If you’ve been traversing the interwebs in the same manner as I have these past few months then you may remember these smart little ads from Google, informing us that ad space will work harder.
They’re not wrong. It is.
A few weeks ago I had to travel up to Grantham to speak to one of our clients, MARS, about how to build social into one of their newest (and most exciting) ventures. To get there, it’s a short tube ride from our global headquarters in Piccadilly, up to Kings Cross, from there a train ride to Grantham, whereupon a 30min cab ride awaits to cart you to the the MARS PetCare HQ in Waltham.
Obviously, when making any public transport-based travel plans, militant scheduling is required. TheTrainline.com is useful in this instance as it covers every overground train schedule in the country. Note; all I did was check the times of the trains. My browser knows this, Google knows this and so therefore, the ad that Channel 4′s adspace chooses to serve me when I want to read about the British Comedy Awards knows also.
Contextual web-based advertising. It’s a wonderful thing. The mind races through a thousand thought processes;
Wow, that’s awesome. I should screengrab that for the blog. Contextual advertising, nice. Wait a minute, are they allowed to do that? Hmm, maybe I said they could do that when I ticked some random box.. maybe, just through visiting their site, I’ve already agreed to let them follow me around the web.. is this cookie based? It must be.. What other data am I pushing out daily?
What other data am I pushing out daily?
What other data am I pushing out daily?
And how can it be used?
This last thought in particular is one we’re going to be coming back to over the next few months here at 1000heads. Over the past year or so we’ve been doing a lot of work on conversation metrics, purchase journey mapping and ultimately, the real value that word of mouth can bring to any business, globally.
Combined, these three content streams can provide some very real data about how consumers like you and I go about our daily decision making processes; in the first instance it really is quite scary… but in the second, once all the data is locked down and independently verified – for brands at least – it can be very, very useful indeed.
As Google might say – ‘WATCH THIS SPACE’ for more on this… in the meantime, tickets to Grantham are only £9.
Historically (and personally) I’ve never been a massive fan of the resolution, having spent most of my adult life working under the impression that if you want to make a change to your life then you should just be able to do it on any day and not wait for some arbitrary, Calabrian doctor-chosen numbered day… but that’s just me.
This year, I decided to change that and, in doing so, thought I’d also take a quick straw poll from the fellow ‘heads in the room –
While there’s obviously an expected lean towards generally being more healthy and sporty (the much-missed 1000heads Tuesday night football game may make a return in the near future), there’s also a larger, more over-arching theme of learning and bettering oneself. It seems we have a fair few dancers in our midst, as well as a closet group of potential novelists.
That’s us sorted, what about you? We know how many of you read this blog every day, why not make today the day you leave a comment?
Tell us one New Year’s Resolution you’ve made (that you have every intention of keeping, obviously) and we’ll pull together a community-based chart like the above towards the end of the week.
For the record, I’m a reasonably good health insurance risk. I eat lots of vegetables, I don’t smoke and haven’t been in an ambulance for at least 18 months. I’ve even avoided the obligatory Christmas cold.
Question is, who’s listening? According to the Wall Street Journal, British insurance giant Aviva are.
“Insurers have long used blood and urine tests to assess people’s health – a costly process.Today, however, data-gathering companies have such extensive files on most U.S. consumers – online shopping details, catalog purchases, magazine subscriptions, leisure activities and information from social-networking sites -that some insurers are exploring whether data can reveal nearly as much about a person as a lab analysis of their bodily fluids.”
Interesting – and a potential chance for people to game the system. If I was seriously ill, would I mention it in my Twitter feed? As fellow ‘head Thomas pointed out on his blog, the observer effect is ever-present in online word-of-mouth. Equally though, if I was setting out to deceive a life insurance company, it wouldn’t take much to be economical with the truth on a health questionnaire.
So what are Aviva testing out with people’s social data?
Firstly, they assume that their current medical-based model is correct. This may be their first error as described by Kaiser Fung. Then they map all of the marketing variables against these medical records and derive correlations. Just like a credit-rating agency, they apply these known correlations to decide how to classify new applicants.
How does this approach differ from best practise in social media analysis for brands looking to engage with their consumers?
