power of advocacy
Post on 19-Oct-2014
977 views
DESCRIPTION
The document quantifies the power of word of mouth as it outlines the best practiceTRANSCRIPT
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!
RatingsPreviousratings
Positionin series
Volume of discussion No. of
episodes
Dispersion of discussion
Source: Using onliune conversations to study word of mouth communication. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=327841
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:http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030313.wpitc313/BNStory/Technology
“Buzz is not a panacea for marketplace successany 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
Qualitative theories
Where do we go now?
71%57%
60%
67%
A mass issue
Some very scary maths
Niche activities of uncertain
return
Start from here
A coupleof
illustrations
A simple, transferable
methodology
A wider,fresher
understanding
Qualitative theories
Where do we go now?
71%57%
60%
67%
A mass issue
Some very scary maths
Niche activities of uncertain
return
Start from here
A coupleof
illustrations
A simple, transferable
methodology
A wider,fresher
understanding
An illustration:Word of mouth at the strategic level
Source: EverdayLives
Source: EverdayLives
A second illustration:Word of mouth at the tactical level
Source: EverdayLives
A second illustration:Word of mouth at the tactical level
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 coupleof
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 methodologyWhat we’ve done with it
How are categories different?
How are categories different?
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.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%% UK Adults Frequency
• Some things are more interesting than others
• Scales follow “market size”
• Advertising is lowest of the low!
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%% UK Adults Frequency Dispersion Quantity Quality
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
BRANDZ
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
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Are grow ing more popular
Offer something different
Charge more acceptable prices
Are setting trends
Sell better quality products
Are laid out to make shopping easy
Make you feel special
Meet the needs of you or your family
Have a w ider range of products
Is the most popular store of its type
Offer better customer service
Appeal to you more than others
Have a higher opinion of than
Unaided Aw areness
Health & BeautyRetail Transmitter
Health & BeautyRetail Receiver
…opportunity to temper the message setHealth and Beauty Retail category attributes ranked by transmitter importance
Source: MEC MediaLab Word of Mouth/WPP BrandZ 2003
100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Are grow ing more popular
Offer something different
Charge more acceptable prices
Are setting trends
Sell better quality products
Are laid out to make shopping easy
Make you feel special
Meet the needs of you or your family
Have a w ider range of products
Is the most popular store of its type
Offer better customer service
Appeal to you more than others
Have a higher opinion of than
Unaided Aw areness
Health & BeautyRetail Transmitter/Receiver Index
Transmitters
• Defined by category
• Deserve disproportionate focus
• Differentiated needs
• But are they accessible?
– Practically?
– Responsively?
Holiday transmitters: TVTop 5 specially choose to watch programmes by index
Airport
Airline
Omnibus
Source: MEC MediaLab Word of Mouth/TGI 2003.
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.
Time Team
IT Transmitters: TVTop 5 specially choose to watch programmes by index
Source: MEC MediaLab Word of Mouth/TGI 2003.
Some common characteristics
• Digital
• Attitudes to marketing
Transmitters and marketing:- responsive?
Generally positive about advertising"Advertising helps me choose what to buy"
0 25 50 75 100 125 150
Vitamins
Supermarkets
Sportswear
Mobiles
Home Imp. Stores
Cosmetics
Cars
Banks
Index vs All Adults
Transmitters
Receivers
Source: MEC MediaLab Word of Mouth/TGI 2004.
Generally positive about advertising
Source: MEC MediaLab Word of Mouth/TGI 2004.
"Advertising helps me choose what I buy"
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Vitamins
Supermarkets
Sportswear
Mobiles
Home Imp. Stores
Cosmetics
Cars
Banks
Average
Transmittervs Receiver
From TV ads…
Source: MEC MediaLab Word of Mouth/TGI 2004.
"TV ads are interesting to talk about"
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Vitamins
Supermarkets
Sportswear
Mobiles
Home Imp. Stores
Cosmetics
Cars
Banks
Average
Transmittervs Receiver
…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%
Ad Awareness by Brand
Brand E
Brand D
Brand C
Brand B
Brand A
Transmitters
Receivers
Down to execution level…
Average transmitter
vs. receiver score
+40%
Source: MEC MediaLab Word of Mouth/ TNS 2003. Base 500 category users
Ad Awareness by Film
Ad 6
Ad 5
Ad 4
Ad 3
Ad 2
Ad 1
Transmitters
Receivers
…and at channel level
Ad Awareness by Channel
Radio
Press
Website*
TV aware
Any
Transmitters
Receivers
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
Ad Awareness by Channel
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Radio
Press
Website*
TV aware
Any
Transmitter vs. Receiver Index
Source: MEC MediaLab Word of Mouth/ TNS 2003. Base 500 category users.
* Aware of brand website
Qualitative theories
And finally
71%57%
60%
67%
A mass issue
Some very scary maths
Niche activities of uncertain
return
Start from here
A coupleof
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 practice1. Targeting
– Transmitters are identifiable, accessible and responsive to marketing communications
From philosophy to practice2. Messages:
– Transmitters look beyond table-stakes– Deeper detail suggests:
– multi-message– multi-media
– Without ignoring brand fame
From philosophy to practice3. 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