• Save
Measuring Media Impact on Corporate Reputation (master thesis)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Measuring Media Impact on Corporate Reputation (master thesis)

on

  • 19,134 views

Measuring Media Impact on Corporate Reputation: The Case of Telecommunication Companies in Macedonia (master thesis)

Measuring Media Impact on Corporate Reputation: The Case of Telecommunication Companies in Macedonia (master thesis)

Statistics

Views

Total Views
19,134
Views on SlideShare
19,119
Embed Views
15

Actions

Likes
30
Downloads
3
Comments
10

10 Embeds 15

http://www.lmodules.com 5
http://www.techgig.com 2
https://www.linkedin.com 1
http://localhost 1
http://www.linkedin.com 1
http://www.slideshare.net 1
http://search.mywebsearch.com 1
http://translate.googleusercontent.com 1
http://health.medicbd.com 1
https://twitter.com 1
More...

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel

15 of 10 Post a comment

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • Bravo! Ms. Bugariska, on a job well done. This was indeed a fine piece of work on Corporate Reputation. I'm currently doing my dissertation and have chosen Corporate Reputation as a topic. If you don't mind, may I quote your work in my thesis - I shall certainly accredit you accordingly. Congratulations, -Aisha
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • hi can u share your thesis at spurgeonsugumar@yahoo.com. I am researching on the impact of corporate communications on company's image building activities........your thesis will help.......I promise appropriate referencing
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • Wow! this is looking good so far! Still reading. Gonna be helpful for my own dissertation. Good work!
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • thanks much
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • Branka Bugariska, this is a brilliant job. Congratulations. My MSC project at the University of Lagos Nigeria is Reputation Management in Politics; A case study of two state governors in Nigeria. I ll surely find your thesis useful and will be glad if you can send it to me on tobilobami@yahoo.com. I promise appropriate referencing. Thanks
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Measuring Media Impact on Corporate Reputation (master thesis) Document Transcript

