This document discusses the debate around paid versus unpaid brand advocacy. It argues that while paid advocates allow companies to control messaging, real credibility cannot be achieved through paid advocates alone. Unpaid advocates have more influence because companies cannot control what they say. Negative experiences or opinions shared by unpaid advocates on social media can damage brands. However, long-term partnerships with paid advocates like Gary Lineker and Walkers have been very successful by strengthening brands over many years. Overall, the best approach combines paid and unpaid advocacy but companies must acknowledge they have limited control over unpaid advocates.

1. Real brand credibility cannot be achieved through paid brand advocates. Discuss
A look at the Retail Fashion Industry
Project MAR000-3
Thomas Hedison
1110011
Advertising and Marketing Communications

2. Introduction
This essay will look in to the debate surrounding brand advocacy. It will be looking at both paid and
unpaid advocates such as celebrities. This essay will also look at un-paid advocates including, those who talk
about the brand in a positive light as well as the advocates who talk negatively about a company and
organisation. This piece will be assessing whether paying for brand advocacy works in favour of a brand or
damages it in comparison to non-paid advocacy.
To discover a conclusion to these questions, this dissertation will be initially looking at what makes an
advocate followed by the lack of control about what is said by all advocates. Subsequently the essay will then
look at what paid advocates can bring to the table for a brand and in conclusion it will look at how non-paid
brand advocates can benefit a brand.
Going through this dissertation, there will be a number of examples from many different industries
including the motor industry, food and travel. However main sector for examples will be the clothing retail
industry and seeing how each point made affect companies connected to it.
What is a Brand Advocate?
An advocate is somebody that supports an organisation, cause, action or a person in public. These
people can be from a wide range of places to talk about companies to their friends and anybody they meet,
making recommendations and giving out opinions when asked for.
Some of these individuals can be paid by organisations such as Gary Lineker advocating Walkers Crisps.
By using well known people as advocates, companies can reach many people through the likes of social media
and the individuals who enjoy listening to chosen advocate.
On the other hand there are many people who will talk about their own experiences without any
incentives. These people are known by many names, followers for example, owing to their willingness to listen
to companies and say good things about them. Another name that can be used is tribes, groups of people who
have one thing in common and talk together about it. Terry Smith (2011) quotes Dan Hill, author of
Emotionomics, stating that “If a brand delivers emotionally, its myth translates in to reality for its tribe”.
Thanks to the rise of social media, the everyday consumer can have just as much reach as some
celebrities. These people will often talk about their own experiences to friends and family. Depending on their
own view these people may go online to discuss positive views on the organisation restating the companies
own opinions themselves. As a result of these tribes, these individuals may turn advocate themselves.
Most advocates’ contributions made by individuals are found online and in group discussions. This
allows advocacy to travel even further to reach people that even the consumer and writer may not know in
person. These people may operate in groups, communicating with each other about the brand and influence
each other on what decisions they should make. Most groups have a single aim or purpose such as one
company, an interest or a just to bring people together that are in the same situation such as Netmums.com.

3. It is widely believed that an individual’s own social trends are majorly influenced by the groups they are
a part of online. Doohwang Lee et al 2011 shows this belief by stating “social identification motivations can be
largely influenced by how consumers infer the altruistic motives of the online brand communities that they
belong to”. As an example of this, an individual’s personal social motivations could be influenced by the
automotive industry. This opinion is subjective to how the individual views the opinions of the online
community. As a result if they agree with the group, they may act different to if they don’t.
Many of these discussions happen online, through online communities. A community can be defined by
connecting people through one of three characteristics (Heehyoung Jang et al. 2008). Firstly the location,
second the social interests and finally friendships. As a result connection in online communities is through
social interaction, it is this which brings the group together, to discuss their feelings towards one subject or
company.
For a retail fashion industry advocates can be anyone. Many companies in the sector use a form of
celebrity. River Island uses Rihanna as an advocate for their range; however they also have a number of people
that talk about the branding and clothes on social media. As an example there are many people who make
videos for YouTube about different clothes they wear, where they get them from, what they wear them with.
