• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Power Of Advocacy
 

Power Of Advocacy

on

  • 889 views

The document quantifies the power of word of mouth as it outlines the best practice

The document quantifies the power of word of mouth as it outlines the best practice

Statistics

Views

Total Views
889
Views on SlideShare
889
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
13
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Power Of Advocacy Power Of Advocacy Presentation Transcript

    •  
    • Where’s Debbie? Understanding and harnessing Word of Mouth
    • Source: McKinsey (2001) 67% 60% Kotler (May 2000) 57% Jupiter (1999) 71% Royal Mail (2001)
    • A big issue makes for a healthy book market…
    • ...some academic work is fascinating ! Source: Using onliune conversations to study word of mouth communication. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=327841 Ratings Previous ratings Position in series Volume of discussion No. of episodes Dispersion of discussion
    • Meanwhile marketers enjoy both success and failure with ‘viral marketing’
      • "This website is FAKE," wrote one visitor. "When you are advertising under false pretenses and not being up front about what you're doing ... that isn't just wrong, it's immoral and disgusting."
      Source:h ttp://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030313.wpitc313/BNStory/Technology “ Buzz is not a panacea for marketplace success any more than is advertising” Salzman, Matathia and O’Reilly, Buzz
    • So where are we? 71% 57% 60% 67% A mass issue Qualitative theories Some very scary maths Niche activities of uncertain return
    • Where do we go now? Qualitative theories Niche activities of uncertain return Start from here 71% 57% 60% 67% A mass issue Some very scary maths A couple of illustrations A simple, transferable methodology A wider, fresher understanding
    • Where do we go now? Qualitative theories Start from here 71% 57% 60% 67% A mass issue Some very scary maths Niche activities of uncertain return A couple of illustrations A simple, transferable methodology A wider, fresher understanding
    • An illustration: Word of mouth at the strategic level Source: EverdayLives
    • A second illustration: Word of mouth at the tactical level Source: EverdayLives
    • A second illustration: Word of mouth at the tactical level Source: EverdayLives Where’s Debbie?
    • Where’s Debbie? Qualitative theories 71% 57% 60% 67% A mass issue Some very scary maths Niche activities of uncertain return Start from here A couple of illustrations A simple, transferable methodology A wider, fresher understanding
    • A simple, transferable methodology
      • Frequency of discussion
      • “ In general, how often would you say you discuss <category> with other people…?”
      • 5 point scale: Never…Very often
      • Dispersion of discussion
      • Over the last 6 months, how many people would you say you have talked to about <category>…?
      • 4 point scale: No-one…Many different people
      • Quantity of information
      • “ If someone asked your advice on <category> how much information do you think you would be able to give them?”
      • 5 point scale: None…Very large amount
      • Quality of influence
      • If talking to others about your preferred <category> how likely is it that you would be able to convince them about your opinion?
      • 5 point scale: Unlikely…Definitely
      Source: MEC MediaLab adapted from Ben Miled and Le Louarn. Analyse comparative de deux echelles de mesure du leadership d’opinion. 1994 Also Magazines: A medium for opinion leaders, a medium for audience leverage. Vernette & Scchmutz 2001.
    • A simple, transferable methodology
      • Frequency of discussion
      • “ In general, how often would you say you discuss <category> with other people…?”
      • 5 point scale: Never…Very often
      • Dispersion of discussion
      • Over the last 6 months, how many people would you say you have talked to about <category>…?
      • 4 point scale: No-one…Many different people
      • Quantity of information
      • “ If someone asked your advice on <category> how much information do you think you would be able to give them?”
      • 5 point scale: None…Very large amount
      • Quality of influence
      • If talking to others about your preferred <category> how likely is it that you would be able to convince them about your opinion?
      • 5 point scale: Unlikely…Definitely
      Four “components” of Word of Mouth activity within a category… … netting down to a single category-based definition of people who are more Word of Mouth active: Transmitters ...60”- 90” interview time... Source: MEC MediaLab adapted from Ben Miled and Le Louarn. Analyse comparative de deux echelles de mesure du leadership d’opinion. 1994 Also Magazines: A medium for opinion leaders, a medium for audience leverage. Vernette & Schmutz 2001.
      • Some focus-group ‘sense checks’
      • A stand-alone quant study across 21 categories
      • 12 individual category studies on BrandZ
      • 16 categories as TGI re-contact study
      • 2 pilot ad awareness studies
      A simple, transferable methodology What we’ve done with it
    • How are categories different?
    • How are categories different?
      • Some things are more interesting than others
      • Scales follow “market size”
      • Advertising is lowest of the low!
