Uploaded on

Analysis of Online Comments (BEO) is a research model developed jointly by Corporate Excellence – Centre for Reputation Leadership and Llorente & Cuenca in order to analyse the impact of Internet …

Analysis of Online Comments (BEO) is a research model developed jointly by Corporate Excellence – Centre for Reputation Leadership and Llorente & Cuenca in order to analyse the impact of Internet communication on corporate reputation. The analysis is based on the study of relevant comments made by different members of the public about a company on the Internet.

Since the model supports complicated computations, it enables us to interpret the data almost in real time, not only information provided by structured databases, but also unstructured data that account for 80% of existing information. These include medical images, video streaming, conversations, pictures taken with mobile phones, etc. Our capacity to interpret this vast new natural resource leads to interesting conclusions, considerations and decisions. Therefore, it is possible to say that The Online Comments Report is a strategic tool that may be used for corporate positioning on the Internet based on the analysis of data gathered throughout the year rather than a tool for monitoring in real time.

Reputation is a set of collective evaluations evoked by an organisation in its stakeholders that drive valuegenerating behaviours. Thus, it is clear that an organisation’s reputation does not exist online. Instead, it exists in the minds of people who are stakeholders of the company. Given this definition, we understand that on the Internet we find comments about a company shared by stakeholders in the different online networks. These comments may affect evaluations made about the company. In other words, in the term online reputation, online is the cause and source, and reputation is the effect or result.

More in: Technology , Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
476
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2

Actions

Shares
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Results and ConclusionsOnline CommentsReportReputation
  • 2. www.corporateexcellence.orgSagasta 27, 3 Izq. B28004 Madrid (Spain)Phone: +34 91 445 18 18info@corporateexcellence.orgDocument prepared by Corporate Excellence – Centre for Reputation LeadershipLlorente & CuencaApril 2013
  • 3. Contents05 01. Introduction09 02. Model13 03. Methodology17 04. Trends19 05. Findings
  • 4. 01Introduction
  • 5. Online Comments Report6Proliferation of digital appliances and toolsconnected to the Internet enabled everyone toproduce information. We are immersed in anenvironment where approximately two millionpeople are connected to the Internet at this verymoment. And this number grows at an enormousspeed throughout the world, driven by the boomof mobile technologies. Over the last five years,5.6 mn personal communication devices havebeen sold. By 2015, 80% of the global populationwill have a mobile device1. Interestingly, thesedevices no longer function as simple receiversof information but they are potential globaltransmitting devices – and this drives theexponential growth of social technologies.In this new age of information, there are onethousand million transistors per person. Andthe volume of information keeps increasing: forexample, the Sunday issue of The New YorkTimes contains more information than theaverage volume of information received by aperson in the 19thcentury throughout his or herentire life2. We are entering the Big Data Age.Nowadays, 2.9 mn e-mails are sent every second,20 hours of video footage are uploaded toYoutube every minute, 50 million tweets are sentevery day, and we spend 700,000 mn minutes onFacebook every month. Households consume 375megabytes of data every day3. But this is just thebeginning. It is expected that these numbers willgrow 44-fold during the next decade, amountingto 35 zettabytes in 20204(one zettabyte isrepresented by 1 followed by 21 zeros.)In this context, it is difficult to ignore the impactof the Internet on corporate reputation. Anincreased volume of available information, theimmediacy of its spreading and distribution,the ubiquitous access to the Internet andinterrelation of the content are the factorsthat can be considered challenges for themanagement of corporate reputation understoodas collective evaluations made by stakeholdersabout an organisation that determine behaviourscapable of generating value. Reputation is asentiment towards a person or an institution thatcombines four vectors: admiration, esteem, trustand respect. These vectors affect the attitudesand favourable behaviours towards a companyand by doing so create or destroy value.In this sense, opinions of users whorecommend or criticise an organization gainunprecedented power. Intuitively, everyoneunderstands the repercussions and the impactthat users’ recommendations expressed ondifferent online platforms may have for thebusiness of a travel agency. Or the pressurethat a group of environmental activistsexert in social networks on a multinationalcorporation in terms of citizens’ evaluationof its commitment to the environment.We are facing a new concept of leadershipbased on a good reputation and the recognitionachieved by a company, an institution, acountry or a professional. Organisations beginto realize that today power belongs to theirkey stakeholders, who ensure organisationssurvival in the long run. Therefore, expansionof the so-called Web 2.0 turned the massmedia and social networks into influentialcommunication areas, where millions of peopleand institutions interact. So much so, thatThe digital revolution brought about by new technologies has acceleratedexisting trends and social changes and increased the complexity of relationsbetween companies, markets, regulators and citizens. All dimensions of anorganisation´s actions have become absolutely transparent, and for thatreason, organisations are continuously being evaluated and scrutinized by theirstakeholders – a process that increases the power of stakeholders and the societyin general.1. IDATE DigiWorldProgramme (2011), «The Challenges of the Digital World» in DigiWorldYearbook 2011.2. Van Winkle, William (1998), «Information Overload» in Computer Bits (February).3. IBM Corporation (2011) «The World of Data We’re Creating on the Internet» in GOOD Magazine (October 11)4. Tweney, Dylan (2010), «Here Comes the Zettabyte Age» in Wired (April, 30).