These are a direct example of where different people interact with each other and can influence what each
other think.
The issue of lack of control about what is said by unpaid advocates?
The major problem with brand advocacy is control over what is said. Unpaid advocates have the right to
say what they like. This can range from a customer’s experience or negative opinions. In a survey last year it
was found that customers who received bad customer service are more likely to share it online and with family
or friends. Unlike with paid advocacy there are very few restrictions on what people can say. Ying-Feng Kuo and
Lien-Hui Feng, (2013) explain this by saying “Members of online brand communities can easily share
consumption experiences and interact with each other”. As a result these people can influence what others
may be thinking and potentially changing customers buying habits, of people both inside the community and
outside.
After a survey by Dimensional Research of a thousand people, it was discovered that people who felt
they had bad service were 50% more likely to talk about their experience on social media. The survey showed
that 45% of the people who had got bad service told people on social media. In contrast only 30% of those who
said they had good service would put it on social media (MarketingCharts.com, 2013). In five out of the six
subjects which respondents were asked to judge where they would share their experience, the people with bad
experience said they were more likely to share it. This is most likely to be as a result of bad experiences making
a better story then what a good experience does.
Hollebeek, Linda & Chen, Tom (2014), give an example of how a bad bit of experience is conveyed over
the media. They believe that once an individual passionate enough they start to talk about their experiences.
They suggest that every person who experiences service will judge how well the organisation responds to the

4. customer in terms of being “approachable and receptive to customer queries or feedback”. How the public
judges this, influences how likely it is for the customer to make comments on social or to their friends and
families.
This idea of sharing service experiences does not just stick with the customers and what they see but
everyone to do with an organisation. All stakeholders will have an opinion of some sort each of them have the
ability to share it online and with family or friends. Amy Jacques shares the views of Geno Church. Jacques talks
about connecting all people in the organisation. Jacques says “think of your employees and company as a tribe
and to have rituals” Jacques Amy. (2013). She believes, alongside Church, communicating with the companies
staff and sharing good things with them, will result in themselves going out and talking about their employers
positively.
As the use of social media has increased so has the power that employees have over a company. This
feeling that a company should be including its employees in to a “tribe” is echoed by Deva Rangarajan. In her
article, Employee Contributions to Brand Equity, Rangarajan gives a number of examples where an employee
comments have caused the companies issues. One of the examples that she uses is from United Airlines. In this
example, a couple of pilots from United Airlines had spoken to the local papers in the USA (Rangarajan, Deva.
2013). Following a number of issues with the merger between United Airlines and Continental Airways; pilots
accused the company of failing to fix problems. “The fix for those problems- and we're in a service industry -
lies in having those that provide the service satisfied with coming to work every day and enjoying their careers”
Kiah Collier - Houston Chronicle, (2012). Although these comments were a part of a bigger problem, they
caused the company issues by keeping previously publicity fresh in the mind of the local population.
These points all exist in the retail fashion industry. Clothing is a big talking point for many people online.
This could include the clothing itself, the service given or a general opinion of what has happened, this industry
employees thousands of people at a time, each of who have the chance to go online and talk about the
company they work for. Unlike some industries, a lot of the comments that are made by people through
unpaid advocacy may not be listened to in the same way. This is an industry where opinions differ from one
person to the next. However, opinions in friend groups may be the same and service will be noticed as well
meaning that it is still important to pay attention to.
As result the use of a paid brand advocate can even out, or boost what is said online about a company.
In times of need, when a brand is been attacked, a paid advocate can be used to calm people down and start
look at building the company some credibility after it can have lost a lot somewhere else.
Paid advocates and the promise of control over content.
