Data Archives - The Good Insight

More reasons to eat chocolate

Even talking about chocolate can make people happy. 46% of tweets about chocolate brands in the UK express positive emotions: happy, excellent, great, #fridayfeeling, lovely, smiley face, etc.

And there are more reasons why people are cheering for chocolate than just enjoyment, elation and excitement triggered by the chemicals phenylethylamine and trytophan found in it. Natural language processing and text link analysis of the tweets let me discover these reasons*.

The three brands which were tweeted about most positively in the last month were Lindt, Mars and artisan British chocolate Seed and Bean.

Lindt was making people happy with its variety of flavours. Always a bonus: 70% dark, Raspberry dark and Sea Salt dark are my favourite!

But like I’ve seen with other categories, brand social purpose is a strong driver of positive feelings towards brands. Even more so for chocolate brands, where choice is abundant and its becoming more difficult to differentiate.

Thus, the reason why people were so happy about Mars was the chocolate maker’s announcement it is investing $1 billion to fight climate change.

The majority of positive tweets about chocolate brands were dedicated to Seed and Bean. How was it making people happy?

Being ethical tops the list with 61% of all tweets. Rich variety of flavours is second with 25% – I am enjoying Raspberry and Coconut as I’m writing this. Offering vegan options and great taste complete the list with 9% and 5% respectively.

For Seed and Bean, and Lindt making people happy also means that they are more likely to want to try the chocolate – a link to the healthy bottom line (for the brands’ P&Ls, maybe not so much for chocolate enthusiasts).

Positive emotions about chocolate brands account for 64% contribution to people wanting to try the chocolate.

Being ethical has a 24% direct and indirect link to the desire to try. Variety and having vegan options also make a contribution of 7% and 5% respectively.

Having social purpose and generating positive emotions is paying off for a smaller and relatively less established Seed and Bean, which accounts for 68% of tweets by people wanting to try a chocolate brand.

* The analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Modeler Text Analytics.

What social data can tell us about social purpose

Increasingly brands want to know whether people think about social purpose when shopping, whether it lifts their moods or if they talk to others about it. Sometimes asking people about it in surveys may not yield accurate results: people often don’t register what they are thinking about, and may not realise that social purpose matters to them. Others may virtue signal, and exaggerate the importance of brand social purpose to them. And lastly, social purpose can have a different effect on different groups of people.

Thankfully, whilst still not perfect, actual data of conversations on social media can help understand whether social purpose matters to people engaging with different brands, and what effect it has on them.

I looked at over 14,000 tweets in the last 30 days, mentioning UK supermarkets: Aldi, ASDA, Lidl, Morrisons, M&S, Sainsbury’s, Tesco and Waitrose.

Using IBM SPSS Modeler Text Analytics package, I extracted over 5,000 concepts from these tweets and organised them into 100 themes/categories, ranging from food, drink, taste, price, customer service to emotions, employment desirability and social purpose.

When tweeting about Social Purpose in the context of UK supermarkets, people mentioned 15 different types of action, including fundraising for/donating to charities, paying fairly to staff and suppliers, improving communities and lives, helping victims of disaster emergencies, staff volunteering for charities and local communities, protecting the environment, ensuring sustainable food supplies and supporting food banks.

Present in 5% of all tweets, social purpose ranks joint 5th amongst key themes, behind food, other products, and location but on-par with customer service and offers, and ahead of wine (!), problems and online shopping.

1. Food: 11% of all tweets

2. Products: 10%

3. Location: 8%

4. Store: 7%

5. Customer Service: 5%

5. Offers, Promos, Competitions: 5%

5. Social Purpose: 5%

8. Wine, beer other drinks: 4%

9. Problems: 3%

9. Staff: 3%

9. Online Shopping: 3%

10. Plastic Bags: 2%

Text link analysis showed that social purpose was most likely to appear in tweets about Tesco, Waitrose, Sainsbury’s and M&S. It was also linked to other themes, e.g. staff, produced in the UK, plastic bags, etc.

Waitrose punches above its weight when it comes to being mentioned in tweets with a social purpose theme. It was mentioned in 11% of all tweets but 25% of social purpose tweets, giving it an index of 233. Tesco’s was mentioned in a whopping 41% of social purpose tweets, although a third of those were negative, accusing the retailer of pocketing plastic bag charges. M&S is underperforming relative to its overall tweets share, giving it an index below 100.

For Waitrose and people tweeting about it social purpose is hugely important, present in 13% of tweets and ranking 3^rd only behind food and store environment.

Text link analysis shows that social purpose is interlinked with other themes. Most importantly it shows that social purpose makes people feel and tweet positively about Waitrose. It also makes them want to work for it.

