4. Our startpoint
Qualitative theories
60%
71%
57%
67% Niche activities
of uncertain
A mass issue return
Some very scary maths
5. Our approach
Qualitative theories
Start from here
60%
71%
57%
A couple A wider,
67% of fresher
Niche activities
illustrations understanding
of uncertain
A mass issue return
A simple,
transferable
methodology
Some very scary maths
6. Where do we go now?
Qualitative theories
Start from here
60%
71%
57%
A couple A wider,
67% of fresher
Niche activities
illustrations understanding
of uncertain
A mass issue return
A simple,
transferable
methodology
Some very scary maths
7. An illustration:
Word of mouth at the strategic level
Source: EverdayLives
9. A second illustration:
Word of mouth at the tactical level
Where’s Debbie?
Source: EverdayLives
10. Where’s Debbie?
Qualitative theories
Start from here
60%
71%
57%
A couple A wider,
67% of fresher
Niche activities
illustrations understanding
of uncertain
A mass issue return
A simple,
transferable
methodology
Some very scary maths
11. A simple, transferable methodology
Frequency of discussion Quantity of information
• “In general, how often would you • “If someone asked your advice
say you discuss <category> with on <category> how much
other people…?” information do you think you
would be able to give them?”
• 5 point scale: Never…Very often • 5 point scale: None…Very large
amount
Dispersion of discussion Quality of influence
• Over the last 6 months, how • If talking to others about your
many people would you say you preferred <category> how likely is
have talked to about it that you would be able to
<category>…? convince them about your
• 4 point scale: No-one…Many opinion?
different people • 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.
12. A simple, transferable methodology
Frequency of discussion Quantity of information
• “In general, how often would you • “If someone asked your advice
Four “components” of Word of Mouth
say you discuss <category> with on <category> how much
other people…?” information do you think you
activity within a category… would be able to give them?”
• 5 point scale: Never…Very often • 5 point scale: None…Very large
amount
...60”- 90” interview time...
Dispersion of discussion Quality of influence
…netting down to a• single to others about your
• Over the last 6 months, how If talking category-
many people would you say you
based definition of people <category> how likely is
have talked to about
preferred who are
it that you would be able to
<category>…? more Word of Mouth active: your
convince them about
• 4 point scale: No-one…Many opinion?
different people
Transmitters • 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 & Schmutz 2001.
14. How are categories different?
40%
% UK Adults Frequency
• Some things are more interesting
35%
than others
30% • Scales follow “market size”
25%
• Advertising is lowest of the low!
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Fa ily
e/ s
em ood
os ing
gy
gr ers
nt
g
ve n
s
ity
lth on
Ed ion
.
ro S
s
IY
f o stin rt
R c.
o m rs
ng s
Lo etc
om t ion
ile
m
sin
Ad igio
m
o
c
H
Te me
et
Pe roc olo
l c Ca
D
un
i
Sa et i
m
pi y d Sp
H cat
ff
sh
fil
ob
N
fa
f
rti
on ry o
s
a
s
oo
y
el
m
n
m
G hn
a
an
M
u
c
vi
e
vi
ea
e
C
al
En
in
rh
C
ca
op da
rs
Lo
ng
Sh oli
H
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.
15. How are categories different?
40%
% UK Adults Frequency Dispersion Quantity Quality
35%
• Other measures broadly follow
30% frequency
• Some subtle differences
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Fa ily
ity
e/ s
gr fers
a d
y
m g
G hn t
an c.
s
M IY
g
R tc.
ve on
n
vir HS
vin tics
u n
s
fo stin ort
om ars
en
om tion
ce log
em foo
C min
film
m
sin
ile
ea tio
Ed hio
Lo et
un
D
e
Ad ligi
Te m
p
fa
En N
of
lc C
Sa e
ob
H ca
o
gs
s
rti
pi y d S
m
rh a
s
oo
C hy
on
e
on ry
os
lt
c
e
in
al
Pe r o
ca
op ida
Lo
rs
ng
Sh ol
H
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.
16. Removing ‘size’ helps us to characterise categories
Topics driven by
Relatively more ‘ability opinion or taste
to convince’ than rather than fact
quantity of information
Talking often but
more personal
Relatively more Relatively more
frequency than dispersion than
dispersion Talking widely: frequency
“water cooler”
Relatively more
quantity of information
than ‘ability to convince’
Topics characterised by
facts and information
17. Strong opinion
(High Quality vs. Quantity) NHS
Strong opinions, Strong opinions,
Fewer people Environment
More people
Cinema films
(High Frequency vs. Dispersion )
Holiday destinations
(High Dispersion vs. Frequency)
DIY Mobiles
Talk often
Talk widely
Grocery offers Technology
Personal grooming Religion
Loans etc. Education
Local community
Healthy food Sport Advertising
Fashion
Shopping for Cars
home/family Cosmetics
Savings etc.
Strong fact
Factual discussion, Factual discussion,
(High Quantity vs. Quality)
Fewer people More people
Source: MEC MediaLab Word of Mouth/NEMS 2003. Figures represent adults % Frequency = very often/often, dispersion =
many different, quality = large/very large amount, quality (ability to convince) = very likely/definitely.