Opposed to the public, a company or organisation can control what paid advocates say about them. By
paying for the comments the company has control over what it is that the paid member of the public or
celebrity says. These comments can be written by the company instead of what the person thinks up, or at the
least be made subject to approval. With well-known people being watched often it can be little surprise when
they say one thing that may appear to contradict what they have said in the past Bolger, Muireann. (2013). It is

5. the same with social media, with the media such as a Twitter or Facebook changing so quickly they are being
updated all the time so that the latest news and comments are being seen. It is estimated that there are over
9,000 tweets sent via Twitter every second (Statistics Brain, 2014). In comparison, Facebook has over 3 million
messages sent every 20 minutes (Statistics Brain, 2014). In all this movement it has been known for people to
say one thing and then, at a later time, say something else.
There are a number of steps that the company or organisation can do to control what is said and make
sure that they are suitable. A well written contract is one way to make sure that what is said is in line with the
company. It is considered important that what the paid advocate says is in line with the company as any
inconsistencies can cause problems later. Having researched what the advocate is like and what they have said
in the past is another way that a company can control and minimise possible issues in the future. It would be
un-wise for a company to ask an advocate to say one thing when they have publicly stated the opposite in the
past Bolger, Muireann. (2013).
The second problem with the paid advocates is that of the law. Depending on who writes the message,
it may be subject to the rules and laws of the advertising code of conduct. These rules are conditional on the
brand writing the message. However, the advertising standards authority (ASA) has also upheld the laws
against an organisation if the message has been seen but not written by the brand. The Committee of
Advertising Practice, state that in brand ambassador and advocates “the greater control a marketer exerts over
a communication, the greater the likelihood that it will be treated as a marketing communication” (Committee
of Advertising Practice, 2013). As a result the more control over what the paid advocate says the more likely
the message is to stick with the laws. Therefore, meaning a brand must get the right mix of freedom to the
advocate to say the right thing, and control of what is said.
As a result of many measures it is possible that a company can control what is said by a paid advocate
and control land risk management. However, it is impossible to control what an unpaid advocate says overall.
In some cases fashion will be seen in places where it may not want to. To be able to control what the
message is an important thing for a fashion brand. Been able to control the message means that it can be
possible to make it look like a big name or influential person is able to defend a brands name. This means that
where credibility may be vulnerable to attack, it can be defended through the use of an independent source.
Paid Advocates can take you far
It was not that long ago that in order to get something heard you needed to have it said by a
well-known person who the public and the media wanted to hear from. However with the rise of social media
it was now possible for everyone to talk to each other no matter where they lived or what they were doing. As
a result people did not rely on the news for information and communication. With this new media it was now
possible to tell people what you thought about what happened in your day more quickly and easily. As a result
a new kind of celebrity or person that everyone wanted to listen to was created. These are now known as
influencers.

6. Ying-Feng Kuo and Lien-Hui Feng (2013), points out that even with these new modes of receiving
information, most people, both in and outside of brand community, are still interested in what celebrities are
saying and what the latest ideas are. By paying influential people on social media or people that many people
take note of, the members of a crowd or tribe will listen.
However, in order to reach the right people the brand needs to choose the right advocate. As already
stated in this essay, it has been known for paid advocates to be caught out by saying one thing and then the
opposite not long after. This gives the possibility that a brands message will back fire.
Wallace, E et al. (2014) notes that in order to be successful an advocate needs to be willing to talk about
a product or service, she then goes on to say that these people need to learn to try new products from the
brand and forgive any actions. It is Wallace’s next point that causes many paid advocates to fail; the advocate
has an “emotional bond”.
The UK National newspaper The Mirror reported in 2012 how many members of Weightwatchers had
taken to social media regarding the new celebrity face of the company. The company used well known TV
presenter, singer and dancer Alesha Dixon for its campaigns.
These adverts soon failed as it was discovered that Dixon had not suffered with any weight problems in
the past. This campaign turned quickly into members talking about the brand online, but not in the positive
light intended but to complain about the advocate. These messages targeted both Dixon and weightwatchers.
One message posted on twitter read “How can you have the balls to front a campaign when you have NEVER
had a weight problem? You have NO idea what it’s like” (The Mirror, 2012).