Overall, premium and mid-market food retailers have higher social purpose indexes vs those competing on price. One could argue that this could be explained by their customers’ greater levels of interest in social purpose.

However, most likely this is due to the brands’ own levels of engagement in social purpose activities, how consistently they live this purpose and how they communicate it to the outside world. This would also explain variations within each category: Waitrose vs. M&S, or Tesco vs. Sainsbury’s. And with one-third of regular Waitrose customers also shopping in Lidl (Kantar/TGI), consumer segments are now shared, and there’s nothing stopping brand getting behind social purpose.

What makes people happy at work? Now there is a formula

Dame Carolyn McCall, current CEO of easyJet, and former CEO of the Guardian, where I had the pleasure of working with her, is believed to be the frontrunner for the top position at ITV. Lucky, lucky ITV. McCall, one of only four women in Glassdoor’s Top 50 CEOs rated by UK employees, has not only turned-around easyJet’s profitability, piloting it into FTSE 100, but has also greatly improved employee morale.

McCall, whom rival Michael O’Leary dismissed as “media luvvie”, has re-assured staff that they were not about to turn into “orange Ryanair” and was often seen on-board a flight chatting to passengers and crew. Rated 4.1 out 5 on overall employee satisfaction on Glassdoor, easyJet is now one of the Best Places to Work in the UK, above British Airways (2.9), Eurostar (3.6), Virgin Atlantic (3.1) and certainly no one’s luvvie Ryanair (2.3).

So how much does satisfaction with Senior Leadership influence employee morale (and therefore, productivity, retention and ultimately, bottom line)? An awful lot, and I have data to prove it. Glassdoor collects real-world data by asking employees to rate: senior management, pay & benefits, career progression, culture & values and work-life balance. It also asks people to submit an overall satisfaction score and agree/disagree whether their employer’s business outlook is positive.

I ran regression analysis on Glassdoor’s UK data to determine what influences the overall satisfaction score. The top predictor of employee satisfaction was 1) Senior Leadership, closely followed by 2) Culture & Values and 3) Career Opportunities. Work-life Balance mattered much less, and Pay & Benefits were a minor contributor to the overall level of satisfaction.

And this is the formula, ta-da:

Overall Satisfaction = 0.19 + 0.29 x Senior Leadership + 0.26 x Culture & Values + 0.23 x Career Opportunities + 0.13 x Work-life Balance + 0.11 x Pay & Benefits

As you can see Senior Leadership matters. Yet, it has the lowest satisfaction score out of all factors: 3 out of 5.

Organisations need to create a positive culture and strong set of values that senior managers embody and promote, and that employees share and get behind. According to previous studies, people generally feel happier at work when they can see that their work is benefiting others. People who felt their jobs really benefited society were much more likely to be happy at work: 59%, compared with the average of 38%.

As for pay, even Adam Smith, writing more than 250 years ago in The Theory of Moral Sentiments said that material gains often make us less happy, not more. However, it doesn’t mean that employers can get away with not paying people their worth or luring unpaid interns to enjoy “great company culture and free beer”. Although not the most important driver of employee happiness, pay is still a statistically significant contributor to the overall score.

Worth noting, that employer’s business outlook was insignificant in my regression model, and therefore, did not influence employee happiness at all. So, when companies assume that staff derive pleasure and satisfaction just from working for a profitable business, they are wrong, unless the benefits of being profitable translate into opportunities for employees or shared with the wider society.

Interesting that not a single charity appears in Glassdoor’s Best Places to Work. Charities, which by default are purpose and values driven and generally offer good work-life balance, need to pay more attention to career progression and pay & benefits, which are rated significantly lower vs. the private sector.

As for myself, I’ve never been happier, echoing a well-known fact that self-employed people are most satisfied. In employment, I was the happiest at the Guardian, which offered the best of two worlds: great values & culture together with good pay and career progression. As for Senior Management, here is an anecdote for you. I remember washing my hands in the Guardian’s toilets, when then CEO Carolyn McCall asked me why I sighed and if she could help. I said it was a minor concern, not to worry, it’s just annoying how environmentally-unfriendly were all those paper towels. McCall said to consider them gone. They were gone.

How can charities ACE it on twitter?

I wanted to understand how different UK charities are perceived on twitter. I chose 10 charities to start with: Amnesty International, Breast Cancer Now, British Heart Foundation, Greenpeace, Mind, Oxfam, Save the Children, Stonewall, Unicef and WWF.

I carried out thematic analysis to extract 40 keywords from over 20,000 tweets either sent by the charities or tweeted about them in the last month. I also put the tweets through IBM Watson’s tone analyser to understand how emotional the tweets were. Based on keyword meanings, associations and emotional tone of the tweets they were from, I then classified the keywords into 9 themes.