  • 1. Euro College Faculty of Business Economy and University Studies in Kumanovo Administration MEASURING MEDIA IMPACT ON REPUTATION: THE CASE OF TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANIES IN MACEDONIA Candidate: Mentor: Branka Bugariska Prof. Aleksandar Dimitriev, Ph.D. June 2010 1
  • 2. MEASURING MEDIA IMPACT ON REPUTATION: THE CASE OF TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANIES IN MACEDONIA By Branka Bugariska Abstract Nowadays more and more companies are aware that reputation is their greatest asset. High level of reputation increases company’s profitability by attracting customers or clients to purchase its products or services, investors to invest into its stocks and the best workers to employ themselves in the company. With regular measurements of reputation an organization accurately identifies weak, strong and critical elements of reputation, which is crucial for building successful programs of reputation management. And at the same time regular measurements render ongoing verification of successfulness possible. Measuring corporate reputations accurately is crucial if they are to be managed. Yet measures of reputation proliferate, encouraging chaos and confusion about a company’s reputational assets. Some are arbitrarily performed by private panels and so are not replicable. Some are carried out with private information and so are unverifiable. The result has been a veritable cacophony of ratings, few of which are directly comparable. To overcome the inherent biases of different rating systems, in 1998 the Reputation Institute and the market research firm of Harris Interactive collaborated to create a standardized instrument that could be used to measure perceptions of companies across industries and with multiple stakeholder segments. They differentiated 20 attributes (under 6 dimensions) according to which a corporate reputation should be measured. Today, these attributes are a basis for the most popular reputation measurement methods in world’s markets. Several factor shape people’s perception about corporate reputation and one of the most important factors of all is the mainstream media and the media reality they present to the public. Measuring the impact the mainstream media have on public perception about company’s reputation is a challenge. 2
  • 3. Therefore my goal with this research is to find out whether – and how—the existing reputation measurement methods could be applied on the companies in Macedonia and to make the adjustments of the method that will work. In other words, to find the most adequate way to measure the media impact on corporate reputation of the Macedonian business. For that purpose, I will first make a small survey to examine the experience in application of reputation measurement in Macedonia. Then I will analyze the existing measurement methods, with their advantages and disadvantages in context of application to small markets, and make the adjustments needed. I will then apply the adjusted measurement methods to Macedonian business, measuring the reputation of telecommunication companies in Macedonia. The objective is to examine what image (picture) for telecommunication companies’ reputation the Macedonian media are presenting to the public. To do that, I must first find the right model for analysis, taking into consideration the standardized key reputational drivers as defined by Charles Fombrun and the Reputational Institute. For the purposes of this research, I call the tailor‐made model MICRa (Media Impact on Corporate Reputation analysis). As a result, this research should present the corporate reputation of Macedonian telecommunication companies as a media reality, and to give further recommendations for application of media and reputation measurement models, as well as directions for further research and development. Key words: reputation, image, brand, PR, evaluation, measurement, methodology, analysis, media, monitoring, clipping. 3
  • 4. Contents  I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 6  II. Definitions and key concepts .............................................................................................. 11  II.1. Defining Reputation ..................................................................................................... 11  II.1.1. Reputation from organization’s and stakeholder’s perspective ............................ 13  II.1.2. Reputation for individuals vs. Reputation for businesses ..................................... 15  II.1.3. Institutional vs. Socio-economic perspective ........................................................ 15  II.1.4. Reputation as a state of awareness, assessment and asset ..................................... 17  II.1.5. Reputation as a molecule....................................................................................... 18  II.1.6. Reputation in a strategic and personal/perceptual context .................................... 19  II.1.7. Overview of approaches and definitions ............................................................... 24  II.2. Reputation, Image, Identity and Brand ........................................................................ 26  II.3. What Influences Corporate Reputation? ...................................................................... 37  II.3.1. Reputation drivers (internal forces)....................................................................... 37  II.3.2. Factors influencing the perception of reputation (external forces) ....................... 41  II.4. Drawing the lines ......................................................................................................... 44  III. Overview of existing measurement methodologies ........................................................... 47  III.1. Methods of measuring corporate reputation ............................................................... 47  III.2. Media measurement and PR evaluation methods ....................................................... 51  III.2.1. Measuring PR outputs, PR outtakes and PR outcomes........................................ 52  III.2.2. Measuring media content ..................................................................................... 53  IV. The practice of Corporate Reputation measurement in Macedonia .................................. 57  V. Measuring Media Impact on reputation: The case of telecommunication companies in Macedonia (MICRa model) ..................................................................................................... 64  V.1. Overview of telecommunication market in Macedonia ............................................... 66  V.2. MICRa analysis of telecommunication companies in Macedonia ............................... 69  V.2.1. Measuring visibility .............................................................................................. 71  V.2.2. Measuring tonality ................................................................................................ 73  V.2.3. Media content analysis .......................................................................................... 77  V.2.4. Measuring media exposure ................................................................................... 84  V.2.5. Relative performance ............................................................................................ 94  V.2.6. Reputation media portraits .................................................................................... 97  4
  • 5. VI. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 116  VII. Reference List................................................................................................................. 120  VIII. ANNEXES .................................................................................................................... 130  VIII.1. Overview of reputation definitions ........................................................................ 131  VIII.2. Overview of reputation measurement methodologies ........................................... 133  VIII.3. Measuring corporate reputation in Macedonia – Survey results............................ 136  VIII.4. MICRa: Measuring media impact on corporate reputation of telecommunication companies in Macedonia.................................................................................................... 145  VIII.5. Reputation media portraits ..................................................................................... 170  5