The reason that this campaign failed came down to the fact that the public and target both knew the
advocate, Dixon, had no personal knowledge or interest in the brand or the product and service offered.
Speaking in Mouthing off, this is an area that Head of Brand Development for The One Brand Ian Spooner, feels
that is needed in a modern day advocacy (Bolger, Muireann. 2013). Going back to Wallace, E et al. (2014),
Dixon failed by not having or showing the emotion to the customers, as well as not trying new products. This
was picked up on and attacked by the viewers and members of Weightwatchers resulting in the affect being
pointless.
However, even with all the risks and rules around paid advocates, these people do have many benefits.
In the occasions where the advocate has managed to work with the brand the chances are the relationship has
lasted many years and in some cases decades. One of the most successful partnerships between paid advocate
and brand is that of Gary Lineker and Walkers Crisp’s (Bolger, Muireann. 2013). This example first started in
1995 and has become the longest campaign that uses a single paid advocate. This continued use of the same
person has resulted in a strengthening image for the two parties. Walkers have managed to use this connection
to reach many people, including followers of Lineker (Kelly Sean, 2013).
Other successful partnerships include Jamie Oliver being an advocate for Sainsbury’s and Jonny Vegas
working with PG Tips. Both of these campaigns have lasted for a number of years, Vegas starting in 2001 and
Oliver starting his partnership in 2000 lasting eleven years.

7. Following a successful partnering between brand and paid advocate, this can offer the organisation a
wide range of new and potential new fans and consumers. Using an advocate, which fits the company well, can
benefit the brand by bringing new and further credibility to a company. The use of a good advocate can also
cause an increase in brand awareness. Often it is who supports the organisation that wins more people not
what the message is. Ian Spooner is cited in Mouthing Off saying that in the case of charities, “Preaching
doesn’t pay”. He then goes on to inform us that the support of a celebrity can help a charity (Bolger, Muireann.
2013).
Hanna, Sonya & Rowley, Jennifer, (2011) believes for a company, that creating word of mouth is even
more effective than what normal marketing does. In their article they state that an act of word of mouth
recreates three times more responses compared to what standard marketing and brand communications can
create. By this belief, creating word of mouth through paid advocates means that the message can go further
than without it.
Even with all this influence, paid advocates costs can vary. With even more new advocates from the
creation of the social media influencers, competition in the markets has increased. Jayachandran, S et al,
(2013) shows in Brand Licensing: What Drives Royalty Rates that depending on the market there is a little
competition from both the advocate and the brand to who supports what and at what cost.
However, not all paid advocates are paid for their support; both Ruby Wax and Stephen Fry is an
advocate for Mind (Mind 2013), a mental health charity who Fry supports freely. Should the costs be
affordable, the brand could have the option to have a couple of advocates who are able to influence a number
of different tribes at a time.
There are many paid advocates in the retail fashion sector. Some are social media influencers such as
what is put on sites like YouTube. However many are also celebrity people that the public are interested in the
daily lives such as a what is been said and what are they wearing at the minute. These create a large group of
people that can be reached in social media and through paid advocates. Building credibility is can be done
much quicker through the use of a paid advocate been connected to many people can mean that the message
will travel further, increasing the amount of possible creditability it may contain.
Who is interested in being an advocate?
Although employing and paying advocates may be a good way of spreading a brands communication,
there are still people who are happy to talk about the organisation without an incentive. To do this these
people often have other reasons as to why they do it. As the use of social media has increased, this has given
the everyday person a new and increased voice to be heard resulting in them becoming advocates in their own
right (Bolger, Muireann. 2013).
It is believed that the main reason why consumers talk about products starts when they have a passion
for them. The first of these is to do with the unpaid advocate enjoying something about what they are sharing.
Jacques Amy, (2013) explains to the reader that people enjoy talking about things they enjoy. She compares
the idea of been an advocate to been a part of a story. Most people like a good story are Jacques argument

8. stating “Being part of a great story is what compels us to share”. If this is true giving a tribe a story to be a part
of could just encourage them to share it further, normally taking to social media such as Twitter and Facebook.
