Hey students and recent grads, here’s something that could have an influence on job opportunities: your Facebook profile. More specifically, we’re talking about your close and not-so-close friends–and the way you interact with them. This seems like a no-brainer, but some facts might surprise you.

Yesterday our sister site AllFacebook (like them on Facebook!) reported on a study conducted by the social network and Carnegie Mellon University that looked to answer an intriguing question: how do your Facebook habits affect your likelihood of finding a new job? Its key finding:

Facebook users who talked more with close friends regarding job hunts and job opportunities were much more likely to find employment than those who tended to reach out to acquaintances.

Other findings:

Read more

A Quinnipac poll released this morning serves as evidence of a forceful PR/advocacy/political lobbying campaign’s ability to shape public perceptions of a brand. In short, a majority of Americans say that the National Rifle Association “represents their views” on gun control issues despite disagreeing with some of the organization’s most fundamental positions. What’s going on here?

Key points:

• The NRA recently came out against proposed legislation that would require universal background checks for all individuals looking to purchase weapons in any setting.
• This is a messaging shift for the organization, which once strongly supported these checks but now claims they would lead to a “national gun registry” and eventually empower a “tyrannical” government to tax and even confiscate weapons from legal gun owners.
• The Quinnipac poll finds that an overwhelming 92% of Americans support stronger universal background checks.
• A majority of the public also supports a proposed ban on the sale of assault weapons and a ban on the sale of “high capacity” magazines (the NRA very strongly opposes both of these restrictions).
• And yet, when it comes to gun control, the public also believes that the NRA better reflects their own views than President Obama (46% to 43%).

It would appear that the public is confused about exactly what the NRA is–and the policies it advocates.

What conclusions can PR strategists draw from this survey?

Read more

Edelman PR just released its annual “Trust Barometer” for 2013–and its findings contain both expected and surprising results. The study’s theme is “crisis of leadership”, and its most significant finding is that fewer than one in five respondents (out of more than 30,000 worldwide) believe that “a business or governmental leader will actually tell the truth when confronted with a difficult issue.”

And yet, despite this conclusion and the fact that “banks and financial services” remain the least trusted industries, consumer trust in both “business” and “government” in the abstract is higher this year than last. Confused?

A recent survey commissioned by rbb Public Relations and performed by IBOPE/Zogby International received a bit of media attention over the past few weeks, and with good reason: its most significant revelation was the fact that “83% of consumers would pay more for a product/service from a company they feel puts them first.”

The survey concerned the phenomenon of “breakout brands” that achieve the enviable goal of customer loyalty and steady market share by dealing directly with their customers rather than playing a never-ending game of Battleship with their competitors. And its list of 2012’s “Top 10 Breakout Brands” ran the gamut from universally-beloved names like Apple and customer service leaders like Zappos to controversial brands like Chick-Fil-A.

What led rbb to commission this survey? While researching older marketing strategies, founder Christine Barney noticed that brands no longer followed the classic “challenger” approach typified by the Avis tagline “We’re only No. 2 in rent a cars. So why go with us? We try harder”. This Don Draper-style message may have worked in the 60’s, but it’s no longer relevant. So how have branding strategies evolved?

Barney lists three primary traits of the “breakout brand”:

1. They lead by putting the customer first, not distinguishing themselves from rivals. Customers don’t care about brand fights.
2. They use market research and knowledge of their customer base to anticipate their customers’ desire. Did the public realize they wanted tablets before the iPad arrived?
3. They communicate in ways that go well beyond traditional customer service, developing “rich feedback loops” with their customers.

Can any brand break out? Theoretically, yes—“breakout” does not necessarily mean new. Barney also lists three distinct types of breakout brands:

Read more

In somewhat surprising and discouraging news, an international study conducted by Adobe and Edelman Berland found that the public values the work of marketers less than the work of bankers and politicians. Sigh.

The worst part about the study (and its handy infographic PDF)? A quarter of its participants were themselves marketing professionals—and they were twice as likely as members of the general public to name their own profession as “least valuable”! Why did Edelman choose to arrange the sample in this way? They must have had a hunch that marketers don’t think too highly of themselves.

Other revealing/contradictory findings:

• Despite the fact that 53% of participants call marketing “a bunch of BS”, well over 90% also say it’s “strategic to business” and “paramount to driving sales”. So the public hates it but agrees that it is both necessary and effective? Those are some conflicting emotions right there.
• The public’s favorite place to view ads is “in their favorite magazines”–and their least favorite place seems to be “on their favorite TV shows”. Way to screw with the dominant business model, guys.
• A majority of participants call online ads “annoying”, and a paltry 3% like to see paid spots on social media. Oh and, yes, Facebook “likes” almost never drive them to buy stuff.

See, but here’s the thing that really irks us most about this poll…

Read more

Philip Graves is a consumer behavior consultant and author of the new book Consumer.ology: The Market Research Myth, the Truth about Consumers and the Psychology of Shopping. While he has a great respect for research and data, he also thinks brands should cautiously use market research as it can lead them astray. His AFECT approach – analysis of behavioral data, frame of mind, environment, covert study, and time frame – outlines the criteria to determine the reliability of consumer research.

Recently he spoke with us about the uses and limits of consumer research.  And he answers the question: What is a consumer behavior consultant?

Read more