  • 6. MEASURING MEDIA IMPACT ON REPUTATION: THE CASE OF TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANIES IN MACEDONIA I. Introduction Nowadays more and more companies are aware that a good reputation, particularly in an increasingly competitive world, is a must for all companies and organizations. High level of reputation increases company’s profitability by attracting customers or clients to purchase its products or services, investors to invest into its stocks and the best workers to employ themselves in the company. There is considerable evidence to suggest that a company’ reputation is extremely important intangible asset and should always be taken seriously, because losing a reputation often means losing a lot more besides (Rossides, 2008). A good reputation is essential in crisis situations and can help to reduce the impact of negative events and press. In addition, if those vital to the success of one organization perceive it as trustworthy then it will be taken more seriously and seen as more credible to all audiences. There are many reasons why an organization would measure its reputation. Essentially, measuring corporate reputations accurately is crucial if they are to be managed and it is important to understand how the company or organization is perceived so they can ensure success across all areas of the business. At a minimum, it is essential for CEOs to understand their company’s reputational strength among employees, customers, the media, and the financial community. These stakeholders are intersecting forces in the formation of a corporation’s reputation. 6
  • 7. With regular measurements of reputation an organization could accurately identify weak, strong and critical elements of reputation, which is crucial for building successful programs of reputation management. And at the same time regular measurements provide ongoing verification of successfulness possible. Measuring reputation can show how effectively a company is communicating with the media, stakeholders and employees, among others. This information can then be incorporated into future planning to help improve the effectiveness of PR, and subsequently, reputation. Most organizations probably have a gut feeling for whether their reputation is good or poor, but this is not necessarily reliable or accurate. Yet measures of reputation proliferate, encouraging chaos and confusion about a company’s reputational assets. Some are randomly performed by private panels and so are not replicable. Some are carried out with private information and so are unverifiable. The result has been a veritable cacophony of ratings, few of which are directly comparable. To overcome the inherent biases of different rating systems, in 1998 the Reputation Institute and the market research firm of Harris Interactive collaborated to create a standardized instrument that could be used to measure perceptions of companies across industries and with multiple stakeholder segments. They differentiated 20 attributes (under 6 dimensions) according to which a corporate reputation should be measured. Today, these attributes are a basis for the most popular reputation measurement methods in world’s markets. Literature overview As one of the valuable corporate intangible assets, corporate reputation has received a great attention from both academics and business community. However, they are focused rather on the reputation management than on measurement and evaluation methodology. That does not mean that steps are not taken in practice (in the business world mainly), but only speaks about the lack on academic research on reputation measurement. A substantial contribution in the area of reputation and brand management was provided by Schreiber (2006, 2008a, 2008b), as well as by Macnamara (2006), Marconi (2001), Garry 7
  • 8. Griffin (2002), Dunn (2006), Dalton and Croft (2003), and so on. They have all contributed to defining corporate reputation and development of communication and marketing strategies towards building and maintaining better corporate reputation to help companies and organizations. In this regard, several other names are worth mentioning, such as Davies (2003), Doorley and Garcia (2007), Gaines-Ross (2008), Andrew Griffin (2008), Rossides (2008), Taylor (2001)... Neef (2003) and Rayner (2003) on the other hand focused their researches specifically on managing reputational risks, and Brady (2005) and Solove (2007) re-think the future of corporate reputation. Studies with theoretical approach to the problem of reputation measurement (especially in terms of methodology) are an exemption. I would single out Charles Fombrun, a professor at NY University and Executive Director of the Reputation Institute, who is one of the rare ones who has contributed most to the development and standardization of reputation measurement methods, both in theoretical and practical context (Fombrun 2002, 2005). Attempts to put existing research models in a theoretical framework are made by Money and Hillenbrand (2005) and Cravens, Oliver and Ramamoorti (2003). Figini, Giudici and Gomez (2009) from the Italian Institute of Statistics have also contributed with a paper to propose a methodological approach to measure reputation risk at financial institutions. Measuring reputation, related to reputation management, is only briefly elaborated by Hannington (2004), Haywood (2005), and so on. My preliminary work on the topic is also more professionally practical than academic, although theoretical approach was always employed, in order to propose and apply the best research model according to client’s needs. Nevertheless, my experience in this context consists of many different research models applied on brands and companies, related to measurement of brands, image, reputation, consumers’ perceptions, or effects of company’s PR and media relations efforts. Methodology The Macedonian business however knows little to none about reputation management and reputation measurement. The gaps in research and practice in Macedonia, related to reputation measurement exist on two levels: first, the lack of knowledge at the domestic 8
  • 9. professionals, and second, the need of adjustment and standardization of methodology which to be applied to smaller markets as for instance Macedonian business, or even smaller (industry-only). Therefore the research question in this context would be how the existing reputation measurement methods could be successfully applied to measure the media impact on corporate reputation of companies from one market segment and bring useful and applicable results? In other words, my goal with this research is to find the most adequate way to measure the media impact on corporate reputation of the Macedonian business. For that purpose, I will first make a small survey to examine the experience in application of reputation measurement in Macedonia. Then I will analyze the existing measurement methods, with their advantages and disadvantages in context of application to small markets, and make the adjustments needed. I will then apply the adjusted measurement methods to Macedonian business, measuring the reputation of telecommunication companies in Macedonia. The objective is to examine what image (picture) for telecommunication companies’ reputation the Macedonian media are presenting to the public. To do that, I must first find the right model for analysis, taking into consideration the standardized key reputational drivers as defined by Charles Fombrun and the Reputational Institute. For the purposes of this research, I call the tailor‐made model MICRa (Media Impact on Corporate Reputation analysis). The analysis will be made upon data base of media clippings from 2008 that cover telecommunication issues, including 11 daily newspapers, 18 magazines, 12 TV channels, 2 radio stations and 30 web sites and news portals. A top 5 ranking of telecoms, according to their overall reputation values presented as media reality, will be provided as an output of this research.1 1 Although it is pretty clear that unethical corporate steps taken by companies affect negatively on the reputation, the ethical aspects are not in the focus of this research, due to the fact that the market is not regulated in terms of code of ethics. As a developing market, in Macedonian business there are still no accepted standards and no solid legal regulations, so upholding high ethical practices is left to the consciousness of individual companies. Corporate code of conduct is driven rather by daily targets of winning customers, increasing markets share or making profits, than by preserving ethical values. 9