Once their passion and levels of interest become high enough people will start to interact with the
brand. It can be often at these points where individuals start to join groups on the subject or brand. Some of
these groups are controlled by an organisation or by a separate and independent group of people. Each group
has its advantages and disadvantages to the brand, such as controlled by the company means they can down
negative messages. On the other hand, people who don’t like the brand are not likely to join a group that
supports it. Following this idea leads to the possibility that to see where the brand needs to improve means
having to look in other places. This criticism is something that the brand could use in order to change for the
better.
However, these communities that the brand controls can mean that individuals want to be a part of it.
These groups can occasionally be used to encourage members to talk more about the brand on the basis they
want to be a part of it. One of the most successful groups to do this is ‘Marmarati’ (Bolger, Muireann. 2013).
This is a group of people in a brand owned advocate community who supports Marmite. They call themselves a
group of super fans. Joining is a desired my many people in other brand communities and to do so they
candidates are “invited to complete a series of tasks”. Not many people get to join the group as membership is
limited to a set amount. This means the desire to the new members is even higher as they would be one of a
few in the world who can be called a super fan (Sarah Shearman, 2012).
This idea that consumers are more likely to advocate something once they enjoy it is also agreed upon
by Hanna, Sonya & Rowley, Jennifer. (2011). In their article they talk about the experience of the brand that the
customer receives. Taking in to account, “service experience and sensory delights” the customer judges the
experience of their visit. Hanna and Rowley also show the reader that these experiences then have an impact
on word of mouth communications stating that “The most important influencer of WOM (word of mouth) is
brand experience”. These two statements show the person who reads their article that they believe that the
customer is more likely to be a positive advocate if they receive better service.
It has also been suggested that word of mouth communication has had a positive light on brands
through trust. In a number articles, both journal and non-journal, the point is raised that the general public are
more likely to trust a company and brands message if it does not come straight from them.
Matzler, K et al (2011), describe the relationship between a brand and its customers and consumers as
one like a “long-term relationship”. Matzler, K et al, informs the reader of his belief that if the customer trusts a
company they are likely to become more loyal to the brand. It is suggested that brands cannot have loyalty if
there is no trust. This is a statement that rings with some truth. In the last year or two there have been a
couple of stories in the news where the public have lost trust in a brand and have gone to other competitors.
The main one that jumps out is the horse meat scandal.
Here many members of the UK’s public felt that they had been lied to and their trust towards a number
of products had been lost. As a result many of these people went off to find a similar product that they could
trust. BBC news discovered after this had happened there was a rise in the sales of butchers, a trade that had
not been affected. Paul Dzido , a butcher stated “trade really did go through the roof, especially with mince

9. products, burgers, sausages, things like that,". As a result Matzler, K et al (2011), has good ground to believe
what he says.
Puzakova, M & Rocereto, J. (2013) show that research through the last few year, has looked at when
brands are in the wrong explanations as well as apologies are more widely accepted if they come from
somebody else. They go on to add that if a company is shown to do wrong, the chances are that the people
who support it will soon move away and distance themselves from the company, while affecting “consumers
attitudes towards the brand that committed a wrongdoing”.
The acknowledgement of the idea that brand communication is more trusted through another source
or advocate is also mentioned by Smith Terry, (2011). In his piece to Marketing Review he informs the person
who reads the piece that communication is creating the important driver that controls experience. These
communications are very important as it is clear that Smith believes that these are what control all major
communications between the brand and its publics.
This idea of trust is another area that is widely discussed. Kaltcheva, D et al, (2014) adds to this theory
of experience. They show through their own sources that experience is a big factor in deciding on what, if
anything should be said. In this Kaltcheva, D et al, also add to what smith believes by suggesting that the way
customers engage with a brand and the way they behave also has a lot to do with what they want to say. An
example of this could be that the customer walks in to a shop in a bad mood, this will then affect the
experience they feel in the store and may result something bad been said online. As a result of this mood as
they enter the store it made the job even harder to get the customer feeling happy enough to write something
positive online. Therefore Kaltcheva, D et al, suggest that there are times where even the best service may not
help a situation.
