We just completed a survey on civility in America. The survey was conducted with Weber Shandwick and Powell Tate and KRC Research. We decided to dig deep into the tone and level of discourse in this country and surveyed 1,000 Americans online. I’d like to share with you some of the findings which point to an erosion in how people communicate with each other and with our public institutions. Since being informed is so fundamental to our democracy, our research might make people think twice before cancelling out other people’s opinions online and offline. You might also want to take a look at how Politico framed our research and underscored our point even further. As advocates for strong public discourse and hearing both sides of an issue, here are a few select findings: [For more information, please go to this link for the press release and here for the executive summary.]
Two-out-of-three Americans consider a general lack of civility to be a major problem for the nation and 72 percent think that poor behavior has gotten worse in recent years.While the American people believe their friends, family and places of worship are bucking the trend toward incivility, a majority of the public sees uncivil behavior throughout society – especially in politics and high schools; on talk radio and our nation’s highways; in Hollywood and professional sports.
Seventy-two percent of Americans view the political world and government as uncivil – the highest percentage recorded in the poll – and the absence of civility appears to be having an impact on participation and interest in the political process among broad swaths of the public.
Nearly half the American people (49%) are tuning out government and politics, and almost two-thirds of those people (63%) cite the general tone and level of civility as a major factor in their decision. Forty-six percent of the people are tuning out opinion pieces and editorials in the media, and 45 percent cite incivility as a major factor. Thirty-eight percent are tuning out news coverage and reporting and half of them (50%) attribute their actions to the lack of civility.
Each major political party gives the other low marks on civility. Seventy-one percent of Democrats view Republicans as uncivil, and 74 percent of Republicans view Democrats as uncivil. Political independents regard Congressional Republicans more uncivil than Congressional Democrats, although they rate both parties more uncivil than civil (58 and 50 percent, respectively).“Our research provides hard evidence that constituents and consumers alike are fed up with the polarization of our political system and the uncivil tone of our country as a whole,” said Jack Leslie, Chairman of Weber Shandwick. “As a result, Americans are tuning out and turning away from news, information and informed opinions that make up the very foundation of American democracy.”
Do you have a dog or cat in need of grooming? If so, here is an opportunity to advocate for the Gulf of Mexico oil spill clean-up efforts. Consider taking your pet to a groomer who will donate your pet’s fur to Matter of Trust, a San Francisco nonprofit organization that has established a process for collecting animal fur and human hair to create nylon “booms” that naturally absorb oil from the water. Last week retailer PETCO began shipping donations of pet fur from its grooming salons to aid in creating these booms to soak up and remove oil from Gulf of Mexico waters. Once fur shipments arrive in the Gulf Coast region, volunteers gather to assemble the booms and prepare for their deployment. The booms are made by stuffing donated nylon stockings with hair and fur. With nearly 1,000 grooming salons pitching in, PETCO expected to ship up to a ton of donated fur per day hoping to reach 5 tons through this past weekend.
As a pet owner, I say it’s about time my pets begin contributing to society! Joking aside, this is a truly unique and worthwhile program. Get your four-legged friends to advocate for the wildlife in the Gulf who so gravely face endangerment.
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.
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
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.
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%.
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.
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 Economistreasons 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.
In an article by Stefan Stern of the Financial Times, I always find something thoughtful for this blog. This past week he wrote about where marketing was going (or not going) in this current economic environment. Stern was describing his conversation with the “father of modern marketing” Phillip Kotler. One part of the conversation had to do with advocacy, the mainstay of this blog. The other one was just plain funny.
Kotler was reminiscing about a book he enjoyed titled Firms of Endearment (the best title). He said that in the book they talk about how some of the most successful companies spend less on marketing than the less successful ones. Sounds counterintuitive? Kotler says, “But they used the word of mouth effect of unpaid advocates – loyal customers – to boost their reputation.” Advocates will do your marketing for you if you mobilize them, listen to them and engage them. Our research at Weber Shandwick found this to be the case. Indeed. Kotler is apparently publishing a new book on the role of advocates in marketing titled Marketing 3.0.
What made me laugh was a statement by Kotler who is 79 years wise. He is quoted by Stern as saying, “At least it’s the finance people who are getting blamed for a change.” Marketers and communications professionals are getting by without the blame for awhile.
As this blog has addressed many times before, there are many ways people demonstrate their advocacy for a company or brand. They talk or act on its behalf and actively spread word of mouth. They may wear their causes on their clothes and discuss them in social networks. They might carry branded products. They will pay a premium price for brands they support. In doing so, these advocates can have a significant impact on a business’ success (or failure if the business does something to damage its advocates’ trust).
Consumers aren’t the only ones with the ability to influence company success. Employees have increasing influence (see my first post on The Employee Advocate) and more opportunities to advocate for their employers. They often set up fan or group pages on Facebook for example. Of growing importance is their ability to “vote” their companies onto acclaimed “best employers” lists. These lists, awards and rankings not only help to recruit more great talent but signify to the world that the company values employees and in turn the valued and proud employees work harder for their customers. A client once told us that her company’s salesforce uses these honors as a sales tool because their customers want to do business with a company that treats its employees well. Happy employees, happy customers.
As close observers of these rankings (Weber Shandwick’s SCOREBOXX™ database includes approximately 900 awards of all kinds, roughly 100 of which recognize companies for its employee satisfaction and/or training and development), we’re seeing the popularity of these rankings growing. Most glaring has been an increase, particularly in the past year, in the number of our clients who want to understand how their strengths can be recognized by their industry, talent prospects and other stakeholders through unbiased third party recognition. Aside from that anecdote, here are just a few facts…
A Google search of “best companies to work for” generates 661,000 results for the 2009 time period, compared with 190,000 in 2007 and 309,000 in 2008. That’s a stunning 248% increase of the topic’s online visibility.
