Asda’s decision to put mothers at the heart of its marketing strategy is no surprise; there is little doubt that as the main shoppers and decision makers for family purchases, this level of insight can be very powerful.
What is commendable is Asda’s willingness to look beyond shopping behaviours to social trends. While appearing to be unrelated these trends often have a profound effect on the nature of a consumer’s bond with a brand, through a broader understanding of their lifestyle. An empathetic appreciation of people and the context within which they live is crucial for any brand hoping to play a role in their lives.
For example, I believe that Helicopter parenting is dying. Over the last couple of years I have scaled back my kid’s extra-curricular activities and now like nothing better than homework-free evenings kicking back with a TV show (and not even an educational one!) and a cuddle. My friends can’t believe it. I was the one always complaining if work wasn’t set or rushing them around to ballet lessons, drama classes and chess club.
The reason? I now think kids’ lives are stressful enough without actively adding to the pressure. Almost every activity came with exams attached, and I now sincerely believe that creating stronger bonds in the home creates a happier, more successful child.
What has this got to do with a supermarket? Everything. I can think of several products, services or communication that could tap straight into that insight and immediately create an emotional link with me. Family fondue night anyone?
It would be interesting however, to know how the sample for the Mumdex panel has been profiled; the assumption being that it’s representative of the existing Asda demographic. If so, caution is needed to avoid the temptation to extrapolate the findings to all mums. No doubt there will be a quarterly release of data that will happily make the pages of the national press; the source simply cited as ‘UK mums’.
Equally has Asda considered identifying those mums on the panel with the most influential clout? In a world where brands need to rely increasingly on Word of Mouth both on and (more crucially for this audience) offline, our research shows that it is a certain type of woman across all social classes who is shaping others’ attitudes and preferences, much more than any form of brand communication. Understanding these women and how, when and where they influence is key, not only to gaining valuable insight into the development of social trends, but also to creating a WOM strategy that goes beyond the mummy blogger and into the real world.
When I first started working at 1000heads, I was regularly asked what I did, and I usually began by explaining, ‘We build relationships with key influencers to affect conversations about brands.’ Actually it started out a lot more convoluted than that, with references to insight and advocacy and amplification; the number of glazed expressions prompted the simplification.
However, it was while carrying out the Different Size Feet research into parental social influence that it became apparent that perhaps there is a little too much emphasis in our industry on the ‘influencers’ and not enough on the ‘influenced’ – the ones who actually end up making the difference between brand success and failure.
When we first briefed the research to our partners at Kids Industries, we wanted to discover how social influence impacts on parents’ buying behaviour: how, why, where and when conversation prompts them to buy, on and offline, and which social relationships influence them at which stages of the process.
What I didn’t expect to uncover was a fascinating insight into parental behaviour towards these influences.
After the initial qualitative research, we found that parents are not a generic herd of followers at all. Eight very distinct groups of behavioural paradigms emerged, each with its own distinct psychology prompting shared common traits around what and who influences socially and how that translates into purchasing behaviour. What was even more exciting was that quantitative research showed that these personality types were broadly consistent across all product categories.
How does this affect what we do at 1000heads?
Put simply it means that while we will continue to identify and connect to family influencers, we know that to reach everyone, several strands of strategy may be necessary. Our in-depth knowledge of these social buyer personalities (which we will continue to build on) and their behaviour means we know who needs to be sharing the conversation at what trigger points and with what emphasis.
Subsequent discussions about the personality types has also proved these types to be pretty universal – OK, so having kids is a life-changing experience, but reactions amongst those without children does indicate that this research has relevance beyond the parental sphere. You can read in more detail about the research and the personality profiles via the Different Size Feet white paper, but here’s a brief summary of these types:
The Experts
Likely to have specific passions but approach all purchases with rigour and independent research, relying on online and offline resources as well as opinions of other ‘Experts’.
The Deliberators
Very risk averse. Will spend a relatively long time on purchase decisions, exploring all options, reading reviews and asking friends and family for opinions.
The Validators
Rely heavily on opinions of family and friends and love to share their own experiences and recommendations.
