Brand advocates are more than 2.5 times more likely to use social media to expand their social networks.
Advocates love to be a resource for brands and other people. They like to see themselves as “thought leaders.” According to the survey that was done with Bzzagent, they are motivated by how good it makes them feel — spreading the word makes Advocates relax, several times more typical than among web users. The latter motivation is a new one to me so thanks to the creators for recognizing the personal ROI on brand advocacy. In a world of natural disasters, wars, economic uncertainty, it is good to know that brand advocates have found their feel good fix.
Tags: Advocacy, brand advocates, Bzzagent.com, personal ROI, University of Rhode Island
Wanted to update everyone on some interesting research on advocacy we recently did on how social media can be employed to further corporate responsibility. We (KRC Research and the Social Impact team at Weber Shandwick) found that crowdsourcing plays a vital role in helping companies drive engagement for their corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs. Wikipedia describes crowdsourcing as an “open call to an undefined group of people…to solve complex problems and contribute with the most relevant and fresh ideas.” The survey was conducted among corporate executives in large-sized companies with responsibility for philanthropic, social responsibility or community relations. They are advocates themselves because these jobs require strong conviction about what is important and what is the right thing to do to meet corporate business goals.
The research found that a sizable 44% of companies have used crowdsourcing. In addition, an overwhelming majority (95%) of those who have used crowdsourcing found it invaluable to the organization’s pro-social or CSR efforts.
What particularly stood out for me was the reasons why these advocating executives say crowdsourcing is valuable for CSR programming. They said that it surfaces new perspectives and diverse opinions (36%), builds engagement and relationships with key audiences (25%), invites clients and customers from nontraditional sources to contribute ideas and opinions (22%) and it brings new energy into the process of generating ideas and content (16%).
The latter is particularly important to all advocacy programs — igniting the process by energizing people. It seems that the “energy” component is what really makes the difference so I was glad to see it among the top reasons mentioned why crowdsourcing helps drive corporate CSR. Where would advocacy be without advocates’ energy to mobilize these efforts to build a better planet? It should be at the heart of all corporate efforts. The question is how to find that energy and capitalize on it. How do you ignite it to drive mobilization? Energizing people is an important ingredient of true advocacy and worth deeper thought. Maybe a good topic in itself for crowdsourcing. Hmmmm.
Tags: advocates, crowdsourcing, CSR, KRC Research, Social Impact, Weber Shandwick
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.
Recently became aware of this very cool mobile application that lets consumers advocate for causes just by scanning certain products in stores or restaurants with their iPhone or Android. It is called CauseWorld and it is sponsored by Citibank, Kraft Foods and Proctor & Gamble who have provided nearly $1,000,000 for you to donate. No purchase of their products is necessary – you walk into a store and scan the barcode of products. Each time you scan a product you earn “karmas” and when you earn enough, you can donate them to a variety of charities with which CauseWorld partners.
A really innovative way of turning advocacy into action.
Advocates for the truth. Interesting article about an organization that helps debunk rumors and urban legends….snopes.com. A site like this certainly has a place in this shifting and shifty online world. Take a read about how two individuals started their web site exploring urban legends and ended up being one of the first sites that sift the truth for us. A noble endeavor for advocates in defending reputations.
Tags: Advocacy, reputation, snopes.com
Are we making too many generalizations about digital natives, those people born between 1980 and 2000, who we consider digital advocates as well. An article in The Economist reasons that there is as much variation among digital natives as among generations. Of course, not every one, has access to technology as we sometimes fool ourselves into thinking. But what caught my eye in the article was a reference to a Pew Research Center study that found that the younger 18-24 year olds that we assume are online activists are the least likely age cohort to e-mail a public official or donate money to a political cause online. That surprised me after living through the Obama presidential campaign where young people were out in force online pitching for the democratic nominee. Instead, these digital natives in this age group are more likely to share political news and join political causes on social media sites. “Rather than genuinely being more politically engaged, they may simply wish to broadcast their activism to their peers.” High intensity advocates, as we at Weber Shandwick call them, walk the talk and take action in support of their causes. These findings would suggest that 18-24 year olds are more likley to be passive advocates or are more inclined to spread word of mouth than engage outside their networks more proactively. Very revealing finding.
Tags: Advocacy, digital natives, Economist, high intensity advocates, Pew Research Center, Weber Shandwick
There’s a “new” news consumer today, according to a new study from the Pew Research Center released this week. And the Internet and mobile technologies are at the center of it all, helping people’s relationship with the news become more “portable, personalized, and participatory.”
• Portable: 33% of cell phone owners now access news on their cell phones.
• Personalized: 28% of Internet users have customized their home page to include news from sources and on topics that particularly interest them.
• Participatory: 37% of Internet users have contributed to the creation of news, commented about it, or disseminated it via postings on social media sites like Facebook or Twitter.
According to the study, the rise of social media like social networking sites and blogs has helped the news become a social experience for consumers, where they use their social networks and social networking technology to filter, assess, and react to news.
This is good news indeed. Let’s face it, the mainstream news business, battered particularly hard by the recession, needs all the life-saving it can find to stay afloat and relevant to consumers today. And while that’s clearly not new news, it’s important not to lose sight of the broader story told by the broader trends.