Themes and Keywords

For example, “money”, “give”, “fundraise”, “donate” keywords make up the “Give” theme. The more combative “Act” theme includes keywords “stop”, “end”, “change”, “act”, “must”, “rescue”, “combat” and “defend”. And highly emotional “Joy” theme is formed from “love”, “happy”, “good”, “trust” and “amazing”.

Give, Support and Act themes are present in tweets, which tend to be more factual, corporate and less emotional, so I colour-coded them together to form “ASK” grouping. We then move to the pink group of “Hope/Belief” and “Togetherness”, which are about “ENCOURAGEMENT”, and finally the orange “CELEBRATION” group is highly emotional and includes the themes of “Achievement”, “Gratitude”, “Pride” and “Joy”. The size of the bars on the chart above reflects the number of tweets. And as you can see, half of the tweets were the un-emotional “ASK”s.

I then used correspondence analysis to map my 10 charities against the 9 themes and ACE (Ask, Celebration, Encouragement) construct they form.

The more emotional the tweets are, the closer they are to the outer circle of Encourage or Celebrate. Those focused around “Give”, “Support” or “Act” themes are within the inner circle of Ask. The charities are also placed close to a theme that tweets from and about them correspond with most. For example, Amnesty International related tweets are calling to Act but are factual and un-emotional. Stonewall related tweets also call to Act but are Joyful (54% on IBM Watson’s tone analyser). British Heart Foundation related tweets absolutely ace it with Gratitude and high-degree of Joy (70% on IBM Watson’s tone analyser), whilst not forgetting the Give (mostly, fundraising).

Wordle of tweets from or about British Heart Foundation

Emotional tone of tweets from or about British Heart Foundation

Social media is an informal medium, and being emotional and warm is key to connecting with people, and growing a supporter-base. Numerous studies show that emotional communications are much more effective than purely rational for brand building and growth.

Depending on a charity’s objective and where it wants to be positioned, it needs to follow these ACE guidelines:

1. Don’t just Ask, give. Give insight and stories about topics, rather than just highlighting them and quoting statistics; give insight into the inner workings of your charity and personal stories of your team. Respond to people, retweet, strike conversations.
2. Be human, rather than corporate: use human language and don’t be afraid of showing emotions. Celebrate achievements and show pride and gratitude. Or be angry, Oxfam successfully combines Anger (60% on IBM Watson’s tone analyser) and Joy (63%), whilst Sadness (52%) combined with the Encouragement of Hope works for Breast Cancer Now, when they Ask to Support them.
3. Encourage people by providing hope and bring them together through shared beliefs and a sense of community.
Charities do ACE work – thank you!

Data disruption is a positive force for charities

Yesterday I had the pleasure of live-streaming Third Sector’s Big Questions Live debate. The panelists, co-founder of JustGiving Anne-Marie Huby, RNLI’s Leesa Harwood, and the director of international development at Prince’s Trust International Ruth Ruderham, discussed the latest Trends in Fundraising.

Digital disruption, disintermediation, data-driven supporter insight and delighting supporters in the increasingly competitive and noisy space were the main themes of the trends currently affecting charities.

Crowdfunding. Every charity has a good cause but not every good cause is a charity. Digital technology has opened up fundraising to individuals. Just Giving predicts that within 3-4 years crowdfunding will be the main source of income for an average charity.
Charity reviews. Just like they do with hotels and restaurants, people now review and look for reviews on charities. Platforms like Give Well research charity activities, impact and rank charities on cost-effectiveness and future prospects.
Supporter engagement. Trust in charities, like most institutions, is going down (although the overall support is on the up). Supporters feel taken for granted and have low expectations. Charities that treat their supporters as investors are are able to surprise and delight them will stand apart.
Data. That’s why Just Giving invested heavily in data science. Digital data is fast data which presents opportunities to understand supporters quicker and better, and close the loop by feeding back to them on the impact they are having.
Data is also about measuring impact. As progressive organisations leading social change, charities should ask what metrics they should measure; what really matters not just now but in the future.
Disintermediation and authenticity. Just like in the travel industry, digital is removing intermediaries in the charity sector. Donors can now speak directly to beneficiaries, unaided by fundraisers. There is also a filtration aspect, increasingly sophisticated and inundated by marketing messages, supporters filter out information that is not authentic.

Disruption is not always negative, it often presents opportunities for positive change. Charities should go back to basics and ask themselves “why us?”, “what’s so unique about our cause or our way of delivering on the need of the beneficiaries?”. Set metrics that matter and fit for the future, invest in data, measurement and understanding of supporters. Engage with supporters that will make them feel special. And most of all, take your staff on a journey by involving them in various teams, investing in training and development and fostering a culture of innovation. It’s all for a good purpose!