  • 6. Online Comments Report (BEO) 7the content and shared experiences on thenetworks such as Facebook, Twitter or Blogsaffect perceptions, evaluations and expectationsformed by stakeholders about organizations.There is still much to be done, but we aresure that the messages shared on the Internetinfluence collective evaluations made bystakeholders and affect generation of value (byaffecting sales, stock price, licenses, contracts,etc.). We need research models, measurementtools and interpretation guides that will helpus to transform our intuitive knowledge intoinformation that may be used for makingstrategic decisions and into considerations thatmay be used by managers of intangible assets.Bearing this objective in mind, CorporateExcellence – Centre for Reputation Leadershipjointly with Llorente & Cuenca launchedThe Online Comments Report based onthe BEO (Balance de Expresiones Online,Analysis of Online Comments) analysismodel. This methodology is a rigorous tool foranalyzing online comments and their impacton the dimensions that constitute corporatereputation: products, innovation, financialresults, workplace, citizenship, leadership andgovernance. The tool helps to identify keyareas of reputational risk for companies anddevelop a map of stakeholders who are activeInternet users as well as online platforms thatshould be taken into account for planningcorporate positioning on the Internet: thereal-time network Twitter, the social networkFacebook, the multimedia network Youtubeand the hypertextual network Google.The Online Comments Report was developedto share the most pronounced trends in thearea of corporate reputation on the Internet, tomake conclusions about evaluations expressedby stakeholders about companies at key onlinecommunication networks and help companiesto understand the new informational systemwhich implies management of influenceexerted on the growing number of stakeholders,interconnected with the help of technologies.Drawing on the analysis of more than 20,000messages about 48 brands in 13 different sectors,we will identify the most significant changesthat occurred in the dimensions of corporatereputation and stakeholders of key Spanishcompanies on the Internet. The first issue ofthe report highlights the most important trendsof 2012, and compares the results recordedin December 2011 and December 2012.
  • 7. 02The model
  • 8. Online Comments Report10Since the model supports complicatedcomputations, it enables us to interpret thedata almost in real time, not only informationprovided by structured databases, but alsounstructured data that account for 80% ofexisting information. These include medicalimages, video streaming, conversations, picturestaken with mobile phones, etc. Our capacityto interpret this vast new natural resourceleads to interesting conclusions, considerationsand decisions. Therefore, it is possible tosay that The Online Comments Report is astrategic tool that may be used for corporatepositioning on the Internet based on theanalysis of data gathered throughout the yearrather than a tool for monitoring in real time.As we pointed out above, reputation is aset of collective evaluations evoked by anorganisation in its stakeholders that drive value-generating behaviours. Thus, it is clear that anorganisation’s reputation does not exist online.Instead, it exists in the minds of people whoare stakeholders of the company. Given thisdefinition, we understand that on the Internetwe find comments about a company shared bystakeholders in the different online networks.These comments may affect evaluations madeabout the company. In other words, in theterm online reputation, online is the cause andsource, and reputation is the effect or result.The model draws on two phenomenathat we consider paramount in theprocess of creating reputation:• On the one hand, experiences of stakeholdergroups that are directly connected with thecompany; these are the source of commentsthat make the most significant influence onperceptions and evaluations by stakeholders.• On the other hand, reality of the company(the result of its identification, activity andculture). This is the centre of the processsince reality determines the experiencesand comments made by stakeholders.The model also attempts to incorporate theresearch framework that helps to address two keyissues: first, to overcome increasingly artificialboundaries between “Online” and “Offline”in the analysis of comments; and secondly,to identify the most important platforms andcommunication networks on the Internet. To thisend, we have identified four kinds of comments:• Observation: essentially visual messages thatmay generate mostly affective perceptionsand may be managed by means of design andadvertising in traditional communication, or bymeans of sequential content and news feed onmultimedia networks (Youtube, Pinterest, etc.).• Information: informational messages about factsthat may lead to simple cognitive perceptionsand are managed by means of journalistictechniques in traditional communication, or bymeans of real time networks (such as Twitter).• Conversation: dialogues and discussionsthat may affect motivational perceptions.These are traditionally managed by meansof events, promotions and public relationsactivities; today they are also managedvia social networks, such as Facebook.• Documentation: interpretational andinformational comments that may developinto complex cognitive perceptions. Theseare traditionally managed by issuing publicstatements. Today they are also managedby means of hypertextual formats (websites,mass media web pages, blogs, forums, etc.)that use Google as the main mediator.In line with this model, the methodologyused by the Analysis of Online Comments(BEO) is based on two key assumptions:• The only unit of analysis is acomment published on the Internetthat refers to a corporate brand of acompany under observation.Analysis of Online Comments (BEO) is a research model developed jointlyby Corporate Excellence – Centre for Reputation Leadership and Llorente &Cuenca in order to analyse the impact of Internet communication on corporatereputation. The analysis is based on the study of relevant comments made bydifferent members of the public about a company on the Internet.