  • 10. As overall result, this research will present an applicable tailor-made model for measuring media impact on corporate reputation on the local market and specifically telecommunication industry in Macedonia. In addition, the research will also provide recommendations for further research and development of reputation measurement methods. 10
  • 11. II. Definitions and key concepts Reputation can generally be described as ‘1: overall quality or character as seen or judged by others; 2: fame, celebrity; 3: recognition by other people of some characteristic or ability’.2 This seems fairly clear, right? Well, if only it was that simple… When it comes to corporate reputation, it apparently gets more complicated. Plenty of definitions exist for ‘corporate reputation’. Corporate reputation has been the focus of much academic and professional/business research lately. In recent years, there has been increasing evidence of the value of the concept to both practitioners and scholars alike. As a result, more effort has been placed into putting reputation in theoretical frameworks, drawing out definitions of the key reputation concepts, and at the same time using those frameworks in purpose of reputation measurement, which helped more and more models of reputation measurement to emerge. I will make an overview of and discuss the key concepts and definitions in the following pages, suggesting a synthesized concept, based on which the main research of this paper will be done. II.1. Defining Reputation The term “reputation” is pretty abstract and all-embracing. It is not easy to define since the perception of what is and what is not reputable is different for different individual. According to the Oxford English Dictionary,3 reputation is defined as the beliefs or opinions that are generally held about someone or something. In the glossary of the Princeton University, reputation is defined as the state of being held in high esteem and honor, notoriety for some particular characteristic, or the general estimation that the public has for a person.4 2 As in, for instance, The Penguin English Dictionary (via: Griffin, 2008; p. 11) 3 Compact Oxford Englush Dictionary: http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/orexxputation?view=uk 4 Glossary of Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA: http://www.princeton.edu, wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn) 11
  • 12. The free-content internet encyclopedia, Wikipedia, offers the following definition: Reputation is the opinion (more technically, a social evaluation) of the public toward a person, a group of people, or an organization. It is an important in many fields, such as education, business, online communities or social status.5 A variety of definitions of reputation have been also offered from a number of different academic and professional backgrounds. Elliot S. Schreiber (2008a) organized the variety of those definitions in a table, suggesting that they intersect and give an integrated view of reputation: a) Reputation is an intangible asset: As an intangible, reputation represents a firm’s past actions and describes a firm’s ability to deliver value outcomes to multiple stakeholders (Mahon, 2002; Fombrun, 1996); b) Reputation is a derivative of other actions and behaviors of the firm: It is difficult to isolate one variable that influences perceptions to a greater degree than others across all stakeholders (Schultz, et. al, 2006). Reputation is the collective representations shared in the minds of multiple publics about an organization over time (Yang and Grunig, 2005), and is developed through a complex interchange between an organization and its stakeholders (Rindova and Fombrun, 1999). c) Reputation is judged within the context of competitive offerings: (Fombrun, et. al, 1990; Shapiro, 1983; Schultz, et. al, 2006). Reputation is not normative for all companies. This differentiation is not necessarily the same for all attributes of the firm and for all stakeholders. d) Reputation is the way in which stakeholders, who know little about an organization’s true intent, determine whether an organization is worthy of their trust (Stigler, 1962). Madhok (1995) noted that trust is essential in a world in which business operates through cooperation and relationships). Golin (2003) coined the term “trust bank” and notes that: 1) trust is the most basic element of social contact—the great intangible at the heart of truly 5 Wikipedia, Free-content Internent Encyclopedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reputation 12
  • 13. long-term success; and 2) trust is both a process and an outcome; it’s at the heart of dealing with every relationship. Zaballa et. al of Deloitte Spain (2005), noted that “corporate reputation of an enterprise is the prestige maintained through time which, based on a set of shared values and strategies and through the eminence achieved with each stakeholder, assures the sustainability and differentiation of the company via the management of its intellectual capital (intangibles)” (p. 61). e) Reputation is based on the organization’s behaviors, communications and relationships: Doorley and Garcia (2007) provide a formula as a definition, which they state as “sum of images= (performance and behavior) + Communication = sum of relationships” All of these definitions give opportunity to see reputation from different points of view. In the following pages I will exhibit several different approaches in defining reputation. II.1.1. Reputation from organization’s and stakeholder’s perspective Schreiber (2008a) brought these various definitions together, and suggested that there are two definitions of reputation, one from the perspective of the company and the other from the perspective of stakeholders. It is important, he believes, that organizations keep these two perspectives in mind: From the perspective of the organization, reputation is an intangible asset that allows the company to better manage the expectations and needs of its various stakeholders, creating differentiation and barriers vis-à-vis its competitors. From the perspective of stakeholders, reputation is the intellectual, emotional and behavioral response as to whether or not the communications and actions of an organization resonate with their needs and interests. To the extent that stakeholders believe that the organization meets their needs better than can competitors, they will behave toward the organization in desirable ways, e.g., invest, join, support, etc. As companies meet the needs and interests of stakeholders over time, they 13
  • 14. increase their reputation resilience and diminish their reputation risk, providing themselves with a “halo effect” that can serve them well in times of trouble. He also proposes the following conceptual model of reputation, as shown in Figure 1: Figure 1: Conceptual Model of Reputation, by Elliot S. Schreiber 2004© Where: Company Attributes = Organization’s value proposition (attributes) to stakeholders Stakeholder Values = The importance of the company’s attributes to stakeholders Experience = How stakeholders perceive they have been treated by the organization and whether its Promise is valid In number of the strategic management studies reputation is viewed as a key source of distinctiveness that differentiates the company from its rivals, and a valuable and a fragile asset at the same time that provides firm with a sustainable competitive advantage (Balboni 2008; Fombrun, 1996). It enables consumers, but also investors, suppliers, and employers to assess relevant company attribute. This framework has limited the researches of corporate reputation only to a specific business-to-consumer perspective, while reputation influences decision makers’ choice of inter-organizational partners (Balboni, 2008). On the other hand, Dennis Wilcox, professor emeritus of public relations and past director of the School of Journalism & Mass Communications at San Jose State University, sees reputation from the stakeholders’ point of view. He says that (corporate) reputation is the collective perceptions of an organization's various stakeholders (Wilcox, 2009).6 “It represents the collective perceptions and opinions of individuals who have some relationship with the organization as customers, suppliers, employees, members of a community where the organization has a store or plant, government regulators, investors, financial analysts, journalists who cover the organization, etc.”, he explains. Regarding the reputation from 6 Dennis L. Wilcox, interview on corporate reputation given for the PR blog “Воглавно Јавно” (2009): http://bugariska.crnaovca.mk/2009/11/intervju-wilcox/. English version of the interview: http://my- ventilator.blogspot.com/2009/11/dennis-wilcox-5-q-on-corporate.html 14