The Frugals
Are primarily driven by price, tending to only ask other Frugals for recommendations.
The Child-centred
Motivated by keeping their kids happy. Will converse with other Child-centreds and their children to gain their endorsement.
The Spontaneous
Lack the motivation to research for the best quality or deal. Will often decide at the point of sale or observe others for tacit recommendation.
The Disengaged
Not at all product or brand driven, tending to take a highly functional approach when considering new products. They seek information only when really necessary from trusted sources.
The Excluded
Lack strong networks and experience with products/brands overall compounded by lack access to information (both online and offline. Make lots of mistakes due to poorly informed decisions
As a Senior Strategy Executive here at 1000heads, I’ve worked across countless industries (something I love about working here), been to numerous events and had the opportunity to work with some fabulous clients.
So with that in mind (and following on from Molly’s post yesterday), I wanted to share some insights that I gleaned from last week’s WOMMA UK / IPA event featuring the latest word of mouth research from Keller Fay.
The new research paper (about online and offline word of mouth in the UK) really drove home a few crucial points about what it takes to successfully execute almost any engagement strategy.
What struck me most were a few simple insights into, firstly, what inspires people to talk about brands and, secondly, what effect marketing and advertising has on a levels of recommendation.
Some stand out stats;
50% of consumer WOM in the UK is triggered or influenced by marketing and advertising content
Those conversations that involve media/advertising are more likely to contain a strong recommendation to purchase (39%) than other conversations (31%)
62% of brand references in WOM are mostly positive
Keller Fay’s stats also highlight that being social doesn’t necessarily mean you’re influencing a discussion on or offline. A prime example is Android in the US, the 4th most “social brand” but 397th on the list of most talked about brands offline and online.
Many thanks to @kellerfay for another insightful piece of work. Any questions drop me a line @benjaminwfox.
As President of WOMMA UK, I’m often asked for stats on the state of the UK WOM industry, and it’s frustrating that I have little to point people to. Yes, there’s some good stuff about how companies are using social media or general WOM data (although most studies still focus on the US), but we’re all pretty much in the dark about just how many brands and agencies do word of mouth work and what they do, not to mention their revenues, challenges, ethical issues and future priorities.
We’re creating it now because WOMMA UK have become stakeholders in the industry response to the government’s Bailey Review on child sexualisation and commercialisation, (helmed by the AA).
The survey therefore gives us an opportunity not only to scope the size and issues of the existing industry, but to drill down into activity involving children and therefore help to set the future ethical agenda – something very important to us here at 1000heads too (you can see our policy on engaging with children here).
So please fill in the survey now and pass it on to partners, colleagues and associations working within WOM.
We look forward to much more extensive and rigorous research to come, but this is a much-needed start, which will be of huge benefit to agencies, brands and associations alike.
A couple of interesting pieces of research have surfaced this week: one looking at what we’re talking about online, the other more focused on how and why.
First, Synthesio has analysed around 200 million conversations in 17 countries over the past 3 months to produce:
It reflects that we’re still using social media very much as a consumer space based on specific passions rather than general ‘socialising’. Health scooping the top spot is a no-brainer, but the ‘soft topics’ you’d probably assume our social interactions focus on -love and family – are trumped by our active pastimes, areas saturated by big-brand products and services: games, auto, tech, sports, music, cinema.
This makes total common sense, of course, but it’s worth remembering: we’re broadcasters, not just communicators. We constantly ally ourselves with the things we love and want to discuss products and passions rather than just say hi to dad. It’s what makes the space so valuable for brands.
Secondly, Harbinger have been examining how women’s word of mouth works. Reflecting humankind’s general preference for face to face WOM, they discovered that they’re three times as likely to talk to friends and family about products rather than head online, and 92% prefer offline advice to internet research.
But their study also suggests that women are more likely to seek out others’ opinions about low-entry, impersonal decisions than highly personal ones. 71% will seek out WOM about restaurants, with entertainment and auto decisions rating highly too – but only 41% consult about fashion, and 30% about jewellery. This rather unexpected finding indicates that we’re still pretty sure of our own inner compass when it comes to decisions that broadcast our own unique identity and therefore feel less compelled to trawl for advice.