Let’s compare two scenarios. Based on the data:
1) Who should insurance company X reject for a health insurance policy?
2) 1000heads are inviting 100 people to take part in a trial programme. Who should we invite?
For question 1, let’s say that for every 1000 applicants insurance company X identify 3 bad insurance risks and falsely identify 7 more as bad risks.
Why might insurance company X be prepared to accept these falsely assigned bad risks? It’s all a question of economics – if the overall risk of the group of insured people is reduced by enough, then the falsely rejected are negligible. After all, there are no perfect methods for these things if we don’t want our insurance to cost a lot.
But for scenario 2, we are looking for a small number of people to include in a small activity, rather than a small number to people to exclude from a large activity.
This means that any systematic errors completely overwhelm the overall picture. If we engage people, we aim for 100% of them to respond positively. Clearly if 7 out of 10 of them have been falsely identified as having the right interests, we will have a problem. On the other hand, it may well be easier for a community exec to choose people objectively from such a shortlist than by avoiding robots entirely.
What do you think about the ethical implications of what Aviva are doing? Let us know in the comments below.
Before we get share all the great case studies, keynotes and insight we gleaned from the WOMMA (Word of Mouth Marketing Association) Summit 2010, we have to simply celebrate and say thank you to our team by highlighting the WOMMYResearch Award we won for our #NokiaNav campaign.
Collecting the award alongside Craig Hepburn, Global Head of Digital for Nokia
The WOMMYs are the most prestigious and rigorous awards in the word of mouth industry, and we are delighted that we’ve been acknowledged for “Best strategic thinking to measure the impact/success of WOM”. With #NokiaNav,we focused on understanding, measuring and shifting the sentiment of conversation around Nokia’s accessories and navigation tools. We believe that this approach, which moves beyond reach to the context and meaning of word of mouth, is essential in creating truly effective campaigns.
Here are a few of the guys who really deserve the credit: our Nokia Account and Community team Katie, Simon, Frank and Joel. They share billing equally with the Analyst Team of Joe, Allan and Marzena – who weren’t around for this photo but who did all the incredible data and insight work that made #NokiaNav possible – an awesomely talented bunch.
You can buy WOMMA’s Word of Mouth Works book to see full case studies of all winners; in the meantime get in touch if you’d like to know more about what we did!
In keeping with our ‘celebrating our staff’ brithday week, we’re handing over today’s post to one of our team you haven’t yet heard from: Rajeev Talwar, our rather fantastic Head of Social CRM, who is going to update us on the latest in WOM measurement and ROI… ^Molls
This week I’ve been reading a timely article from McKinsey about WOM measurement which includes some interesting statistics. The article introduces the concept of ‘WOM equity’ which is described as ‘an index of a brand’s power to generate messages that influence the consumer’s decision to purchase’, and which is represented as the number of WOM messages multiplied by the average sales impact.
I’ve extrapolated six key points from the study which I think are most helpful:
Word of mouth is the primary factor behind 20-50% of all purchasing decisions and its influence is greatest when consumers are buying a product for the first time or when products are relatively expensive.
A high-impact recommendation—from a trusted friend conveying a relevant message, for example—is up to 50 times more likely to trigger a purchase than a low-impact recommendation.
About 8-10% of consumers are ‘influentials’. Influentials typically generate three times more word-of-mouth messages than non-influentials do, and each message has four times more impact on a recipient’s purchasing decision.
Typically, messages passed within tight, trusted networks have less reach but greater impact than those circulated through dispersed communities.
To turn consumers into an effective marketing vehicle (yuck), companies need to outperform on product and service attributes that have intrinsic word-of-mouth potential.
Marketing induced consumer-to-consumer word of mouth generates more than twice the sales of paid advertising.
That’s pretty strong stuff, enough to make any brand owner sit up and take notice.
I was also glad to see that Miele gets a mention as one of the companies that generate successful buzz around new product launches. Having worked with Miele since 2008 we feel that they really do deserve props for the work they do.
However, although the above stats are great, I feel that we cannot use a single metric across all markets. And like may WOM studies, the article is heavily focussed towards an FMCG scenario and does not take into account other B2B or B2C scenarios.
So what are we doing to improve WOM measurement? Well, we’re currently working on a new ROI model.
