The New Brand Ambassadors vs. ?
January 3rd, 2008
Adweek has a new piece on “evangelical citizen marketers” (didn’t Ben and Jackie coin that term?) and how companies are using these folks in their marketing mixes. Let me say right up front that I think it’s a very informative article with a lot of examples of new techniques that companies are using to engage customers.
Yes, you knew there would be a “but” coming soon in here…
BUT I think that we at Brains on Fire are going to have to find a different term for what we have been calling “brand ambassadors” if this article is truly reflective of what the rest of the marketing and PR world think the term means.
Let’s break it down, shall we?
- “These programs ‘hire’ consumers, via incentives and rewards, to act as part PR agents, part sales rep and part evangelists.” Yes, there has to be an incentive to get involved – but if the only reason people are signing up to become an “ambassador” is to get free stuff, then it’s not genuine. And brand ambassadors should never be your sales rep. That’s what you have sales reps for. They should exist to spread goodwill. That’s the very definition of “ambassador.”
- “[Ambassadors] are expected to tap into friends, family, groups and resources through conversations, blogs, live events and online social media.” Does this sound like manipulation to anyone else? Should you really give you hand-raisers a “to-do” list? If you truly embrace them and give them the tools they need, they will go and use them in the way they see fit. They don’t need you to tell them what to do. And you don’t need to “expect” them to do anything.
- Unilever used “brand ambassadors” in elementary schools with their “Go Green and Small with All” contest. Schools competed to see who could go the greenest and the schools that wins gets a $50,000 grant, an iPod shuffle for every student, etc, etc. Listen. This IS NOT brand ambassadorship. It’s a freakin’ contest.
The list (and the article) go on and on.
Like I said, I’m not bashing any of these efforts. I applaud them. But they way they use “brand ambassador” and the way we use it are completely different. The main difference? It’s about movements. Truly embracing those hand-raisers that already love you; truly bringing them into the fold and not treating them like an unpaid sales rep; and listening and learning from them – THAT is the basis for a movement. If it’s treated as a marketing gimmick, that’s what it will be – a gimmick. NOT a movement. (Just another reason why this “word of mouth” thing belongs in the PR arm of companies.) Embracing kindred spirits (sorry, Olivier, I said it) and Fascinating, Inspiring, Rewarding and Engaging them, well, creates Brains on Fire.
Maybe that’s the term we should use, eh?
Other posts by Spike.
Virginia Miracle says:
I like “movement” and “ambassador” because they lack the baggage of the language of war and the language of religion that we have started using to explain what we do. Somehow borrowing the language of politics seems more appropriate. I wish “organizer” had a better ring to it - aren’t those the folks who rally movements?
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:59 amChristy says:
I wonder when companies will get that they have to do more than just *listen* to their ambassadors. (Hint: Ambassadors exist whether you actively recruit them or not!)
By the time a company gets it that they need to make a change to a product or service, there are multitudes of people letting out one collective “AARRRGH!!” in frustration for it having taken so long.
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:24 pmolivier blanchard says:
Hehe… Let me say this for the record: Spike, I agree with you 100%.
Evangelists who get paid to be evangelists or ambassadors just don’t pack the same punch as evangelists and ambassadors who praise a product/company/brand (there, I said it) because they feel an irresistible urge to do so all on their own.
The moment you get paid to sell a product (as an evangelist or otherwise) you become a salesperson. You can still call yourself an evangelist or an ambassador if it makes you feel cooler, but you’ve become a salesperson. There is no wiggle room here.
Let me just add one thing: Without a great product to begin with, even PR departments with the greatest community/movement-fostering savvy can only do so much. Product development teams must be engaged in the communities that PR helps create and grow. The goal: Put users, evangelists, designers and senior execs in the same room (figuratively speaking) until they are almost indistinguishable from each other in the way they speak, think and feel about their products.
The community/movement can’t stop at the gate any more than it can be solely the responsibility of a Marketing function.