  • 15. organization’s perspective (as an intangible asset), it is closer to what he actually describes as corporate image further in his interview. II.1.2. Reputation for individuals vs. Reputation for businesses Barry Hurd, President of 123SocialMedia,7 a Seattle consultancy specializing in online reputation and media management, brings out the following approach: For individuals: a reputation is created by an inspired professional, detailing an ability to execute strategic business decisions, display a talent for a niche, and noting critical situations that were expertly handled. For businesses: a reputation is perceived by the parts of all the individuals that create it, the attitude of the team from top to bottom, the ability to manage financial changes, market shifts, product issues, workforce evolutions, corporate responsibility, social culture, and the ethics of the leadership. In both cases, “real world reputation created over years of established relations can now be devastated with a single keystroke”, adds Hurd.8 II.1.3. Institutional vs. Socio-economic perspective A number of academic studies are devoted to the interpretation and conceptualization of corporate reputation (Balboni, 2008). In this sense, two different mainstreams of thought in academic literature can be identified: institutional and socio-economic perspective. The institutional perspective, partly influenced by stakeholder theory, suggests that the extent to which an organization is widely recognized among counterparts and stakeholders in its organizational fields, and the extent to which it stands out compared to competitors, represents the basic dimension of corporate reputation (Shapiro, 1983). This perspective 7 http://123socialmedia.com/reputation-management-service/ 8 http://www.slideshare.net/BuzzProfile/reputation-value 15
  • 16. focuses on the prominence dimension which captures the degree to which a company receives large-scale collective recognition (Rindova et al., 2005). Socio-economic perspective focuses on the emergent quality dimension. It captures the degree to which stakeholders evaluate a company on specific attribute. This second stream of studies tends to define corporate reputation as the counterpart’s expectations of a particular attribute of an organization developed over long time. Reputation forms on the basis of past actions; it’s a specific evaluation based on the perceived “stock” of all the expectations fulfilled by company during time. These views are not antithetic but they focus on specific objects of the individual representation’s transmission process. In fact, reputation is a social phenomena associated with any individual impressions; it forms as a result of social and information exchange within an informal network where various actors interact (Balboni, 2008). It consists of four distinct but interrelated objects: 1) a subjective representation of the firm – i.e. corporate image; 2) a network object; 3) an emergent evaluation; 4) institutional appraisals. Figure 2: Corporate reputation's transmission process (Balboni, 2008) While the institutional perspective emphasizes the width of network, the socio-economic perspective focuses on the emergent quality of the corporate image’s propagation process. 16
  • 17. II.1.4. Reputation as a state of awareness, assessment and asset In his white paper on reputation management, Dr. Nicos Rossides, Group CEO of MASMI Research (2008) discusses that one issue that has hindered the development of research on reputation has been the multiplicity of definitions and lack of consensus amongst academics as to what corporate reputation is. However, recent research has shown that, despite the widely differing meanings attached to the term reputation, there are broad underlying similarities to many of the definitions, which tend to have three distinct clusters of meaning – reputation as a state of awareness, reputation as an assessment, and reputation as an asset (Rossides, 2008). Broadly, awareness comprises definitions indicating that stakeholders have an awareness of a company without judging it; assessment signifies that stakeholders are judging or evaluating a firm; whilst asset denotes that reputation is something of value and significance to a firm. Whilst some overlap between these terms may exist, they are relatively distinct in that awareness does not imply an assessment, which in turn does not imply transformation into an asset. Using these constructs, a tighter and more focused definition of corporate reputation can be constructed, one which untangles the concept from corporate identity and image. Identity, it can be argued, is the underlying “core” or character of a firm, which makes it distinctive from other companies, and which endures whatever the circumstances a company may find itself. Corporate image is then the impressions that observers, whether external or internal, have of a firm when they hear its name or see its logo, with the transition from identity to image shaped by factors such as media coverage, government actions, public relations and marketing. The term corporate reputation, in such instances, is reserved for judgments made by observers about a firm. While such judgments may have their source in perceptions of a company’s identity and image, they often occur as a consequence of a triggering event, which may arise from a firm’s more visible actions and mistakes (e.g. an oil company and a pipeline spill) or external events. As a consequence, it can be argued that corporate reputation then is 17
  • 18. based on stakeholders’ assessments of the financial, social and environmental impacts attributed to a company over time. II.1.5. Reputation as a molecule In approaching the measurement and management of reputation, as well as identifying its differences from brands, Dr. Jim Macnamara (2006) singles out three key criteria which need to be recognized, including: 1. Reputation is perception. It is what people think, not necessarily a reality. It is what psychologists and researchers term as cognitive. Just because an organization tries to act responsibly it does not mean people will think it is responsible. 2. Not everyone’s perceptions matters. Not everyone’s perceptions have the power to impact a company or organization. Many people have opinions about many companies and organizations. Some matter because an organization’s future depends on them. But there are also individuals and groups which have little impact on an organization. 3. Not everything matters. The weakness of measuring predetermined criteria is that they may not be what key stakeholders judge the organization on. How do we know that vision and leadership or corporate citizenship matter to groups who matter to an organization? Deciding internally what criteria determine reputation is putting the cart before the horse. Drawing all three of these criteria together, Macnamara develops an important formula: Reputation is what the people who matter think about what THEY think matters (Macnamara, 2006: 5). From this standing point, he furthermore suggests a concept he named Reputation Molecule, which helps explain corporate reputation. Similar to the molecule we know from basic chemistry (made up of atoms which, in turn, are made up of protons, neutrons and electrons), Macnamara’s reputation molecule is comprised of multiple elements, such as customer relations and satisfaction; shareholder relations; business partner experiences; analyst views; media opinion; and so on (Figure 3). 18