  • 9. Online Comments Report (BEO) 11• Analysis sample is drawn from the mostrepresentative networks or platforms of thefour main categories existing on the Internet:• Observation (multimedia): Youtube.• Information (real time): Twitter.• Conversation (social): Facebook.• Documentation (hypertextual): Google.Can online reputation be measured?Although technologies enable us to getincreasingly accurate data, most of theexperts on search engines and programminglanguages agree that certain limitations stillexist in the area of automatic analysis ofcomments in terms of reputation; the followinglimitations seems to be the most significant:• The scope of monitoring: none of theexisting search engines, not even Google,are able to cover the entire universe ofmessages that appear on networks.• Lack of consensus about measurementtools: there are still no agreed standards ofmeasuring the influence on the Internet; onthe one hand, the most reliable influenceindicators are not transparent since theyare private analytical tools; on the otherhand, those tools that are in public domain(such as Klout o Alexa) are not applicableto all possible stakeholders of a company.• Interpreting the language: software is still farfrom being able to understand the meaning orfeeling implied by comments made by people.Given these limitations, the impact of onlinecomments on reputation may not be measuredby quantitative statistical or mechanicalprocedures. Instead, qualitative methods shouldbe applied, using non-probabilistic samples andanalysis performed by experts. With this ideain mind, and in order to address the limitationsassociated with measurement of reputation onthe Internet, we designed the BEO methodology.The methodology involves several stages:• Selection of the sample of the mostrelevant comments about 100 companies,found by search engines in each of thekey online communication platforms:Google, Twitter, Facebook and Youtube.• Application of transparent measurementtools available in public domain andprovided by the communication platformsthemselves: the number of followers,backlinks, visualisations, references, etc.• Analysis of the comments selected forthe sample by means of content analysistechniques, where analysts determinethe dimensions and attributes ofcommunicated reputation, the profile ofstakeholders who transmit the messagesand the meaning or feeling denotedor connoted by these messages.Is it possible to manage reputationin online networks?Corporate Excellence – Centre for ReputationLeadership defines corporate reputation as a setof collective evaluations evoked by corporatebehaviour in different stakeholders that lead tobehaviours of support or resistance. Evaluationsare developed in the minds of stakeholders andthus the number of reputations is equal to thenumber of stakeholders related to an organisation.Bearing this in mind, and addressing the needto analyse the impact on corporate reputationon the Internet (and other factors that emergein this vast space), we believe that managementshould target what we call “comments”.Today it is possible to manage the variablesthat determine the quantity and quality ofcomments published in online networks aboutcorporate brands that may affect perceptions andevaluations by the companies’ stakeholders.
  • 10. Online Comments Report12The variables analysed in this report are awarenessand recognition expressed of published comments.• To analyse the quantity of comments, wedeveloped the variable called Awareness(Notoriedad, Nt) that accounts for thecognitive component of the reputationconcept and is defined through “presence”and “reach” of relevant references to a specificcompany on the Internet. (How many timesit is mentioned or how well it is known.)We define “presence” as the quantity or volumeof messages that mention the object of studyin each of the four Internet categories; and“reach” as the potential global impact of themessages included in the presence indicator.• In order to evaluate the quality ofcomments, we are using the variable calledRecognition (Notabilidad, Nb), whichcaptures the evaluative component ofthe concept of reputation and is definedthrough the “authority” and “quality” ofopinions about a specific company on theInternet. (What is the opinion about thecompany and how it is evaluated.)We define “quality” as the meaning of theopinion about the object of study expressed inthe messages of the sample, and “authority”as potential influence that may be projectedby the messages included in the sample.In order to identify key managementtools, comments are analysed in terms ofawareness and recognition by sectors, activeand influential stakeholders, dimensions orrelevant topics and platforms and networkswhere these comments appear: the real-timenetwork, the social network, the multimedianetwork and the hypertextual network.Since we are not using any universal reputationmeasurement tool that could serve as a referencefor absolute values, the findings are presented asthe difference between the company’s result and anaverage for all analysed elements, in relative terms.For example, when we say that for the Innovationdimension, the company scored -31 by awarenessand 1 by recognition, it means that the companyis 31% below the average by awareness and1% above the average by recognition based onthe analysis of all companies. In other words,its result is 31% worse by awareness (fewercomments related to Innovation are published)and 1% better by recognition (the commentson Innovation are more valued) as comparedto other analysed companies. Average valuesare calculated for each of the analysed aspects(activity sectors, dimensions, stakeholders andnetworks), and used as a reference point to analysethe variation of maximum values for each case.Depending on the position of the company,its dimensions, stakeholders and the fourInternet platforms, if a company scores lowon awareness, it means that managementof online communication assets should beimproved. If we detect low recognition, therecommendation is to improve participationin online communication and establish value-generating relations with key stakeholders forthe company. Finally, if a company scores lowby both variables, it is necessary to improvethe management both of spread messages andestablished relations. Therefore, The OnlineComments Report gives an insight intocompanies’ positioning on the Internet, theirmost active stakeholders, the most attractiveInternet spaces and relevant topics. So the resultsof the study have a strong strategic potential.