50% of chief communications officers at North American Fortune 500 companies told us in our annual The Rising CCO study that awards and recognition are an important way their company leadership measures communications effectiveness.
CNBC dedicated a five-minute segment to this week’s release of the the Fortune Best Companies to Work For list. Perhaps one of the most well known of the best employer rankings, this list uses a rigorous method to identify the best place to work in the U.S. with employee ratings accounting for most of the score.
Glassdoor.com’s annual Employees’ Choice Awards of the 50 Best Places to Work included reviews of 11,000 companies among nearly 75,000 employees in 2008 and 37,000 companies among nearly 100,000 employees in 2009.
Based on facts like those above, and by the growing demand from clients to better understand and leverage these lists, we think that ‘best employer’ awards will take on more significance for promoting and rewarding good corporate cultures. Companies with less than stellar environments may be pressured to listen much more closely to employee opinions.
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:
Yesterday The New York Times teased an upcoming Strategic Management Journal paper about the positive influence of zealous employees. Their research found that strong sales growth is correlated with an organizational culture in which employees thought more highly of their company than did the public. In other words, when staff believes in its organization, pride and loyalty shows through and customers pick up on the positivity.
The theme of employee advocacy, and its importance to business success, was one of our key findings from research we released earlier this year (Risky Business: Reputations Online™ conducted with the Economist Intelligence Unit). Our study found that global executives believe that the best way to protect reputations online is to monitor employee satisfaction levels and respond to results from employee satisfaction surveys. Many executives echoed the importance of building “best places to work” cultures when asked in an open-ended question about the greatest reputation threats facing their companies over the next three years. As one Australian executive said in response to this question: “Failure to engage the passions of employees will cause the most damage to corporate reputation in the future.” Without a doubt, no company interested in protecting its reputation can afford to have a mob of grumbling employees online. Satisfied employees who are company advocates are the best antidote for–and defense against–reputation failure. A company’s culture is ultimately its best protection both online and offline.
Looking forward to the release of the Strategic Management Journal report. In the meantime, remember: your employees are your best advocates.
I returned to the Air Force Blogger Assessment tool today as I was writing something I hope to eventually publish. As I refreshed my memory about the blogging guidelines, I fell upon David Meerman Scott’s blog which had an interview with Captain David Faggard, Chief of Emerging Technology at the Air Force Public Affairs Agency at the Pentagon and developer of the blogger tool. The tool is also on his web site. I could hardly believe my eyes when I read that Faggard oversees 330,000 communicators! That is a big number! Scott spoke with Faggard (who I also emailed with months ago) and this is what Meerman wrote about their exchange.
“Their mission is to use current and developing Web 2.0 applications as a way to actively engage conversations between Airmen and the general public. Yes, that’s right, the goal of the program is that every single Airman is an on-line communicator.
In an environment where many corporations are scared witless about social media, here a huge global organization firmly committed to social media communications to spread messages, stories, knowledge and ideals. Capt. Faggard says that the focus is on: “Direct Action within Social Media (blogging, counter-blogging, posting products to YouTube, etc.); Monitoring and Analysis of the Social Media landscape (relating to Air Force and Airmen); and policy and education (educating all Public Affairs practitioners and the bigger Air Force on Social Media).”
While I was amazed that the Air Force is doing so much while many in the private sector are still doing so little, I asked about the unique challenges faced by the US armed forces when it comes to social media. In particular, I was intrigued by the term “counter-blogging” which Capt. Faggard says is when “Airmen counter the people out there in the blogosphere who have negative opinions about the US government and the air force.”
This interchange reminded me of Weber Shandwick’s discussions and research on badvocates. Counter-blogging is similar to countering and engaging badvocates before it is too late. Scott’s comment about the private sector’s reluctance to wholeheartedly use social media to manage critics struck home. In our research with global executives, Risky Business, nearly four in ten said that they worried alot about the damage that can be done to company reputation from dissatisfied customers and critics.
Thought that the parallels were worth mentioning here. Hope you do too.
You are currently browsing the allaboutadvocacy.com weblog archives for the Weber Shandwick category.
About
All About Advocacy is a blog written by and for people who believe in the accelerating power of Advocates in society today.
Contributors include a wide range of Weber Shandwick Advocates (plus any other Advocacy fans like yourself) who share their unique perspectives about this new shift in communications.
We encourage comments from our readers! That’s what advocacy is all about!
For further information about this blog go to the About page. For author biogs please go to the Contributing Advocates page.
Disclaimer
Everything posted in this blog represents personal opinion of the individual authors. It does not necessarily represent the views of Weber Shandwick or its clients.
We just completed a survey on civility in America. The survey was conducted with Weber Shandwick and Powell Tate and KRC Research. We decided to dig deep into the tone and level of discourse in this country and surveyed 1,000 Americans online. I’d like to share with you some of the findings which point to an erosion in how people communicate with each other and with our public institutions. Since being informed is so fundamental to our democracy, our research might make people think twice before cancelling out other people’s opinions online and offline. You might also want to take a look at how Politico framed our research and underscored our point even further. As advocates for strong public discourse and hearing both sides of an issue, here are a few select findings: [For more information, please go to this link for the press release and here for the executive summary.]
Are we making too many generalizations about digital natives, those people born between 1980 and 2000, who we consider digital advocates as well.
In an article by Stefan Stern of the 
I returned to the Air Force Blogger Assessment tool today as I was writing something I hope to eventually publish. As I refreshed my memory about the blogging guidelines, I fell upon 