  • 19. Figure 3: Reputation Molecule (Macnamara, 2006). “Not only is every type of molecule different, but molecules are constantly dynamic. Elements literally buzz around, interacting with each other and changing the electrical charge and energy of the molecule. One negatively charged element can affect other elements in the molecule”, explains Macnamara (2006: 5). Positive reputation coalesces as a consensus of perception when a company or organization has established a consistently positive set of experiences and interactions with the key groups that matter to its operations. If some key groups have negative experiences and interactions, these will ‘bump into’ other elements in the Reputation Molecule and destabilize them. (Macnamara, 2006: 6) II.1.6. Reputation in a strategic and personal/perceptual context In order to understand the development and value of reputation for a business, Money and Carola (2005) have placed reputation within a theoretical framework, using Walsh and Wiedmann basic theoretical chain (Figure 4). Antecedents Corporate Reputation Consequences Figure 4: Placing Corporate Reputation within a Causal Framework, based on Walsh and Wiedmann, 2004 (Money and Carola, 2005) 19
  • 20. This chain places reputation within a framework that seeks to understand the origins or antecedents of reputation, in other words what can be done to develop a good reputation, as well as consequences of reputation, that is the value of reputation. “It is only by understanding antecedents and consequences of reputation that a business can actively build intangible assets and create value”, say the authors. They explore this basic framework in a strategic context from the perspective of business and in a perceptual context from the perspective of individuals. Reputation in a strategic context. At a strategic level reputation is often placed as an asset within models that seek to explain the performance of the firm. A good example of such a strategic model is that of Wiedmann and Prauschke (Money and Carola 2005: 3-5). This model is presented below (Figure 5): Figure 5: A strategic model of firm performance, adapted from Wiedmann and Prausche 2005 (Money and Carola, 2005) It is here discussed that the concept of corporate reputation can either be a market asset or a mediator or a moderator between internal intangible assets and market assets. Corporate reputation as a determinant of corporate success would be regarded as a market asset. Figure 6: Integrating strategic variables within the Casual Framework of Reputation (Money and Carola, 2005) Integrating these models at the strategic level (as in Figure 6), antecedents can thus be seen as asset generating activities of the firm, corporate reputation can be conceptualized as an intangible asset and consequences are understood as market assets and improved performance 20
  • 21. of a firm. This is in line with the large amount of literature that identifies corporate reputation as a key intangible asset. The integrated model presented above is the first step of a process to place corporate reputation within a model of value creation. Reputation in the perceptual context. While reputation is clearly an asset of the firm, it is also clearly a concept held in the minds, or cognitions of stakeholders (Money and Carola, 2005: 5). It should be noted that reputation is often conceptualized as either perceptions, attitudes and/or beliefs of stakeholders. For example Fombrun (1996) suggests the following definition: “A Corporate Reputation is a perceptual representation of a company’s past actions and future prospects that describe the firm’s overall appeal to all of its key constituents when compared with other leading rivals.” (p.72). It is clear that reputation is here both conceptualized as perceptual construct, in terms of perceptions of a company’s past actions, as well as an attitudinal construct, in terms of a firm’s appeal. In addition to this other reputation models include other concepts as such as experience, intentions and behaviors of stakeholders. Money and Carola offer here the theory of Fishbein and Ajzen (1975), which is suggesting how concepts, such as beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behaviors can be interlinked. This model is also integrated into causal framework of corporate reputation, its antecedents and consequences. In this way antecedents of corporate reputation can be seen as stakeholder experiences and observations, corporate reputation is conceptualized as stakeholder beliefs and attitudes about an organization and the consequences are the intentions and behaviors one has with regard to the organization. Figure 7: An Integration Fishbein and Ajzen’s model and the Causal Framework of Corporate Reputation (Money and Carola, 2005) Integrating approaches and placing reputation into a theoretical framework. It is important to take both approaches into account, say Money and Carola: Understanding how reputation fits into a strategic framework helps to understand how reputation can be used to 21
  • 22. create value for a business. Understanding how reputation is developed at a perceptual level is important because it can facilitate the development of reputation at grass roots level. It is therefore important to bring both approaches together to understand how the strategic and the perceptual approaches interact and impact each other. Integration would inform business about what can be done to influence the development of positive perceptions and therefore bring benefits back to a business (Money and Carola, 2006: 7-13). Figure 8: Integrating the strategic and perceptual approaches to place Reputation within a causal framework of value creation (Money and Carola, 2005) Figure 8 above provides the way to integrate the strategic and the perceptual approaches to corporate reputation within the causal framework. This focuses on three aspects: corporate reputation, its antecedents and its consequences. The value of the framework is demonstrated by placing aspects of existing reputation models within it (Figure 9). This allows researchers to identify gaps in the scope of issues addressed by current models, to develop strategies about how different models can be linked together and to test the utility of different models, which will in turn allow practitioners to assess the value and appropriateness of different measurement techniques. 22
  • 23. Figure 9: Placing existing Reputation Models within the integrated framework (Money and Carola, 2005) A framework that places reputation at the heart of value creation has been provided here. Value creation is seen as the development of intangible assets, market assets and ultimately firm performance. The framework integrates a causal model seeking to conceptualize corporate reputation with its antecedents and its consequences with two approaches of looking at corporate reputation, one from a strategic level and the other from a perceptual level. By placing existing models of reputation within this integrated framework a number of practical and academic implications are drawn. 23