  • 11. 03The Methodology
  • 12. Online Comments Report14Analysis variablesPositioning of companies on the Internet isstudied by measuring the two variables presentedearlier: awareness and recognition; the result isthen represented in the Cartesian coordinatesystem, where the X-axis represents awarenessand Y-axis represents recognition or evaluation.The resulting values are not absolute.Instead, they are relative values that point tothe deviation from the average value of allanalysed elements in percentage terms.Analysed Activity SectorsThe following sectors and companies have beenanalysed: Telecommunications (Telefónica,Vodafone, Orange and Ono); Retail (El CorteInglés, Mercadona, Amazon and Inditex); Foodand Beverages (Danone, Nestlé, Coca Cola andLeche Pascual); Delivery Services (Correos,MRW, DHL and Fedex); Hotels (Meliá HotelsInternational, Marriot, AC Hoteles and NHHoteles); Banking (Bankinter, BBVA, LaCaixa, Santander and Caixabank); PassengerTransport (Renfe, Iberia, Alsa and Spanair);Power Generation (Iberdrola, Endesa, Eon andGas Natural Fenosa); Transport Infrastructure(Adif, Puertos del Estado and AENA); WaterSupply (Agbar and Canal de Isabel II); andOil and Gas (Repsol, Cepsa, BP and Shell).The 2012 research was expanded to include theFashion sector (Zara, H&M, Adolfo Domínguezand Mango) and the Insurance sector (Mapfre,Catalana Occidente, Axa and Mutua Madrileña).Reputation DimensionsEach comment was analysed by seven dimensionsthat constitute corporate reputation, in accordancewith the RepTrak™ model developed by theReputation Institute – the top global standardfor measuring corporate reputation: products andservices, financial results, innovation, workplace,leadership, governance and citizenship.StakeholdersEach of the messages selected for the samplewas analysed by stakeholders who participatedin the communication in order to establish theposition (by awareness and recognition) thateach of them represent on the Internet. Thus,we identified key categories of stakeholders:Public Opinion, Customers, Professionals (forthe purposes of the report, if a person identifieshim- or herself as a worker of the company, heor she is called Employee), Investors, Journalists,Public Institutions, NGOs, Trade Unionsand Associations, and Companies (publicrelations channels used by the company).NetworksIn order to reflect the heterogeneity of theanalysed messages and in order to be able to usecoherent normalisation elements, we dividedthe research universe into four big platforms:• Hypertextual network. Refers to allpermanently open formats that are used aboveall for reading hypertexts (linked text content):websites, online media, blogs, forums, etc. Thisformat is usually accessed through large searchengines (Google, Bing, etc.). For the purposesof this study we have chosen to analyse Google.• Multimedia network. This format is defined bythe nature of its content based on graphic andaudiovisual elements (videos, presentations,picture galleries, etc.). The spaces thatchannel the traffic in this environment arewebsites like Youtube, Flickr or Slideshare,among others. For the purposes of this studywe have chosen to analyse Youtube.The methodology is based on the analysis of comments made on the Internet bydifferent members of the public that may significantly affect corporate reputationof companies – members of Corporate Excellence – Centre for ReputationLeadership and their key competitors. Specifically, this study presents the resultsand conclusions of an analysis of 20,000 comments about 48 brands in 13 sectorsmade in December 2012, as well as 15,218 comments about 41 brands in 11sectors made in December 2011, when the first report was issued.
  • 13. Online Comments Report (BEO) 15• Social network. This format is characterised bya closed communication environment based oninterpersonal relations, whose main objectiveis to maintain and facilitate communicationbetween individuals with common interestsrather than mere publication of content. Thiscategory includes platforms such as Facebook,Google+ or LinkedIn. For the purposes of thisstudy we have chosen to analyse Facebook.• Real-time network. This format is characterisedby the interpersonal communicationenvironment with closed interaction and openpublication based on fast exchange of shortand concise messages. The most representativeservice in this category is Twitter, which wechose to analyse for the purposes of this study.SampleSelection of the sample for the research aimedto achieve adequate representation of eachof the abovementioned four categories.We held flexibility tests in order to determinethe number of results to analyse, i.e. theminimum number of analysis units, towhich our metrics may apply. We havechosen 100 results per each network.We have established coefficients byassigning weight to each network categoryof the study, estimating their relativeimportance in public communication overthe Internet. More specifically, we assigned50% weight to Google, 20% to Youtubeand Facebook each, and 10% to Twitter.
