 "Steve Knox")
Being part of a low involvement category can never be an excuse to not generate advocacy, Knox tells Devina Joshi
One of the biggest challenges for advocacy marketing is how a brand ought to effectively generate it. What would you recommend?
Advocacy is a mathematical formula. It is 'relationship x disruptive experience = advocacy'. The fact that it is multiplicative is really important: if either side is zero, you get zero advocacy. If you have a relationship with me, but what you're telling me is not interesting/disruptive, there is zero advocacy. If we turn it the other way - if I don't know who you are or I don't trust you, there is zero advocacy as well.
Also Read
Brands know their target consumers, but do they know what influences them? They need to identify and develop a relationship with those influencers. Here's where the science gets really fascinating: it turns out that a brand needs to have a relationship only with two per cent of its target audience base. These are your advocates.
It turns out that advocacy is tied to a cognitive psychological principle called the disruptive schema. Schemas are mental models of how we make the world work - a series of assumptions our brain makes that allows us to process a whole bunch of information. If you interrupt a core schema, the brain can't stand a state of imbalance. The way it gets back into balance is by talking about it. So for marketers, it is important to understand what the key assumptions that the consumer has made about your brand are. Then, actively think, how can I disrupt that assumption? Then place that disruption before the two per cent influencers, and they go, 'I have to go tell all my friends'. That's how you can create advocacy marketing.
Do you think marketers make the mistake of wasting resources by targeting too many people?
It's not that they make a mistake; it is just that the marketing world is changing. It is rooted in the word 'trust'. And that trust - on the advocacy through traditional advertising - has declined over the years; so new marketing vehicles are now needed to establish trust. You cannot establish trust on a macro basis; that is almost impossible now. The good news is, marketers don't have to do that.
How can the theory of cognitive dissonance aid advocacy marketing, particularly at the time of purchase?
Psychology teaches that the most likely moment of advocacy is when you first buy something. And that is called cognitive dissonance - when we are trying to reassure ourselves that the decision we just made is a smart one. Most marketers think, 'We have just sold you something; our job is done'. But their job is just beginning.
What about lower involvement categories like pens? Do people rationalise such purchases too?
The lower the involvement of the category, the less the need to rationalise. But that doesn't mean that you will not talk about that category, if disruption is attached to it. When I worked for P&G, we did an advocacy marketing campaign for a women's deodorant called Secret. We got 53,000 women to write on a webpage about Secret. If you go to a review site, 100 reviews are a lot. Being part of a low involvement category can never be an excuse to not generate advocacy. Even the most mundane products can be discussed, if marketers give consumers something interesting to talk about.
What is the difference between reciprocal altruism and corporate social responsibility?
The two are similar, but not quite the same. Reciprocal altruism is the simple concept that 'I give to you and I expect nothing in return' and the reciprocal part is vice-versa. This is how we build human relationships. Reciprocal altruism marketing is applied to the two per cent I spoke of earlier. What gift can a brand give that two per cent, without expecting anything in return? It can be the treasure trove gift of information or the gift of time. The consumer in return gives you a relationship.
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is about trying to reach out in a mass way. Reciprocal altruism is about thinking about you as an individual and giving you an information nobody else has, while CSR is about giving to the larger society.
What are the ways to disrupt schemas?
Red Bull is a phenomenal example of a brand that has done this well. It truly understands its target group. It has targeted music DJs, truck drivers, and extreme sports players - anybody who needs energy. Apple is another example. Not only did it disrupt schemas at the product level, but look what they did with retail. It disrupted what everyone thought a retail store should look like.
Every brand has something interesting to talk about. Marketers need to find that. The product is just one touchpoint. Retail, pricing, advertising, the dialogue you have with consumers, all are potential areas. If I were a challenger brand to Apple, I may not want to disrupt on the product development/design premise. Maybe I would disrupt on a different plane…an area where my competitor doesn't have an advantage.
Some consumer products companies have fallen into the competency trap: the belief that they are so good at something that they feel there isn't a better way to do it. What is the way out?
Yes, I do believe companies are in that trap. The traditional purchase process starts at awareness, then consideration, trial and purchase. At the purchase stage, marketers declare victory, and that is the competency trap. We can't see a better way. If instead of declaring victory, when you sell someone something, if you said, 'I still have more work to do', what would do differently to create an advocate? This is a marketing competency trap, across industries.
THE MARKETER
* Steve Knox has served as chief executive officer of TREMOR, Procter & Gamble's word of mouth marketing capability, since 2003. He joined TREMOR at its inception in 2000 as vice-president of business development
* Prior to TREMOR, Knox built a base of deep consumer sales and marketing experience in a variety of capacities at Procter & Gamble, most notably serving as the director of customer marketing, where he led the global development and implementation of shopper marketing
* He is a graduate from the University of Wisconsin with a bachelors in Business Administration in Marketing