  • 24. II.1.7. Overview of approaches and definitions To summarize, here is an overview of the definitions exhibited and discuses above: Definitions of Reputation: Overview Company as a focal point (company Individual as a focal point activities/strategy, company values, and (perception of the Author of definition images it projects about itself) individual/stakeholder about the company) Stigler, 1962 Reputation is the way in which stakeholders determine whether an organization is worthy of their trust. Fombrun, 1996 Reputation is an intangible asset: As an A Corporate Reputation is a Rindova and Fombrun, 1999 intangible, reputation represents a firm’s perceptual representation of a Mahon, 2002 past actions and describes a firm’s ability company’s past actions and future to deliver value outcomes to multiple prospects that describe the firm’s stakeholders. overall appeal to all of its key constituents when compared with other leading rivals. Zaballa et. al, 2005 Corporate reputation of an enterprise is the prestige maintained through time which, based on a set of shared values and strategies and through the eminence achieved with each stakeholder, assures the sustainability and differentiation of the company via the management of its intellectual capital. Yang and Grunig, 2005 Reputation refers to the collective representations shared in the minds of multiple publics about an organization over time. Money and Carola, 2005 Reputation in a strategic context: asset Reputation in the generating activities of the firm, corporate personal/perceptual context: while reputation can be conceptualized as an reputation is clearly an asset of the intangible asset and consequences are firm, it is also clearly a concept understood as market assets and improved held in the minds, or cognitions of performance of a firm. stakeholders. Macnamara, 2006 Reputation Molecule: Reputation is what the people who matter think about what THEY think matters. Doorley and Garcia, 2007 Reputation is based on the organization’s behaviors, communications and relationships: sum of images= (performance and behavior) + Communication = sum of relationships Hurd, 2007 Reputation for businesses: a reputation is Reputation for individuals: a perceived by the parts of all the reputation is created by an inspired individuals that create it, the attitude of professional, detailing an ability to the team from top to bottom, the ability to execute strategic business manage financial changes, market shifts, decisions, displaying a talent for a product issues, workforce evolutions, niche, and noting critical situations corporate responsibility, social culture, that were expertly handled. and the ethics of the leadership. Rossides, 2008 Reputation as an asset (reputation is Reputation as a state of awareness 24
  • 25. something of value and significance to a (stakeholders have an awareness of firm) a company without judging it). Reputation as an assessment (stakeholders are judging or evaluating a firm). Balboni, 2008 Reputation from institutional perspective: Reputation from socio-economic an organization is widely recognized perspective: stakeholders evaluate among counterparts and stakeholders in its a company on specific attribute; organizational fields; it stands out defines corporate reputation as the compared to competitors, represents the counterpart’s expectations of a basic dimension of corporate reputation. particular attribute of an organization developed over long time. Schreiber, 2008 Organization’s perspective of reputation: Stakeholder’s perspective of reputation is an intangible asset that reputation: reputation is the allows the company to better manage the intellectual, emotional and expectations and needs of its various behavioral response as to whether stakeholders, creating differentiation and or not the communications and barriers vis-à-vis its competitors. actions of an organization resonate with their needs and interests. Wilcox, 2009 Corporate image: what the organization Corporate Reputation: collective believes it is and wants to project. perceptions of an organization's various stakeholders. Figure 10: A table of most common definition on corporate reputation, according to their focus (Bugariska, 2009) From the table above, we can conclude that in the variety of definitions of reputation, the focus is most often put on the company or on the individual. Within the definitions where the company is put in the focus, reputation is understood as closer to company activities or strategy, company values, and images it projects about itself. It is rather seen as the key intangible asset of the company, and is understood as a performance (outcome) of the firm. In all approaches where the individual is put in the focus, reputation is defined as collective representations, a perception of the individual/stakeholder about the company. In this research paper, I will build the thesis development upon the premise that reputation is a perception about a company, hold in the mind of its stakeholders. It is a perception of who and what the company is, where does it come from, who it does business with, how it runs the business, how it treats its employees, how it builds credibility and trust. This perception, or knowledge, is formed on a basis of all experiences an individual (stakeholder) has with the company. Regarding its stakeholders, they are different for each company or 25
  • 26. industry; they represent organization’s internal (employees, members) and external public (customers, shareholders, opinion leaders, specific target audiences, broader community). II.2. Reputation, Image, Identity and Brand Multiplicity of definitions leads to a lack of consensus amongst academics as to what is corporate reputation and how it defers from concepts such as corporate identity, corporate image and brand. Although much confusion exists about terminology, it is important to try and distinguish these terms. Sometimes wrongly used interchangeably, they do not quite refer to the same ideas and concepts, although there is considerable overlap and the terms are not mutually exclusive. These concepts are often used interchangeably with little distinction made between them. “When these terms are not used interchangeably, scholars argue for a hierarchy amongst them – for example, image as a subset of reputation”, says Rossides (2008). The most common bias is mixing reputation with corporate image. Reputation is not same with image. According to SPEM communication group, it is much more: “Reputation is an evaluation of an image, presented externally by an organization”.9 The authors of the “Reputation Management” guide (Elearn 2005) also agree that image and reputation are closely related but they are not the same. They argue that some organizations have difficulties coming to terms with reputation, especially new companies that have a need for instant awareness and sales and so focus their efforts on image building. But for an image to remain credible in the longer term an organization must also focus on building some substance – its reputation – to back it up (p.1). They have presented the two main aspects that help explain the difference between these two concepts, in a simple table (as shown in the following Figure): 9 SPEM Communication Group (Slovenia), corporate web site: http://www.spem.si/eng/Activities/Researches/Reputation-Measurement/ 26
  • 27. Figure 11: Two aspects that help explain the difference between corporate image and corporate reputation (“Reputation Management”, Elearn training materials, 2005) Balboni (2008) sees the two terms as a part of the process of corporate reputation's transmission is an evaluative belief about a particular company – i.e. corporate image (p. 3- 4). Corporate image is defined as the individual estimation about a company as reflected by the corporate associations held in memory. Corporate reputation, on the other hand, is the effect of the transmission of the corporate image trough an informal network. It proceeds from the level of individual cognition to the level of social propagation through gossip, word- of-mouth, and institutional refraction that includes media contagion. In order to explain methods of reputation measurement, the editorial of Communication Controlling, web portal about value creation and evaluating communication, starts with the definitions of reputation and image.10 “Reputation is fundamentally based on stakeholder group specific images. Image is generally used to mean a simplified, typified, value- judgmental and action-guiding idea formed on the basis of impressions, perceptions and thought processes in the minds of persons or sections of the population about products, persons, facts and circumstances, or entire organizations.” 11 They describe reputation and image relationship as a long-term, dynamic, mutual relationship determined by corporate images in various manifestations. Reputation can be influenced only indirectly – via a kind of image network based on cumulative corporate identity perception and association processes. Reputation is also bound up with other attributes such as trust and credibility, reliability and responsibility, and comprises support potentials as well as certain expectations of behavior. A high reputation is considered to promote trust and confer a competitive advantage over rivals. 10 Communication Controlling, the web portal about value creation and evaluating communication: http://www.communicationcontrolling.de/ 11 Reputation management at Communication Controlling: http://www.communicationcontrolling.de/en/methods/value-creation/reputation-measurement.html 27