  • 14. 04Trends
  • 15. Online Comments Report18In 2012, many companies took steps such as publication of online content inorder to generate comments that would be favourable for their reputation: thecontent that was created was relevant not only for the commercial dimension(Products and Services) but also for the social dimension (Citizenship), wherethe visibility of messages improved compared to 2011.However, this effort failed to offset the effect ofstakeholders’ conversations in social networks.With the exception of Retail, Telecommunicationsand Food and Beverages, none of the sectors wereevaluated above the average by recognition.The impact of labour activists was especiallysignificant on the Internet in 2012.Employees’ comments in social networkshave been more critical in 2012, resulting inthe fact that Workplace became the worstevaluated dimension for companies.This trend was further exacerbated by Facebook,which was characterised by more benignattitudes in 2011, and currently is the platformthat hosts most of the unfavourable commentsmade by stakeholders about companies.We will now synthesise identified trends bycontrasting analysed results for December2011 and December 2012 for the samesample of companies and online platformswith the help of the BEO methodology:Food and Beverages is At the TopOut of 13 analysed sectors, Retail (El CorteInglés, Mercadona, Amazon and Inditex) andTelecommunications (Telefónica, Vodafone,Orange and Ono) maintain the top positions.They are followed by Food and Beverages(Danone, Nestlé, Coca Cola and Leche Pascual),which improved its position both in terms ofawareness and recognition during the year 2012.Citizenship Makes the DifferenceThe dimension Citizenship which unitescomments about companies’ support of socialcauses, protection of the environment andcontribution to the society (sponsorship, charity,education, etc.) plays the decisive role inimproving the position of Foods and Beverages.Besides, it helps other sectors, such as Banks orTelecommunications (whose reputation scoredlower) to avoid deterioration of their position.Companies go for Content GenerationCompanies enhance the reach and presence oftheir messages in 2012, improving the resultsof citizens’ comments (Public Opinion) byawareness. It is observed a general increase ofprofiles and pages designed for promoting corporateand commercial messages on the Internet inorder to find new ways to reach stakeholders.Employees Express Their Opinions OnlineThe stakeholder group Employees reports thesharpest decline in their evaluation of companies,publishing their critical opinions about theWorkplace dimension mostly in the socialnetwork (Facebook) and real time network(Twitter). Thus, employees largely account forthe deterioration of reputation of their respectivecompanies. Companies should analyse thisbehaviour and implement measures to rectifythis trend, since employees is the stakeholdergroup that drives the brand on the market.Facebook Is No Longer FriendlyThe social network Facebook is no longer afriendly environment for corporate reputation.Both by awareness (better knowledge)and recognition (higher evaluation),Facebook became a platform for expressingnegative opinions about companies.
  • 16. 05Findings
  • 17. Online Comments Report20In this section we will present general results for analysed positioning by sectors,reputation dimensions, stakeholders and online platforms. The analysis was heldin December 2012 and draws on the sample of 20,000 relevant messages collectedin four main platforms of online communication.By SectorsBy recognition or evaluation, most of theindustries were found to score below average.Only the companies operating in the sectors ofRetail (El Corte Inglés, Mercadona, Amazonand Inditex), Food and Beverages (Danone,Nestlé, Coca Cola and Leche Pascual), Hotels(Meliá Hotels International, Marriot, ACHoteles and NH Hoteles), Power Generation(Iberdrola, Endesa, EON and Gas NaturalFenosa) and Oil and Gas (Repsol, Cepsa, BPand Shell) have changed their position yearon year (compared to December 2011).The Food and Beverages sector has notablyimproved its position both in terms of awareness(34% higher) and recognition (1% higher),reaching the position above the average togetherwith the sectors Retail and Telecommunications.The increase is driven by good results inthe dimensions of Citizenship, Innovation,Products and Services, and Leadership.Power Generation has also improved itsposition compared to the previous year,especially by recognition. An in-depth analysisshows that the sector’s positioning improvedby all dimensions except Governance.The following sectors demonstrated a dreasein terms of recognition: Retail (El CorteInglés, Mercadona, Amazon and Inditex),Hotels (Meliá Hotels International, Marriot,AC Hoteles and NH Hoteles) and Oil andGas (Repsol, Cepsa, BP and Shell).Below is presented the ranking of positionsreached by sectors in the category of awareness:1. Telecommunications.2. Retail.3. Food and Beverages.4. Oil and Gas.5. Delivery Services.6. Hotels.7. Banking.8. Passenger Transport.9. Power Generation.10. Transport Infrastructure.11. Water Supply.In the category of recognition, thesectors rank in the following way:1. Telecommunications.2. Retail.3. Food and Beverages.4. Delivery Services.5. Hotels.6. Banking.7. Passenger Transport.8. Transport Infrastructure.9. Water Supply.10. Oil and Gas.