A final finding suggest this also depends on life stage. 26% of younger women who have just entered a stable relationship are apparently eager to share their ideas and advice, whereas only 4% of over-50s with grown children feel the urge, suggesting that a shift in identity drives a fresh need to express and reinforce it.
It’s real food for thought. When are we seekers, and when are we sharers? When do we prefer to be the recipients of WOM and when the broadcasters? When are we influencers and when are we influenced?
Crowdsourcing is one of those concepts which inspires intense emotions, from idealism-fuelled evangelism through to sneering cynicism. Often trumpeted as one of the triumphs of World 2.0, a utopia of democratic crowd wisdom that foregrounds the creativity of the little guy, it has captured the imagination of brands and organisations big time, from the sublime to the banal.
However, an equally vocal faction consider crowdsourcing to be an ineffective and unrigorous way of innovating, which has become a cheap and easy shortcut for lazy brands.
As John Klossner recently put it (in a post claiming that Mr Smith Goes to Washington is the first example of crowdsourcing on film – nice – I always think of Spartacus):
Crowdsourcing can be considered a way of doing a project cheaply. Instead of bringing in experts to look at the problem, you let “the crowd” solve it. For someone with professional expertise who makes a living at this, where is the attraction? Crowdsourcing might allow for the discovery of an unthought-of idea — kind of like winning the lottery — but how do you guarantee that the most qualified individuals will participate? Is it crowdsourcing? Or a pie bake-off?
TV advertising used to work like this: you sat on your sofa while creatives were paid to throw a bucket of shit in your face. Today you’re expected to sit on the bucket, fill it with your own shit, and tip it over your head while filming yourself on your mobile. Then you upload the video to the creatives. You do the work; they still get paid.
In Forbes.com, Dan Woods recently wrote a well constructed piece, based on Netflix’s recent algorithm crowdsourcing project, warning that the word itself is misleading. He posits that it is still the exceptional individuals in the herd which drive the real innovation and discovery.
So surely brands need to be crowdsurfing rather than crowdsourcing – not getting bogged down in the lowest common denominator but finding ways to help the really exciting stuff to rise to the top?
This reminds me of Francesco D’Orazio‘s presentation for WOM UK back in November, when he described Face’s approach to research. They combine a wide initial crowdsourcing approach with a more focused co-creation stage that gathers a select few opinion leaders to test the best ideas and nail down specific proposals for activity – meaning you get both individual and group thinking, bottom and top down structures. It makes sense.
There are plenty of crowdsourcing communities which promote quality as well as quantity and ensure members are rewarded in a way consummate with their expertise – check out Blur Designs or Bush Green. But it’s also true that ‘crowdsourcing’ is rapidly becoming a media buzzword applied with dubious strategy or integrity. It will be interesting to see whether ‘the crowd’ become more reluctant to share their insights and graft, and how creative brands become in filtering those opinions and making them an effective part of their feedback loop in a way that engages, but doesn’t exploit, the public.
What do you think? Have been part of a crowdsourcing project and how did you feel? How do you think the practice will evolve and who is doing it best, and worst, right now?
Can anyone still be in doubt that peer to peer word of mouth is the one most influential factor in determining where consumers spend their money, attention and time? Neilsen’s latest Global Online Consumer Survey, which polled 25,000 Internet consumers from 50 countries, has reiterated research we’ve seen year on year by finding that 90% of people trust recommendations from those they know.
There are a couple more really interesting findings here. One is that brand websites are considered equally trustworthy to consumer opinion published online – a change from previous reports and perhaps an indication that brands are becoming much more skilled in creating engaging, transparent and personalised presences which encourage a dialogue with consumers rather than broadcasting marketing spiel. The other is that online ads – video, banner and SEO – are right at the bottom, below equivalent methods offline. For me, this proves that social media is simply not a traditional marketing tool. Interruptive brand ads are just not welcome in a space which is all about emotion, independence and UGC. Word of mouth, of course, most definitely is.
We’re creating it now because WOMMA UK have become stakeholders in the industry response to the government’s 
via 