      Source: MEC MediaLab Word of Mouth/NEMS 2003. Figures show adults % Frequency = very often/often, dispersion = many different, quality = large/very large amount, quality (ability to convince) = very likely/definitely.
    • How are categories different?
      • Other measures broadly follow frequency
      • Some subtle differences
      Source: MEC MediaLab Word of Mouth/NEMS 2003. Figures show adults % Frequency = very often/often, dispersion = many different, quality = large/very large amount, quality (ability to convince) = very likely/definitely.
    • Transmitters
    • Who are Transmitters? 86% of UK adults in at least one of 21 categories Source: MEC MediaLab Word of Mouth/NEMS 2003. Not necessarily younger and more up-market
    • Who are Receivers? 99% of UK adults in at least one of 21 categories Source: MEC MediaLab Word of Mouth/NEMS 2003.
    • Source: MEC MediaLab Word of Mouth/NEMS 2003. There’s no such thing as “opinion formers” or “early adopters” except when defined within a category
    • Transmitters by category THE WPP BRAND EQUITY STUDY BR A ND Z
    • Transmitters
      • Heavier users
      • Aware of more brands
      • Used more brands – not necessarily more loyal
      • Relatively more motivated by brand, less by price
      • More demanding of the category
      • Stronger perceptions of differentiation, quality and range
      • More likely to recommend – both for and against
      Deserve disproportionate focus… … especially if you get them on your side!
    • Transmitters needs
      • More demanding
      • … with different hierarchies of needs by category
      • … but a consistent appetite for famous brands
    • Different hierarchies of needs… Health and Beauty Retail category attributes ranked by importance Source: MEC MediaLab Word of Mouth/WPP BrandZ 2003
    • … opportunity to temper the message set Health and Beauty Retail category attributes ranked by transmitter importance Source: MEC MediaLab Word of Mouth/WPP BrandZ 2003
    • Transmitters
      • Defined by category
      • Deserve disproportionate focus
      • Differentiated needs
      • But are they accessible ?
        • Practically?
        • Responsively?
    • Holiday transmitters: TV Top 5 specially choose to watch programmes by index Source: MEC MediaLab Word of Mouth/TGI 2003. Airport Airline Omnibus
    • Holiday Transmitters : Newspaper sections
    • Holiday Transmitters: Websites Source: MEC MediaLab Word of Mouth/TGI 2003. Based on indices for category user transmitters vs. all adults. Sites shown are indicative of the genre only.
    • IT Transmitters: TV Top 5 specially choose to watch programmes by index Source: MEC MediaLab Word of Mouth/TGI 2003. Time Team
    • Some common characteristics
      • Digital
      • Attitudes to marketing
    • Transmitters and marketing : - responsive?
    • Generally positive about advertising Source: MEC MediaLab Word of Mouth/TGI 2004.
    • Generally positive about advertising Source: MEC MediaLab Word of Mouth/TGI 2004.
    • From TV ads… Source: MEC MediaLab Word of Mouth/TGI 2004.
    • … across the ad spectrum
      • Noticing ads..
      • In newspapers/magazines
      • On radio
      • On roadside posters
      • At bus-stops
    • ...and beyond ads …
      • Noticing event sponsors
      • Entering competitions
        • On pack
        • Newspapers/magazines
      • Not opting-out of DM lists
    • Transmitters
      • Defined by category
      • Deserve disproportionate focus
      • Differentiated needs
      • Accessible?
        • Practically?
        • Responsively?
        – at least claimed
    • Transmitter responsiveness?
      • Questions appended to two tracking studies
      • Are transmitters really more ad aware?
    • Transmitters are more ad aware Source: MEC MediaLab Word of Mouth/ TNS 2003. Base 500 category users Average transmitter vs. receiver score +36%
    • Down to execution level… Average transmitter vs. receiver score +40% Source: MEC MediaLab Word of Mouth/ TNS 2003. Base 500 category users
    • … and at channel level Average transmitter vs. receiver score +33% Source: MEC MediaLab Word of Mouth/ TNS 2003. Base 500 category users. * Aware of brand website
    • Making them disproportionately aware of more detailed channels Source: MEC MediaLab Word of Mouth/ TNS 2003. Base 500 category users. * Aware of brand website
    • And finally Qualitative theories Start from here 71% 57% 60% 67% A mass issue Some very scary maths Niche activities of uncertain return A couple of illustrations A simple, transferable methodology A wider, fresher understanding
    • From activity to philosophy
      • Not ‘something’…
      • … but everything :
        • product or service delivery
        • innovations and NPD
        • retail experience
        • after-sales
        • communications
    • From philosophy to practice
      • 1. Targeting
        • Transmitters are identifiable, accessible and responsive to marketing communications
    • From philosophy to practice
      • 2. Messages:
        • Transmitters look beyond table-stakes
        • Deeper detail suggests:
          • multi-message
          • multi-media
        • Without ignoring brand fame
    • From philosophy to practice
      • 3. Activities:
        • Transmitters’ interest in the category means they engage more:
          • interactive, digital
          • event-based, experiential
          • promotions, samples, exclusives
          • care-lines
          • loyalty; member get member schemes
          • viral
    • Where’s Debbie…?
      • … closer than you think
    •