Great brands always start with great products/user experiences.
Good post.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:58 pmstephenie says:
Ok… as a paid brand ambassador I have to disagree somewhat about our motives, our dedication, and our effectiveness. I am not, and I repeat, NOT a salesperson and I tell this to everyone I meet. While I love most of the products Fiskars makes, they do have products I do not like, do not endorse, and will never promote - I will not compromise my true passion for crafting and what I do that way just because they pay me. And, I am not supposed to.
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:06 pmWe are supposed to be honest, true feedback for them. We can say, “No - I don’t like that and here is why… here is what will make it better…” If they listen - great! If not, well, then they know where I stand and know that I will not be putting my “weight” as an ambassador behind that item.
Would I still be a Fiskateer without being paid - yes - because I was before I was paid. Now, I use that budget and pay to go out and just scrap more - it supports the habit I already had! It just gives me more opportunities to do what I was already doing and the ability to share it with more people, in more places, all over the country and the ability to let them actually have products to try, play with, and even take home.
So, while agree about the terminology, I don’t agree that because we are paid we are less effective and somehow tainted - when you are a true, authentic, transparent paid ambassador, it doesn’t matter. If you do your job right, you can spread the love, the knowledge, the power to others so effectively and creatively that it can even surprise you how people respond.
So, yes, Olivier, I get paid - but I do not sell anything… and that is something that I refuse to do. The passion that I have for what I do is something that is inexplicable to people - you just have to meet me once and get me going and you would know that. It wouldn’t matter if I was paid or not… That is why I was hired - because I already had that passion, that drive, that dedication to the company and the brand and this just gave me a structured platform, arena, place, home, community, sisterhood (whatever you want to call it) in which to do that.
olivier Blanchard says:
Steph, I know where you’re coming from, and I believe you. Case in point: I love some of the products I use - my Canon cameras and lenses, my Rudy Project sunglasses, my Hincapie Sportswear cycling clothes, my Mavic race wheels, my VW Passat and my Zune to mention but a handful - and I sing their praises to everyone who will listen. If Hincapie, Rudy Project or Canon called me up and said “hey, we really like what you say about our products to your friends and readers. We want to pay you $X to keep doing it,” I would probably go “wow, that’s great. I’m going to get paid for doing something I would do for free anyway.” My intent in praising these brands/products would be genuine. I would not be at all tainted by the fact that I was getting paid to recommend them. All of that would be 100% true.
BUT…
The moment I made it known to whomever I recommend a product to that I am getting paid by the maker of that product, the effectiveness of my recommendation suffers. It’s a perception thing.
My job right now involves helping Microsoft grow their business. I own a Zune and an X-Box 360. I also use a ton of other very cool Microsoft products. When I sing the praises of Microsoft products, I know in the back of my mind that whomever I am speaking to has this little light in the back of their mind that goes on to remind them that I have a vested interest in imroving Microsoft’s image, bottom-line, etc.
My motives may be 100% genuine, but… I am getting paid to push Microsoft products. I therefore don’t have much of an incentive to criticize Microsoft or recommend one of its competitors.
This doesn’t make paid ambassadors patently disingenuous. Some will be and others won’t. If YOUR motives are 100% genuine and honest, I believe you… but if you are getting paid to recommend a product, you are obligated to do just that. A paycheck from a product manufacturer binds you to them. The perception is that when you choose to get paid to be an ambassador, you are no longer free to be critical of that product. (At least not in the way that an unpaid brand ambassador is.)
This might seem unfair, but it’s the reality of the thing.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:01 amstephenie says:
Olivier,
I hate that we are using Spike’s eloquent blog post to discuss this, but…
While I understand where you are coming from and your point, I think it boils down to one thing - honesty. I can take their pay check and still tell them what I truly think and I do. In 18 months they have yet to tell me that I can’t be honest and that it is not okay to not like something that they have made.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:55 pmI also know that when I meet people in the crafting business, there is no issue that I am paid. Actually, as soon as they know I am, I find that I am taking notes - on what they like, what they don’t like, what they want, etc… They see me as their sounding board and I pass on every comment from every person I meet - the good, the bad, and the ugly. And, to their credit, Fiskars listens to ALL of it and they respond to ALL of it.
