Harnessing Advocacy and the Power of Word of mouth: because thats how advertising works

…because I believe brands should only invest in marketing communications through existing users of their brand

The increasing importance of word of mouth (so I’m told)

Advocacy takes many forms.  The principal form with which we’re interested for the purposes of this essay is word of mouth, the power of which is increasing.  A relevant word in the right ear can in a moment override all our accumulated knowledge and opinion on a planned purchase (see note 1).  Intergration’s Market Contact Audit (MCA) declared word of mouth to be “the form of consumer contact with the highest capacity to create consumer engagement” (see note 2).  McKinsey estimate that word of mouth influences two-thirds of US industries (see note 3).

Word of mouth isn’t a modern phenomenon.  It is, in many ways, the oldest form of communication.  What is very modern is the increased power word of mouth has in a digital age.  Technologies such as the internet, email, mobile phones, text messaging, PDAs, instant messaging, and blogs have made sharing information and opinion easier than ever before.  The combination of these digital technologies and the fragmentation of media channels that has instigated the waning of the disruption advertising model, mean that “in a networked society … personal recommendations, and recriminations, have more weight” (see note 4).  We make our purchase decisions based on what people tell us.

Furthermore as Paul Revere’s ride through New England to warn of the approaching English – as recounted by Gladwell (see note 5) reminds us; not all word of mouth is created equal.  Some individuals are more powerful carriers of a message, some messages more contagious, and some advice is more likely to come from one person rather than the next.  ævolve research demonstrates for example the extent to which men are more likely to give advice about new technologies than women (see note 6).

Herds and tribes

Nor is the effect of word of mouth limited to affecting changes in individual behaviour, it also works at a group level.  Our opinions and behaviours (and brand preferences) are very susceptible to the opinions and behaviours of those around us.  “Most of us are only likely to change our behaviour if there is evidence of a larger movement emerging” (see note 7); evidence for which we increasingly gather in the form of word of mouth.

Mark Earls goes further, and suggests that “when we in organisations think about affecting mass behaviour in customers or staff, we tend to think … that it is what we do that affects the way that our audience behaves … but this is misleading … what really matters is what each of the individuals in the mass does to the others” (see note 8).

In his studies into the emergence of society’s modern tribes, Bernard Cova proposed that people are less interested in objects of consumption than in the social links and identities that come with them.  Demographically disparate but connected individuals now have control over the brands they collectively choose to consume; choices determined not by product or service intrinsics, but by a shared and agreed understanding of what that brand represents and stands for (see note 9)  Similarly Brownlie and Elliott asserted that such tribes hold greater influencing power than the mass audience (see note 10).

Word of mouth is – in the majority of instances – the single most important determinant that influences our individual and collective behaviour.  When we form opinions and make decisions it is as part of an ongoing series of conversations with other people.

Advertising and word of mouth

What matters most then is what we communicate to each other about brands.  Yet our objectives and measurement remain largely bound by proximal metrics – such as awareness, or ultimate metrics – such as customer acquisition.  Furthermore when brands attempt to engage consumers through word of mouth programmes, efforts remain largely isolated into specific silos of expertise.

We’re not joining up the dots.  “There is often a mistaken notion that word of mouth needs to stand in stark contrast to traditional forms of advertising. But this is not the case … in many cases traditional forms of media serve as conversation starters and are the basis for people talking about a product or a service” (see note 11).  The sentiment is echoed by James Harrison; “the reason why advertising works has always been because of word of mouth” (see note 12).

Advertising and word of mouth are inextricably linked.  Those most likely to give advice about a product or service are proven to be those most likely to seek out advertising in their given categories of interest (see note 13).

Yet we divorce advertising and word of mouth programmes into different silos.  We ignore not only the combined effect of these disciplines but the opportunity it presents to engage our existing customers – mitigating defections and stimulating positive word of mouth on behalf of our brands – thereby generating acquisition of new customers.

a new engine brand growth places retention as the starting point for marketing strategy

A new model, as outlined in figure 1, presents itself:

• Place retention as a starting rather than an end point
• With the aim of making existing customers not want to   defect (ie be loyal)
• At the same time generating word of mouth
• Which subsequently drives acquisition of new customers

What this model demands is a new way of thinking about marketing and communications planning.  We need an approach that combines customer relationship marketing (CRM), advertising and word of mouth in a way that not only engages and empowers the existing consumers of our brands, but communicates to potential customers just what they’re missing.  but more of that on Monday, have good weekends...

 

Notes

1. Blades & Phillip.  Decision Watch UK.  MRS Conferences 2005.  “The extraordinary power of word of mouth became obvious, this unscientific sample of one vague acquaintance, whose knowledge of cars Gary couldn’t even assess, put him off purchasing a car for six months”.

2. Laborie, Jean-Louis. "The Theory Behind Engagement and Integration's Early Experience Across Media." Paper presented at ReThink: 52nd Annual Advertising Research Foundation Annual Conference and Expo, March 20–22, 2006: http://mail.thearf.org/roymorgan/Engagement/2006.rethink.ARF.The%20Theory.pres.Laborie.pdf].

3. Dye, Renee. "The Buzz on Buzz." Harvard Business Review, November 2000.  McKinsey & Company estimates for the 1994 US Economy (note this is prior to the emergence of the mainstream internet paradigm so likely to be conservative) – total equals $6 trillion.  Slightly more than two-thirds of the U.S. economy has been influenced by buzz: 13% Largely Driven by Buzz (Toys, sporting goods, motion pictures, broadcasting, amusement and recreation services, fashion); 54% Partially Driven by Buzz (Finance (investment products), hotels and lodging, electronics, printing and publishing, tobacco, automotive, pharmaceuticals and health care, transportation, agriculture, food and drink); 33% Largely Immune to Buzz (Oil, gas, chemicals, railroads, insurance, utilities).

4. Wilmot & Nelson.  Complicated Lives: sophisticated consumers, intricate lifestyles, simple solutions

5. Malcolm Gladwell.  The Tipping Point

6. Data from ævolve’s CCS study.  The survey regularly asks its panel about advice given about various categories in last 3 months

7. Caroline Whitehall.  Inertia is good

8. Mark Earls.  Herd

9. Cova, B. (1999), "From Marketing to Societing: When the Link is More Important than the Thing", in Brownlie, D., Saren, M., Wensley, R. and Whittington, R. (Eds) Rethinking Marketing, Towards Critical Marketing

10. Elliott, R. (1999), "Symbolic Meaning and Postmodern Consumer Culture", in Brownlie, D., Saren, M., Wensley, R. and Whittington, R. (Eds) Rethinking Marketing, Towards Critical Marketing Accountings

11. Ed Keller and Simon Chadwick.  Is word of mouth Just a Buzz?  MRS Annual Conference, 2006

12. James Harrison, Managing Partner at Fuel, Engine Group – as quoted in an interview for this essay

13. Data from ævolve’s CCS study.  The survey quantifies the proves the propensity for people who give advice to be ‘ad-seekers’ within that category

on Monday and Tuesday: A new way of approaching communications planning

Comments

[Sharyn Smith]

Hi Chris, really enjoyed reading your thoughts and i like where you ended up. CRM and marketing departments are incredibly silo-ed but as you point out WOM from customers count – a lot. In fact 82% of all WOM is from customers which means they are potentially THE MOST important media/marketing channel for any brand to drive new customers.So why isn't it more important?

[Christoph]

Hi Sharyn, That's a big number 82%!! Where does it come from?