Smith then goes on to explain his views and introduces the reader to John Grant, author of The Brand
Innovation Manifesto. Grant is paraphrased in explaining that there is a difference in the ideas that the
marketing team come up with and the messages that are actually sent out via social media and advocates as it
changes on its way through the advocate media.
Smith Terry, (2011) finishes of his section by suggesting that the way communication is going more
through word of mouth rather than traditional marketing campaigns. These messages, he believes now need to
contain what the consumer wants and not what the company wants. He also suggests that we should be
customer focused giving them messages “engagement with context”.
A smaller reason why customer may feel happier towards the brand they shop with may be down to the
name. A small number of people have done research in to how a company name affects an individual’s
thoughts. Howard, D & Kerin, R. (2013) have researched in to the idea of names being an influencer on the
choices and feeling that customers have. They believe that the customers last name will allow them to feel
happier with the service compared to companies without a similar name. Howard, D & Kerin, R. (2013) put this
down to the customer feeling a little more ownership of the product as they bought it from some where they
knew and had a similar name to themselves.

10. For the retail fashion industry, there are many people that are happy to talk about what a company and
brand is doing. There are many people that will showcase what they have bought recently, what they are going
to wear on holiday and at home. There may not be any secret groups of people in this market, but the key
question on the public’s lips is what is the next big style and what can be worn with what. It is through these
influencers, that this answers are discussed and found.
Conclusion
From the evidence presented, it is clear that in order to ensure that a balanced view is maintained paid
advocates are able to bring real brand credibility to a company for the following reasons.
Looking at the areas on un-paid advocates, it is clear that there are many people who are happy to
support an organisation and brand for whatever is there reasoning. However, these people have a number of
problems. It is clear that if treated the wrong way these people are more likely to talk in a negative way. It
takes a lot of work to make sure that each and every customer has a good enough service that will give them
reason to talk positively. On the other hand, it is also clear that without the unpaid advocates the message that
is given out would not travel as far as it would without any extra advocates. In short un-paid advocates are
uncontrollable and easily rebellious.
Also having reviewed the idea of paid advocates, the evidence presented suggests that these are
needed. It is obvious that these people can give a boost to the amount of people that a brand can reach
resulting in a wider exposure for the branding. The evidence also suggests that paid advocates are much more
trusted then with the average company and brand. In the modern age, trust is a key element and to have the
trust from paid advocates enable the branding to grow and create trust within a community.
However, it has been known for paid advocates to slip up and say something that gives their true
feelings away. The evidence does show that there are ways to combat this and measures that allow companies
to limit the amount that they are at risk. These measures include, good research, contracts and looking over
what is been said before it is published.
For the reason that have been presented there is evidence that the use of paid advocates is worthwhile
and can bring brand credibility. It should be noted, that in order to make sure that the messages are used to
their full effect, a mixture of paid and un-paid advocates are needed. In the absence of either kind of advocate,
the brand runs the risk of the message not spreading.

11. References
Journals
1. Smith Terry. (2011). Brand salience not brand science: a brand narrative approach to sustaining brand
longevity. The Marketing Review. 11, 25-40.
2. Kaltcheva, D et al. (2014). Customers' relational models as determinants of customer engagment value.
Journal of product & Brand Management. 23, 55-61.
3. Doohwang Lee et al. (2011). The Impact of Online Brand Community Type on Consumer's Community
Engagement Behaviors: Consumer-Created vs. Marketer-Created Online Brand Community in Online
Socail-Networking Web Sites. Cyberphychology, Behavior and Socail Networking . 14, 59-63.
4. Heehyoung Jang et al. (2008). The Influence of On-Line Brand Community Characteristics on Community
Commitment and Brand Loyalty. International Journal of Electronic Commerce. 12, 57-80.
