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