And those trends tell us that the list of shows that thrive on broadcast television—particularly ones that discuss current events, politics, news and lifestyle— is short and getting shorter. The audience is declining for the Evening News. It’s declining for the morning news. No one is immune it seems. Not even the queen of daytime herself, Oprah. The trend for her show, and media empire, is down from where it was, unfathomable a few short years ago.
One of the few bright spots isn’t “real news” at all. It’s the hilariously “fake” news of Jon Stewart’s “The Daily Show” on cable and his even more radical brethren Steven Colbert of “The Colbert Report.” Ratings fueled by the loyal Colbert Nation are doing just fine. Even more surprising is that studies have found that viewers of the Daily Show and the Colbert Report—the news that’s fake mind you—have the highest knowledge of national and international affairs out of any show’s audience, news included! So obviously something more than just laughs is going on here.
But it’s the exception. Polls, circulation stats and Nielsen ratings show, beyond a doubt, that people under 40 are following current events less than their parents. Eighteen to 24-year-olds may be digital natives but research shows that just 11 percent use the Internet to learn about current events. Research also shows that people under 40 know less and care less about politics.
This generational divide is part of what’s wreaking havoc on the newsprint business. Average weekday circulation at 379 of the top U.S. newspapers fell 10.6% during the six months ending in September of last year—the steepest decline ever documented.
Similarly, the percentage of Americans who consider themselves regular magazine readers has shown a slow, steady decline over the past two decades. Pew has also found that 23% of adult Americans in 2008 said they read a magazine of some kind the day before — a drop of nearly a third from 33% in 1994. When asked specifically about news magazines, 12% reported reading one “regularly,” down 2 percentage points from 2006 and down 6 percentage points from a similar survey in 1994.
Together with the deep recession, these trends have led to a total of 15,000+ journalists getting laid off or taking buyouts in the U.S. alone last year. This means less journalists covering more beats, wearing more “hats.” A sobering reality for PR people everywhere, as there are far fewer journalists to write and pages to carry your story today in these old standby news vehicles. But there’s also good news. Niche publications have held up pretty well, with most though not all posting gains in a tough year last year. Same is true with some cable channels, the profit workhorses for many a media network today.
While the traditional news spigot runs drier, and Americans’ relationship with news changes, there’s a veritable fire hose of opportunity happening online. We’ve all heard the stats but they remain no less amazing. More video was uploaded to YouTube in the past 2 months than if ABC, NBC and CBS had been airing new content 24/7/365 since 1948 (which was when ABC started broadcasting). Twitter eclipsed The New York Times in unique monthly visitors in 2009. 250 Million unique visitors go to YouTube, Facebook and MySpace every month collectively (sites which did not exist 6 years ago), compared to the 10 Million unique visitors ABC, NBC, CBS get every month collectively. These kinds of stats could be cited all day long…
Of course, these are exactly the kind of trends that are disrupting the mainstream media model in the first place. But even so, any good news about how Americans are consuming news these days is welcome. Will news organizations truly adapt to and take advantage of them in time? Can they?
Image credit: Flickr
Tags: media, news, socialmedia, trends
I’ve been monitoring the coverage of our Good Book of Badvocacy since we released it last May. We didn’t do a press release for it – just put it on the Weber Shandwick Web site, shared it with clients and the Weber Shandwick network, and discussed it in events and social media forums (including, of course, this blog). Needless to say, we’re more than pleased that a book about the power of word-of-mouth has made its way around purely on the power of word-of-mouth. In fact, as Leslie Gaines-Ross blogged, the Book was presented in an IT meeting at a company that is not in anyway affiliated with Weber Shandwick. The review was glowing. One of the meeting attendees was my husband so you can imagine his surprise when the book appeared (in case you’re wondering, he had not discussed it at work nor does he carry it around with him but I think he should).
And who can forget when “badvocate” became Addictionary’s Word of the Day! Or when Forbes.com interviewed Jack Leslie, chairman of Weber Shandwick, about badvocacy. Certainly I don’t want to overlook the many bloggers and Tweeters who kept the discussion rolling along. Many thanks to these folks for being badvote advocates:
Wishing all our badvocate followers a new year filled with nothing but advocates on your side!
Wanted to direct you to a great article written by Weber Shandwick’s own Colin Byrne, CEO UK and Europe. It appeared last week and includes practical tips for minimizing reputation damage that comes from a company’s badvocates. Colin also cites real-world examples of the kinds of damage companies have experienced when they haven’t kept “the window to sabotage” shut tightly. Enjoy the article.
Thought I’d share another finding about advocacy from our study with the Economist Intelligence Unit - Risky Business: Reputations Online. This research snippet is about where Badvocacy meets Web 2.0.
Although global executives identify major media as the most threatening to company reputation (84%), plenty of executives (42%) recognize the damage new media can impose. Blogs and discussion forums are the most feared with online videos, comments on social networking sites, Wikipedia entries, and online pictures compounding potential destruction. Considering that fast-rising Web 2.0 new media and social networking tools can literally rally advocates and badvocates overnight, more executives should be concerned about new media as a reputation killer. Here’s how each of these rank in terms of global executive fear:
While the blog is considered the king of Web 2.0 badvocacy risk now, it will be interesting to see how the other technologies evolve as badvocacy threats.