  • 18. Online Comments Report (BEO) 21Next, we will present the positioningpercentages for each sector by awareness(nt) and recognition (nb):• Telecommunications (nt 154%; nb 1%):Telefónica, Vodafone, Orange and Ono.• Retail (nt 120%; nb 1%): El Corte Inglés,Mercadona, Amazon and Inditex.• Food and Beverages (nt 56%; nb 1%): Danone,Nestlé, Coca Cola and Leche Pascual.• Delivery Services (nt -24%; nb 0%):Correos, MRW, DHL and Fedex.• Hotels (nt -38%; nb 0%): MeliáHotels International, Marriot,AC Hotels and NH Hotels• Banking (nt -55%; nb 0%): Bankinter,BBVA, La Caixa, Santander and Caixabank• Passenger Transport (nt -63%; nb 0%):Renfe, Iberia, Alsa and Spanair.• Power Generation (nt -65%; nb 0%): Iberdrola,Endesa, Eon and Gas Natural Fenosa.• Transport Infrastructure (nt -95%; nb -1%):Adif, Puertos del Estado and AENA.• Water Supply (nt -94%; nb -1%):Agbar and Canal de Isabel II.• Oil and Gas (nt 47%; nb -2%):Repsol, Cepsa, BP and Shell.HotelsHotelsBankingBankingFood and BeveragesFood and BeveragesOil and GasOil and GasTelecoTelecoRetailRetailPassenger TransportPassenger TransportWater SupplyWater SupplyPowerGenerationPowerGenerationTransportInfrastructureTransport InfrastructureDelivery ServicesDelivery ServicesBy SectorsRecognitionAwareness3%2%1%0%–1%–2%–3% 100% 0% 100% 200%2012 2011 The most significant changes
  • 19. Online Comments Report22By DimensionsOnly the dimensions Innovation and Governanceexperienced significant variations in differentdirections compared to previous year’s results.While the position of Innovation becamelower, especially in terms of recognition,Governance strengthened its positions.The comments that demonstrate high awarenessabout analysed corporate brands, just likein 2011, belong to the dimension Productsand Services, although the position of thisdimension decreased slightly year on year.Products and Services and Citizenship arethe only dimensions that scored above averageboth in terms of awareness and recognition.Among other important trends is the superiorposition of Leadership by recognition. On theother extreme are the comments related tothe Workplace dimension – the worst score byrecognition, the same result as in the previous year.Below is presented the ranking of positions reachedby the dimensions in the category of awareness:1. Products and Services.2. Citizenship.3. Leadership.4. Finance.5. Workplace.6. Innovation.7. Governance.In the category of recognition, thedimensions rank in the following way:1. Leadership.2. Products and Services.3. Citizenship.4. Finance.5. Innovation.6. Governance.7. Workplace.InnovationInnovationLeadership LeadershipCitizenshipCitizenshipProducts and ServicesProducts and ServicesFinanceFinanceWorkplaceWorkplaceGovernanceBy DimensionsRecognitionAwareness2%1,5%1%0,5%0%–0,5%–1%–1,5%–2% –200% 0% 200% 400%2012 2011 The most significant changesGovernance
  • 20. Online Comments Report (BEO) 23Next, we will present the positioningpercentages for each dimension byawareness (nt) and recognition (nb):• Products and Services (nt 282%; nb0 %): efficient claim management,meeting the customer needs, quality-price relationship, quality of products/services, good customer service.• Citizenship (nt 17%; nb 0%): protectionof the environment, positive contributionto the society, support for social causes.• Leadership (nt -33%; nb 1%): strong andrespected leadership, good organisation,clear vision of the future.• Finance (nt -54%; nb 0%) growth potential,generation of profit, good results.• Workplace (nt -58; nb -1%): a good placeto work, good employees, fair remuneration,equal opportunities, care about healthand well-being of the employees.• Innovation (nt -72%; nb 0%): launchof innovative products or services, easyadjustment to changes, business innovations.• Governance (nt -81%; nb -0%): ethicalbehaviour, responsible use of power, openaccess to information and transparency.
  • 21. Online Comments Report24By StakeholdersIn terms of stakeholders’ comments, ourconclusions are based on the following results:• Communication channels created by thecompanies remain the most efficient meansof communication. In fact, their efficiencyimproved in terms of awareness year on year.• Apart from corporate communications,some year on year variations were detectedin the following categories of comments:• Employees, worse results than one year ago• Public opinion and customers, retaintheir position by awareness.• NGOs and Trade Unions, improvetheir position slightly by recognitionand awareness but still rank belowthe average by both variables.Below is presented the ranking of positions reachedby the stakeholders in the category of awareness:1. Companies.2. Public opinion.3. Professionals.4. Customers.5. Jounalists.6. NGOs, trade unions and activist groups.7. Employees.8. Public institutions.9. Shareholders and investors.In the category of recognition, thestakeholders rank in the following way:1. Companies.2. Professionals.3. Public opinion.4. Employees.5. Customers.6. Journalists.7. Public institutions.8. NGOs, trade unions and activist groups.9. Shareholders and investors.EmployeesEmployeesJournalists JournalistsCustomers CustomersCompanies CompaniesProfessionals ProfessionalsPublic OpinionPublic OpinionPublic InstitutionsPublic InstitutionsShareholders and InvestorsShareholders and InvestorsNGOs, Trade Unions and Activist GroupsNGOs, Trade Unions and Activist GroupsBy StakeholdersRecognitionAwareness6%4%2%0%–2%–4%–6% 100% 0% 100% 200%2012 2011 The most significant changes
  • 22. Online Comments Report (BEO) 25Next, we will present the positioningpercentages for each stakeholder byawareness (nt) and recognition (nb):• Companies (nt 165%; nb 4%): publicrelations channels used by the company.• Public opinion (nt 138%; nb 0%): physicalpersons or legal entities that express anopinion about a brand without clearassociation with any other category.• Professionals (nt 108%; nb 1%):collaborators or competitors in the sectorwho speak about the brand, coveringdifferent dimensions of its reputation.• Customers (nt 14%; nb 0%): physical orlegal persons who refer to brands fromthe viewpoint of Products and Servicesand express an opinion about the qualityor price of the product or service.• Journalists (nt 14%; nb 0 %): communicationprofessionals who express an opinion or informothers about the brand with respect to theFinance dimension (economic sections or massmedia), Products and Services, Leadershipand Innovation (specialised publications),Citizenship (general/local mass media) orGovernance (general or political publications).• NGOs, trade unions and activist groups (nt-65%; nb -2%): physical or legal personswhose criticism affects different dimensionsof the brand reputation, for exampleWorkplace (trade unions), Citizenship(NGOs), Governance (parties), Products andServices (associations of consumers), etc.• Employees (nt -87%; nb 0%): individuals whoidentify themselves as workers of the company.• Public institutions (nt -92%; nb 0%):representatives of the authorities (physicalor legal persons) who express opinionsor inform others about the brand basedon their competencies and with regardto different reputation dimensions.• Shareholders and investors (nt -98%; nb -2%):physical or legal persons who express an opinionabout a brand related to the Finance dimension.