I do understand your thought that we are percieved as being “theirs,” but in the crafting world I think things are different. In 90% of my posts I am using products - paper, stickers, embellishments,etc… - from other companies. I am blogging about crafting and about creating. That is the heart of what I do online. It is less about how great this or that is and more about what we create. We share our honest vision, passion, and creativity, never compromising our craft.
So, while you might feel somewhat bound, I honestly 100% don’t. And yes, we might be percieved to be unable to be critical, but that doesn’t mean that we aren’t and it doesn’t mean that we can’t. In fact, I think that it is a pivitol responsibility in our jobs and it is what they pay us for!
You might not recommend a competitor or be critical, but then, you need to ask yourself, how authentic are you? If you are so dedicated that you only see the super great wonderful perfect parts, then are you truly representing the whole brand, helping to make them be bigger, better, stronger? No. No brand or product is 100% perfect and they all have room to grow, and while it is our job and pleasure to promote and endorse their products, it is also our jobs to be honest and open and help them see the consumer side that they sometimes miss.
I think that we will never be able to agree on this, so we should just agree to disagree.
Spike says:
I appreciate the spirited debate - hey, isn’t that what blogs are for anyway?
And in the interest of complete transparency to all of our readers, Stephenie is a Fiskateer and is employed as a part-time, paid lead ambassador for Fiskars, a current client of Brains on Fire. Stephenie, along with three other “leads” actually took part in a customized, proprietary curriculum that had various sections, one of which was actually entitled “How NOT to be a Sales Rep.”
I agree with Olivier in many, many of his points, because they are true (and let’s face it, the guy’s smart). But in this specific case, and knowing the intimate details of the Fiskateer program first-hand, everything Stephenie is saying rings true.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:28 pmolivier blanchard says:
Yes, generally speaking we might have to agree to disagree on this one.
I do believe that you are absolutely the real deal though.
January 4th, 2008 at 8:30 pmJack says:
We’ve paid people to be “ambassadors” and it’s worked great. We tell them upfront to be honest, good or bad. As long as they are honest what’s the difference?
January 6th, 2008 at 5:00 amSpike says:
Jack (Scott, whatever), we’re talking about apples and oranges. You’re talking about enlisting people who want free stuff. I’m talking about empowering and involving passionate users. There’s nothing wrong with either way. But there IS a difference.
Just for the record, the four lead ambassadors for the Fiskateers are paid. The other 3,000 Fiskateers are NOT.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:50 pmChristy says:
There is a stigma to the whole “payola” thing that I think we need to acknowledge. Stephanie embodies true, honest ambassador-ship. However, some of us who are a bit older have been burned by people who have recommended a product, only to find out *after* that they are paid. This payola concept *is* completely different from the Fiskateers, but in the mind of the person who is receiving the communication, they may not be. It’s a new space to be forged. It’ll take time to get some people to trust again. Both Stephanie and Olivier are right, and I can see both sides. Stephanie is speaking from her intentions, which are absolutely true (having been a passive participant in Fiskateers content). Also true is Olivier’s point that people who first know that he is paid by Microsoft could naturally discount his opinions solely based on that fact.
Stephanie is a leader in a new movement of honesty and integrity. Really, this is a new concept for some people. Companies who are engaging in this are leading the way for those who haven’t been so successful (yes, I’m going to invoke the Walmart stigma!) or quite so honest.
Time. Patience. Fiskateers and Rage Against the Haze persistence. There is a change that has to happen, but it doesn’t mean that these paid ambassador programs can’t be successful and still stay true to their intent.
January 9th, 2008 at 5:45 am