(c) Can Stock PhotoMost of brands’ visible social media activities address only the top of the marketing funnel, creating awareness among consumers and getting them to consider doing business with the brand. People engage in social media through the entire funnel, though, right down to loyalty and advocacy, where the funnel is at its narrowest.

The deeper you get into the funnel, the more concentrated your efforts need to be on individuals. This most likely explains why most efforts focus on the top of the funnel, since you can create awareness by publishing content across multiple platforms. While sustaining your loyal customers and brand advocates may take more work, the payoff is worthwhile.

First, the third-party endorsement from a loyal customer is invaluable. An advocate who promotes your company, products and services on your behalf reaches people you don’t even know exist, and drives them from consideration to preference and purchase. Loyal customers and advocates offer authentic reinforcement of your company’s values, which are increasingly important; a recent Hill & Knowlton study found that nine out of 10 believe that companies need to do more to bring their visible behaviors into line with their publicly stated values. Nearly three-quarters of respondents said that they’re likely to buy from a company that is good at “communicating character,” as H&K puts it.

And, in a recent blog post, Influitive Marketing VP Jim Williams notes that you can keep your advocates advocating for you if you make sure they get the best treatment.

There are companies that understand this and companies that don’t. Norwegian Cruise Line is the latest example of a company that doesn’t.

A Los Angeles Times article from last Thursday shares the tale of David Warlick and his wife, frequent cruisers with Norwegian who had to cancel a scheduled cruise to the Bahamas when they learned she needed immediate surgery for just-diagnosed gallbladder cancer. Norwegian Cruise Line pointed to the company policy, that states there is no refund or make-up cruise if you cancel too close to the cruise date unless you have purchased travel insurance.

As Times reporter David Lazarus notes, the travel insurance is cheap, but as frequent cruisers, the Warlicks probably had every intention of being on that ship. The $4,500 they spent is gone and Norwegian won’t consider a make-up cruise because, according to the email they received, “Our cancellation guidelines are quite strict” and “we strongly recommend that our passengers obtain travel protection to cover circumstances such as you and your wife experienced.”

Policies are policies; I get that, I really do. I have even handled a crisis situation for a competing cruise line, during which the client made it clear that giving one passenger a make-up cruise means you’d have to do it for everybody, and no cruise line can afford that. I agree with the policy and the rationale for it. Even the Los Angeles Times has run articles advising travelers to buy travel insurance.

Further, the few people who took Norwegian to task for the incident on the cruise line’s Facebook page have received no sympathy from other fans, who pointed out that instances like the Warlicks’ are precisely what travel insurance is for.

Still, as Williams points out, “Exclusive interactions with your company are part of what keep most advocates coming back again and again.” Surely a little creative thinking could have found a way to treat the Warlicks the way advocates should be treated without an overt violation of policy.

As the Times’ Lazarus notes, “There’s no law that says a business has to stick to its like-it-or-lump-it customer contract in the event of personal catastrophe.” That’s especially true in the case of a customer who is ensconced firmly at the bottom of the marketing funnel. Lazarus bets that other customers wouldn’t feel cheated if Norwegian made an exception for the Warlicks. Warlick himself told Lazarus, “Their short-term profits are obviously more important to them than long-term loyalty.”

It’s probably not about short-term profits that led to Norwegian’s decision as much as avoiding the precedent. But Warlick’s point about loyalty is the key here. As loyal customers (and even, perhaps, advocates), the Warlicks could be responsible for hundreds of thousands of dollars in business for Norwegian, recommending the cruise line to people in their network and encouraging friends to join them on cruises. People considering a cruise line (the second level of the funnel) may find the Warlicks’ positive reviews and recommendations, tipping the scales Norwegian’s way.

There are case studies of companies that shrugged off their own policies in exchange for the PR value of the decision, or to solidify a customer’s relationship with the company. Legos offers one case study, sending a lost piece to a child who wrote a letter asking if they would. Not only did they send the piece the child lost, they added a minifigure and an amazing, personal letter (which you can read here.

Of course, a $4,500 cruise is a bigger deal than a missing piece from a Lego set. Still, there is much that Norwegian Cruise Lines could have done, without violating policy, to provide special treatment to the Warlicks. Special treatment, according to Influitive’s Williams, is what advocates deserve. So why not have the CEO or the Marketing VP of the company invite them to be his or her special guests on an upcoming cruise after Mrs. Warlick has recovered? It’s not about avoiding bad publicity (there hasn’t been much, with barely a whisper in social channels); it’s about continuing to reap the benefits from the Warlicks’ advocacy.

If you worked for Norwegian, how would you have gone about accommodating the Warlicks’ request without violating policy? Or would you have simply did what Norwegian did and issue a standard corporate denial of their request?