  • 23. Online Comments Report26By NetworksIn terms of analysed platforms or keycommunication networks that have an impact onthe reputation, we made the following conclusions:• Google has become the best platform forcompanies in terms of building corporatereputation. Despite this fact, this networkhas not outperformed other platforms byrecognition and its position is close to theaverage level. This means that companiesshould pay more attention to the hypertextulnetwork. Awareness demonstrated bythis network improved year on year.• While last year Facebook demonstratedhigher than average levels of awarenessand recognition, this year its awarenesslevel is below average and recognitionjust reaches the average level – loweroverall positions year on year.• In the meantime, Youtube improvedits awareness level, showing thataudiovisual content remains key forcorporate communication on the web.• Twitter ranks the lowest – the onlynetwork that ranks below average bothby awareness and recognition. And interms of awareness, its positions declinedeven in comparison with previous year.Both by awareness and recognition, theInternet platforms that we chose for thestudy rank in the following way: Google,Youtube, Facebook and Twitter.Next, we will present the positioningpercentages for each stakeholder byawareness (nt) and recognition (nb):• Hypertextual network (nt 100%; nb 0%): Google• Multimedia network (nt 1%; nb 0%): Youtube• Social network (nt -20%; nb 0%): Facebook.• Real-time network (nt -81%; nb -1%): TwitterYoutubeYoutubeGoogleGoogleFacebookFacebookTwitter TwitterBy NetworksRecognitionAwareness2%1,5%1%0,5%0%–0,5%–1%–1,5%–2% –50% 0% 50% 100%2012 2011 The most significant changes
  • 24. Online Comments Report (BEO) 27Results for the Fashion andInsurance SectorsThe analysis is complemented this year with twonew activity sectors, the Fashion and Insurancesectors. Since we do not have the data thatwould allow us to analyse the evolution of thesesectors’ positioning on the Internet, we arepresenting the results for these sectors separately.Results by sectorsAs shown in the graph, the Fashion sector (Zara,H&M, Adolfo Domínguez and Mango) clearlyscored higher than the Insurance sector (Mapfre,Catalana Occidente, Axa and Mutua Madrileña)both by awareness and recognition. The differenceis due to the fact that Fashion achieved higherthan the average positions by awareness andrecognition in all dimensions except governance.Positioning percentages by awareness (nt) andrecognition (nb) for the sectors are the following:• Fashion (nt 88%; nb 11%): Zara, H&M,Adolfo Domínguez and Mango.• Insurance (nt -88; -11%): Mapfre, CatalanaOccidente, Axa and Mutua Madrileña.Results by dimensionsAnalysis of reputation dimensions for these twosectors yielded the following conclusions:• The most valued dimension by awarenessis Products and Services, while theleader by recognition is Governance.• On the other extreme are Citizenshipand Workplace – the lowest resultsby awareness and recognition.• The results of Innovation are below theaverage by awareness and somewhat higherby recognition. Leadership and Financedemonstrate lower than average resultsboth by awareness and recognition.By awareness, the dimensions are rankedin the following way: Products andServices, Innovation, Finance, Leadership,Workplace, Citizenship and Governance.By recognition, the positions are distributed inthe following way: Governance, Innovation,Products and Services, Leadership,Finance, Citizenship and Workplace.Positioning percentages of reputationdimensions by awareness (nt) andrecognition (nb) are presented below:• Products and Services (nt 409%; nb4%): efficient claim management,meeting the customer needs, quality-price relationship, quality of products/services, good customer service.• Governance (nt -95%; nb 18%): ethicalbehaviour, responsible use of power, openaccess to information and transparency.• Innovation (nt -45%; nb 7%): launchof innovative products or services, easyadjustment to changes, business innovations.• Leadership (nt -60%; nb -4 %):strong and respected leadership, goodorganisation, clear vision of the future.• Finance (nt -51%; nb -5%): growth potential,generation of profit, good results.• Citizenship (nt -86%; nb -8%): protectionof the environment, positive contributionto the society, support for social causes.• Workplace (nt -73%; nb -11%): a good placeto work, good employees, fair remuneration,equal opportunities, care about healthand well-being of the employees.Results by stakeholdersAs in the results for other sectors, Companyand Public Opinion achieve the highestscore by recognition also for the sectors ofFashion and Insurance. In terms of awareness,Company is above the average, while PublicOpinion is slightly below the average.Comments made by Journalists also scored higherthan the average by awareness and recognition.Comments made by Shareholders and Investorsas well as NGOs, Trade Unions and ActivistGroups, on the contrary, demonstrate below theaverage results by awareness and recognition.Comments made by Employees and PublicInstitutions are above the average by recognitionbut fall short of the average level by awareness.An inverse relationship is demonstrated byCustomers, Professionals and Public Opinion,where awareness scores higher than the average,while recognition is below the average level.