Our Insights Manager Jacqui Hill explains that “the ROI model 1000heads is testing will give our clients a monetary figure representative of the value inherent in stimulating advocacy among consumers in the online environment. It will assign a pound sign to every single conversation we capture – and that value will be adjusted for sentiment, influence, trust, audience, reach and significantly, the heightened potential for long-term damage associated with detractor negativity.
1000heads’ research has established the ultimate value of a conversation to be based on the number of people who will take the intended action upon engaging with social media content. Without going into too much detail – X amount of consumers read a highly positive blog post about brand A, Y amount of consumers go out and actually buy one of Brand A’s products.
This will enable our clients to not only assess the return on their social media marketing activities and consumer engagement, but to refine their strategy, targeting resources at engaging communities/voices who offer the highest return on investment.
We’re currently testing the model across all of our clients’ online conversations and will formally introduce it once testing is complete.”
Recently our Data Systems Manager here at 1000heads, one Mr Andrew Stretton, was extolling the virtues of First Direct. Their first forays into social media have been widely covered by the trade press and – as such – FD have followed up with some facts and figures.
However, it’s these facts and figures that are raising questions with our manager of data systems.
Andrew, the floor is yours
___________________
First Direct captured my attention this week with an innovative ad campaign on London Underground, using the findings of an online market research study as its centrepiece.
“77% of what’s said about us online is positive”
It’s exciting to see companies shouting about their word of mouth. The sample WOM on the advert is also interesting – could we soon see realtime social media feeds on billboards just as Skittles attempted on their website?
On the other hand, the wording of the ad and the methodology used raises a few questions.
First Direct claim that 77% of what’s said about them “online” is positive, based upon a sample of opinions posted in a controlled environment on a brand presence. It would be interesting to know what the results would be if all banks gave their users the same opportunity and what the exact effects of the incentives involved were.
As Data Systems Manager here at 1000heads I’m tasked with bringing our clients a representative sample of spontaneous conversation from the widest variety of online sources possible. Benchmarked, contextual data from realtime, unprompted conversation could provide more interesting top line stats for an advert, giving people a birdseye view of what they themselves are saying online. For example:
“In online conversation, Brand X is strongly endorsed 20% more often than any other major UK bank”
This is of course is not to say that surveys have no place, it’s just that there is so much more insight out there to play with.
How do you think these different measures of opinion can be reconciled? Do let us know what you think in the comments, or if you would like to know more about our WOMTrak and WOMActive products please drop us a line.
We all love cheap now, right? The It-bags; the £35,000 cocktails; the massive mortgages; all those hallmarks of pre-recession mid-noughties extravagance are so… well, so 2006. Nowadays we brandish our Aldi own-label beans as if they’re a mark of social responsibility.
It’s nonsense, of course. We don’t value these mass-produced items, and we feel more nourished by the idea than the taste of our cut-price beans. We know that cheapness comes at a price: the sweatshop workers; the unsustainable farming methods; the two-for-one bulk. Cheapness always bites back. It’s temporary. It’s wasteful. So why is still so often cited it as a positive attribute of ‘social marketing?’
The social world rewards time and attention more than money and ads, so that’s what brands need to invest in. You don’t get passion, excitement, emotional fidelity and ongoing human loyalty by throwing a one-size-fits-all digital asset, or the odd chirpy tweet, into cyberspace. And no, those clever kids who created Facebook and Twitter haven’t done the expensive work on brands’ behalf and served them up a free marketing channel on a digital plate. They’ve given us new social spaces – accessible places where humans love, talk, create, trust, influence, and buy – but brands have to inspire those spaces with enthusiasm and loyalty.
Brands have crept into word of mouth marketing with predictable scepticism and caution, offering a tiny handout for an experimental advocacy programme here, or a piece of basic conversation monitoring there. It’s understandable – this can be a scary new world for companies constrained by annual budgets and rigid structures – but it’s also a waste. When they’re still happy to throw thousands at a microsite (does anyone want to gambol in a branded playground any more?) or a few hundred grand at a TV campaign (that research shows no-one’s paying attention to any more) – both of which have a pretty short shelf-life – it seems extraordinary that they’re reluctant to give a far more lasting marketing approach the equivalent financial respect.