19. From four components to one definition:
Transmitters
• “Add-up” answers to all four questions
• Follow established practice for defining “heavy
users”:
• Take the top 1/3rd: transmitters
• Remaining 2/3rds: receivers
20. Who are Transmitters?
of UK adults in at least one of
21 categories
Not necessarily younger
and more up-market
Source: MEC MediaLab Word of Mouth/NEMS 2003.
21. Who are Receivers?
of UK adults in at least one of
21 categories
Source: MEC MediaLab Word of Mouth/NEMS 2003.
22. There’s no such thing as “opinion
formers” or “early adopters”
except when defined within a
category
Source: MEC MediaLab Word of Mouth/NEMS 2003.
23. Transmitters
Deserve
• Heavier users disproportionate
• Aware of more brands focus…
• 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
…especially if you get
them on your side!
24. Transmitters needs
• More demanding
• …with different hierarchies of needs by category
• …but a consistent appetite for famous brands
25. Different hierarchies of needs…
Health and Beauty Retail category attributes ranked by
importance
Unaided Aw areness
Have a higher opinion of than
Appeal to you more than others
Offer better customer service
Is the most popular store of its type
Have a w ider range of products
Meet the needs of you or your family
Make you feel special
Are laid out to make shopping easy
Sell better quality products
Are setting trends
Health & Beauty
Charge more acceptable prices Retail Transmitter
Offer something different Health & Beauty
Retail Receiver
Are grow ing more popular
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Source: MEC MediaLab Word of Mouth/WPP BrandZ 2003
26. …opportunity to temper the message set
Health and Beauty Retail category attributes ranked by transmitter
importance
Unaided Aw areness
Have a higher opinion of than
Appeal to you more than others
Offer better customer service
Is the most popular store of its type
Have a w ider range of products
Meet the needs of you or your family
Make you feel special
Are laid out to make shopping easy
Sell better quality products Health & Beauty
Retail Transmitter/
Are setting trends
Receiver Index
Charge more acceptable prices
Offer something different
Are grow ing more popular
100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Source: MEC MediaLab Word of Mouth/WPP BrandZ 2003
27. Transmitters
• Defined by category
• Deserve disproportionate focus
• Differentiated needs
• But are they accessible?
• Practically?
• Responsively?
28. Holiday transmitters: TV
Top 5 specially choose to watch programmes by index
Airport
Airline
Omnibus
Source: MEC MediaLab Word of Mouth/TGI 2003.
30. 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.
33. Generally positive about advertising
"Advertising helps me choose what to buy"
Banks
Cars
Cosmetics
Home Imp. Stores
Mobiles
Transmitters
Sportswear
Receivers
Supermarkets
Vitamins Index vs All Adults
0 25 50 75 100 125 150
Source: MEC MediaLab Word of Mouth/TGI 2004.
34. …across the ad spectrum
Noticing ads..
• In newspapers/magazines
• On radio
• On roadside posters
• At bus-stops
35. ...and beyond ads…
• Noticing event sponsors
• Entering competitions
• On pack
• Newspapers/magazines
• Not opting-out of DM lists
36. Transmitters
• Defined by category
• Deserve disproportionate focus
• Differentiated needs
• Accessible?
• Practically?
• Responsively?
– at least claimed
37. Transmitter responsiveness?
• Questions appended to two tracking studies
• Are transmitters really more ad aware?
38. Transmitters are more ad aware
Ad Awareness by Brand
Brand A
Brand B
Average transmitter
Brand C
vs. receiver score
Transmitters +36%
Brand D
Receivers
Brand E
Source: MEC MediaLab Word of Mouth/ TNS 2003. Base 500 category users
39. Down to execution level…
Ad Awareness by Film
Ad 1
Ad 2
Ad 3 Average transmitter
vs. receiver score
Ad 4
Transmitters +40%
Ad 5 Receivers
Ad 6
Source: MEC MediaLab Word of Mouth/ TNS 2003. Base 500 category users
40. …and at channel level
Ad Awareness by Channel
Any
TV aware
Average transmitter
Website* vs. receiver score
+33%
Press Transmitters
Receivers
Radio
Source: MEC MediaLab Word of Mouth/ TNS 2003. Base 500 category users.
* Aware of brand website
41. Making them disproportionately aware of more
detailed channels
Ad Awareness by Channel
Any
TV aware
Transmitter vs. Receiver Index
Website*
Press
Radio
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Source: MEC MediaLab Word of Mouth/ TNS 2003. Base 500 category users.
* Aware of brand website
42. And finally
Qualitative theories
Start from here
60%
71%
57%
A couple A wider,
67% of fresher
Niche activities
illustrations understanding
of uncertain
A mass issue return
A simple,
transferable
methodology
Some very scary maths
43. From activity to philosophy
• Not ‘something’…
• …but everything :
• product or service delivery
• innovations and NPD
• retail experience
• after-sales
• communications
44. From philosophy to practice
1. Targeting
• Transmitters are identifiable, accessible and
responsive to marketing communications
45. From philosophy to practice
2. Messages:
• Transmitters look beyond table-stakes
• Deeper detail suggests:
• multi-message
• multi-media
• Without ignoring brand fame
46. From philosophy to practice
3. 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