  • 25. Online Comments Report28The ranking of stakeholders by awareness isthe following: Public Opinion, Companies,Professionals, Customers, Journalists, Employees,Public Institutions, NGOs, Trade Unions andActivist Groups, and finally, Shareholdersand Investors. By recognition, the followingresults have been recorded: Companies, PublicInstitutions, Employees, Journalists, Customers,Professionals, Shareholders and Investors, andfinally, NGOs, Trade Unions and Activist Groups.Positioning percentages for stakeholdersby awareness (nt) and recognition(nb) are presented below:• Public Opinion (nt 232%; nb -5%): physicalpersons or legal entities that express anopinion about a brand without clearassociation with any other category.• Companies (nt 113%; nb 29%): publicrelations channels used by the company.• Professionals (nt 62%; nb -8%):collaborators or competitors in the sectorwho speak about the brand, coveringdifferent dimensions of its reputation.• Customers (nt 40%; nb -4%): physicalor legal persons who refer to brands fromthe viewpoint of Products and Servicesand express an opinion about the qualityor price of the product or service.• Journalists (nt 30%; nb 2 %): communicationprofessionals who express an opinion or informothers about the brand with respect to theFinance dimension (economic sections or massmedia), Products and Services, Leadershipand Innovation (specialised publications),Citizenship (general/local mass media) orGovernance (general or political publications).• Employees (nt -87%; nb 9%): individuals whoidentify themselves as workers of the company.• Public Institutions (nt -96%; nb 18%):representatives of the authorities (physicalor legal persons) who express opinionsor inform others about the brand basedon their competencies and with regardto different reputation dimensions.• NGOs, Trade Unions and Activist Groups(nt -95%; nb -17%): physical or legal personswhose criticism affects different dimensionsof the brand reputation, for exampleWorkplace (trade unions), Citizenship(NGOs), Governance (parties), Products andServices (associations of consumers), etc.• Shareholders and Investors (nt -100%;nb -11%): physical or legal personswho express an opinion about a brandrelated to the Finance dimension. If theyidentify themselves as partners of thecompany they are called Shareholders.Results by NetworksJust like for other sectors, Google is thenetwork where comments about companiesdemonstrate the highest level of awareness.However, in this case, Google is slightlybelow the average in terms of recognition.In Facebook, comments score below the averagein terms of awareness and recognition. Youtubedemonstrates the best results by recognition butfails to exceed the average by awareness. Thelowest results are demonstrated by Twitter – belowthe average both by awareness and recognition,just like in the results for other sectors.By awareness, networks rank in the followingway: Google, Facebook, Youtube, Twitter.By recognition, the results are the following:Youtube, Facebook, Google and Twitter.Positioning percentages for networks by awareness(nt) and recognition (nb) are presented below:• Hypertextual network (nt 81%; nb -2%): Google.• Multimedia network (nt -28 %; nb 12%): Youtube.• Social network (nt -2%; nb -1 %): Facebook.• Real-time network (nt -51%; nb -9%): Twitter.
  • 26. ©2013 Corporate Excellence – Centre for Reputation LeadershipBusiness foundation created by large companies to professionalize the management of intangible assets and contribute to the development ofstrong brands, with good reputation and able to compete in the global market. Its mission is to be the driver which leads and consolidates theprofessional management of reputation as a strategic resource that guides and creates value for companies throughout the world.Legal NoticeThis document is property of the Corporate Excellence - Centre for Reputation Leadership and has as its objective to share business knowledgeabout Brand, Reputation, Communication and Public Affairs Management. This document is directed exclusively towards its addressee andcontains confi dential information, subject to professional secrecy, whose disclosure, copy or non-authorized use is against the Law.If you receive this document by mistake, let us know immediately and erase it without keeping a copy. Corporate Excellence - Centre for ReputationLeadership is the owner of all the intellectual property rights of the images, texts, designs and any other content or elements of this productand has the necessary permission for its use, and therefore, its copy, distribution, public releaseor transformation is prohibited, without express authorization from the owner.Copyright Corporate Excellence – Centre for Reputation Leadership, Madrid 2012
  • 27. TRUSTEES ASSOCIATESADIF AGBARBANKINTERCORREOSDANONEEL CORTE INGLÉSGAS NATURAL FENOSAMAPFREMELIÁ HOTELS INTERNATIONALRENFEBBVA LA CAIXA IBERDROLAREPSOLSANTANDERTELEFÓNICASagasta 27, 3 Izq. B28004 Madrid (Spain)+34 91 445 18 18info@corporateexcellence.org@CE4reputationLeading byreputationwww.corporateexcellence.org