5. Ying-Feng Kuo and Lien-Hui Feng. (2013). Relationships among community interaction characteristics
perceived benefits, community commitments and oppositional brand loyalty. International Journal of
Information Management. 33, 948-962.
6. Jacques Amy. (2013). People-powered brands: Empowering a tribe of internal advocates. Public
Relations Tactics. 20, 12-12.
7. Hollebeek, Linda & Chen, Tom. (2014). Exporing positively- versus negatively-valenced brand
engagment: a conceptual model. Journal of Product and Brand Management. 23, 62-74.
8. Rangarajan, Deva. (2013). Employee Contributions to Brand Equity. California Management Reveiw. 56,
95-112.
9. Wallace, E et al. (2014). Consumer enagament with self-expressive brands. Journal of Product & Brand
Management. 23, 33-42.
10. Hanna, Sonya & Rowley, Jennifer. (2011). Towards a strategic place brand-management model. Journal
of Marketing Management. 27, 458-476.
11. Jayachandran, S et al. (2013). Brand Licensing: What Drives Royalty Rates. Journal of Marketing. 77,
108-122.
12. Puzakova, M & Rocereto, J. (2013). When Humanizing Brands Goes Wrong: The Detrimental Effect of
Brand Anthropomorphization Amid product Wrongdoings. Journal of Marketing. 77, 81-100.
13. Matzler, K et al. (2011). Personality, person-brand fit, and brand community: An investigation of
inderviduals, brand and brand communities. Journal of Marketing Management. 27, 874-890.
14. Howard, D & Kerin, R. (2013). A surname brand effect explanation for consumer brand preference and
advocacy. Journal of product and Brand Management. 22, 362-370.
Other
1. Mind, (2013) Our president, Stephen Fry,
http://www.mind.org.uk/get-involved/celebrity-support/our-president/, 27/04/2014
2. Oxford Dictionary, (2014) Definition of advocate in English:,
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/advocate?q=advocate, 27/4/14

12. 3. MarketingCharts.com, (2013) Bad Customer Service Interactions More Likely to be Shared Than Good
Ones,
http://www.marketingcharts.com/wp/online/bad-customer-service-interactions-more-likely-to-be-shar
ed-than-good-ones-28628/, 27/4/14
4. Ben Morris, (2014) Horsemeat scandal: How tastes changed,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25715666, 01/05/2014
5. Kiah Collier - Houston Chronicle, (2012) Pilots say labor talks hurting United,
http://www.chron.com/business/article/Pilots-say-labor-talks-hurting-United-3629149.php, 28/4/14
6. Bolger, Muireann. (2013). Mouthing Off. The Marketer. November/December 2013, 26-29.
7. Statistics Brain, (2014) Twitter Statistics, http://www.statisticbrain.com/twitter-statistics/, 28/4/14
8. Statistics Brain, (2014) Twitter Statistics, http://www.statisticbrain.com/facebook-statistics/, 28/4/14
9. The Mirror, (2012) WeightWatchers under fire for hiring slender Alesha Dixon for TV ad ,
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/weightwatchers-under-fire-for-hiring-slender-157629,
30/4/2014
10. Committee of Advertising Practice, (2013) The use of children in peer-to-peer marketing and as brand
ambassadors,
http://www.cap.org.uk/~/media/Files/CAP/Help%20notes%20new/Brand%20Ambassadors%20and%20
Peer-to-Peer%20Marketing%20Help%20Note.ashx, 30/4/14
11. BBC News, (2011) Jamie Oliver and Sainsbury's end their partnership,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14126242, 30/4/14
12. Kelly Sean , (2013) Star Power: The Impact of Celebrity Endorsement on Charitable Events and
Campaigns, http://www.institute-of-fundraising.org.uk/library/fund-comms-sean-kelly/, 30/4/14
13. Sarah Shearman, (2012) Marmite looks for new recruits for its Marmarati secret society,
http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/article/1138582/marmite-looks-new-recruits-its-marmarati-secr
et-society, 1/5/2014
14. Netmums LTD, (2014) netmums.com, http://www.netmums.com/, 02/05/2014