What word of mouth, done right, really offers is not cheapness but good value. By doing less but better, in a highly strategic way, brands can achieve extraordinary results.
I’ve written more about this topic over on my monthly column for Admap, but I’d love to know what you think. Do you think this just self-interest talking or do you agree? If you work in the industry, are you starting to push back on clients on this front? How can we better get brands to value WOM?
Global Web Index have released their latest map of global social web involvement, and although a 32,000 sample pool is a little on the small side for such a big venture, there are certainly some interesting takeaways.
China continues to emerge as a massive force in content creation, although language and economic barriers mean it is sluggish to impact on the rest of the net. Japan appears to have low online engagement, but that in fact reflects the progressive Japanese reliance on mobile – in the month of the research just over 34% of Japanese social network users purely accessed through mobile, compared to 3% in the UK. And the low levels of microblogging are a timely reminder that the practice is still confined to an evangelical few.
A sophisticated global approach to WOM is the future; it’s why we have local language capabilites and partners around the world. Check out our next WOM Expert group on regional and global WOM, coming up on Friday, or drop us a line to find out more.
Global Web Index have released their latest map of global social web involvement, and although a 32,000 sample pool is a little on the small side for such a big venture, there are certainly some interesting takeaways.
China continues to emerge as a massive force in content creation, although language and economic barriers mean it is sluggish to impact on the rest of the net. Japan appears to have low online engagement, but that in fact reflects the progressive Japanese reliance on mobile – in the month of the research just over 34% of Japanese social network users purely accessed through mobile, compared to 3% in the UK. And the low levels of microblogging are a timely reminder that the practice is still confined to an evangelical few.
A sophisticated global approach to WOM is the future; it’s why we have local language capabilites and partners around the world. Check out our next WOM Expert group on regional and global WOM, coming up on Friday, or drop us a line to find out more.
So much for the old on/offline behaviour divide. Social media is frequently positioned as the home of disinhibition and idealisation, a place where we abandon our real selves for posturing and role-playing; but new research from the University of Texas suggests that our online personalities match who we really are.
“The scientists, led by a psychology professor, Sam Gosling, collected 236 profiles of young adults on Facebook as well as a similar social networking site in Germany. ..The researchers expected the Facebook profiles to match an idealized version of the user’s personality. But to their surprise, the online Facebook profile matched the real-world personality test…Dr. Gosling said the findings suggested that online social networks could provide users with an opportunity for genuine social interactions.”
In the comments on the New York Times post, several people point out that Facebook is uniquely ‘realistic’ as it’s built around networks of people who know each other, so that frauds will be quickly found out. However, many different platforms have an inherent ‘reality control.’ Twitter works best as a passion-connecting tool, and effectively maintaining a false or idealised self across several tweets a day would need pretty dedicated attention to detail for little discernible purpose. The most successful or popular bloggers and forum members such as Robert Scoble, Seth Godin and Justine Roberts of Mumsnet have traded on a sense of accessibility and personality. Aspiring opinion leaders follow their lead – its why Tuttles and Twestivals and other offline meet-ups are so popular. And the increasing popularity of video blogging and live streaming makes maintaining an element of online self-fakery pretty damn difficult.
It’s a debate which is highly significant for brands getting involved in social media. If you’re using the opinions of these people as a basis for change and prioritisation, it’s pretty important that they’re expressing genuine approval or grievances. On the other hand, does it really matter if some WOM is calculated to give a false sense of status or personality or to fit in? Isn’t it still influential to the thousands, regardless of its individual integrity?
My experience is that a sense of the genuine still strongly affects our trust of WOM online. While we’ll certainly be generally influenced by the general volume and sentiment of comments, those that touch and change us most are ones where we do have a sense of context – where what we read and see of that person assures us that what they share comes from their heart.
It’s nonsense, of course. We don’t value these mass-produced items, and we feel more nourished by the idea than the taste of our cut-price beans. We know that cheapness comes at a price: the sweatshop workers; the unsustainable farming methods; the two-for-one bulk. Cheapness always bites back. It’s temporary. It’s wasteful. So why is still so often cited it as a positive attribute of ‘social marketing?’