  • 28. “The terms image, reputation, good name and prestige are very similar in their definitions and barely distinguishable in measurements”, they add. Simply and logically, Dennis Wilcox (2009) puts it this way: “A corporate reputation is formed by stakeholders involved or affected in some way by the organization. Corporate image, on the other hand, is more internalized. Image is what the organization believes it is and wants to project. A bank, for example, may wish to project the ‘image’ that its staff is friendly and helpful, or that the bank is successful and well managed. Public relations and advertising campaigns are often focused on projecting an ‘image’ of an organization or that its product brands represent quality and good value. Customers, for example, may feel that the ‘image’ being projected is wrong or misleading. They find that the bank staff is not particularly helpful or friendly -- or that the product is of poor quality. Thus, the bank might have the ‘reputation’ of being unfriendly although the bank continues to project the image that it is friendly through its advertising”.12 Another considerable debate has been going on in both business and academic world: the one on corporate reputation and brand.13 The multiplicity of definitions of brand as well, only contributes to the confusion. Several authors have tried to make things clear by drawing lines between the two concepts. Dr. Jim Macnamara (2006), for instance, believes that the argument that brand encompasses corporate reputation mainly comes from brand managers and advertising agencies which see themselves as ‘custodians of the brand’ (p. 2). “To some extent, this reflects a colored view”, he says. “In staking a claim to reputation management, it could be argued that brand managers are mounting a rearguard action to retain or regain ground in the corporate and marketing communication mix” (p. 2). Notwithstanding, the concept of ‘360- degree brand’ has considerable similarities with reputation, as it suggests that everything emanating from and existing in the environment surrounding a company or organization collectively comprises its brand – i.e. the experiences and opinions of customers, employees, business partners, government, media, and so on. 12 Dennis L. Wilcox, interview on corporate reputation given for the PR blog “Воглавно Јавно” (2009): http://bugariska.crnaovca.mk/2009/11/intervju-wilcox/; English version: http://my- ventilator.blogspot.com/2009/11/dennis-wilcox-5-q-on-corporate.html 13 Under the term “brand” here I understand “corporate brand”, not a “product brand”. 28
  • 29. However, the more traditional concept of brand is connected closely with product marketing. Some of the key characteristics of brand and reputation that affect how we measure and manage each are as follows: 1) emotions versus behaviors, 2) promotion versus reality, and 3) customer versus other stakeholders. Under the first factor, brands have been described to be largely an emotional concept, identities that people relate to and often take up as artifacts of culture to create their identity. “While the difference between brand and reputation is not a clear cut, reputation is comprised mainly of perceptions based on experience and rational thinking”, says Macnamara (p. 2). “Brand loyalty is love; reputation is respect”, he adds. This is also useful in suggesting that brand and reputation are not competing concepts, but complementary. Because of this key difference in the nature of brand and reputation, the way each is built and maintained is different. Brands can be and are often created through advertising and promotion. Reputation cannot be created by advertising or built by public relations. Reputation is primarily based on experiences and observation. Reputation is more to do with behavior and reality than image and promotion (p. 2-3). The third key difference between brand and reputation is that brand is primarily a property identified and seen as valuable among customers and consumers. Reputation exists among consumers, but also is currency among a number of key non-customer groups which can have significant influence on the company’s or organization’s operations (such as, for instance: shareholders, government, regulators, NGOs, employees, key influencers, etc; p. 3). Hannington (2004) discusses definitions of corporate brands and reputations focusing to (primarily, but not exclusively), business-to-business situations. He discusses how brand and reputation interact and the ways many organizations view this issue. “The key differentiation between brand and reputation is that reputation is created by responses to a set of questions the answers to which define the qualities of the organization; brand, however, is very much linked to the reaction to a visual symbol”, says Hannington (p. 9). Reputation is defined by the responses to the types of questions stakeholders ask about a company to form their perception of the organization. It is the answers to specific questions such as those contained in the list below which are grouped for convenience by subject: products and services, 29
  • 30. financial performance, vision and leadership, working environment, social responsibility, emotional appeal, sector specific. Reputation is the attitudes and feelings to the specific qualities of the organization. It is an assessment of the performance of an organization’s products, services, activities and employees. It may well vary from market sector to market sector if the organization operates in multiple markets. It is the current opinions of a group of people who have some form of a relationship with the organization. A corporate reputation is a perception of an organization’s ability to meet the expectations of its stakeholders. It describes the rational and emotional attachments that they form with the organization (p. 9). Hannington tends to view brand and reputation more as two complimentary entities. They merge into one another and making a precise division between them is neither necessary nor useful. In his view a brand is “a visual symbol that represents an organization or product” (p.10). In essence that is all that a brand is. However, over time this visual symbol becomes attached to an abbreviated set of emotions. These emotions are highly personal and not necessarily the ones intended to feel by the owners of the brand (p. 10). Figure 12: The Brand-Reputation Connection (Schreiber, 2008b) 30
  • 31. As a part of the presentation given at the Reputation Conference, Schreiber (2008b) presented his view to the connection between reputation and brand. He describes the brand as a self- definition of how the company wants to be seen and differentiated from its competitors, and reputation as the ‘vote’ by stakeholders as to whether or not the brand attributes and behaviors resonate. “The brand is owned by the company, and reputation is owned by stakeholders”, he concludes. But things start to become really complicated when authors mix not only reputation with image, or reputation with brand, but also involve corporate identity and performance in this mess of definitions. “Depending on your perspective, reputation can mean rather different things”, say Dalton and Croft (2003: 8). “One can consider it from the point of view of customers, competitors, activists, suppliers or employees.” These authors explore in details identity, image, and their role of positioning in helping to shape reputation. They try to draw lines between ‘corporate reputation’, ‘corporate identity’ and ‘corporate image’, discussing the attributes where they overlap and suggesting definitions in order to explain each of them. At the heart of corporate reputation must be core values that help guide external and internal operations. The authors argue that “corporate reputation is the sum of the values that stakeholders attribute to a company, based on their perception and interpretation of the image the company communicates and its behavior over time” (p. 9). Corporate reputation should be considered in terms of its historical context, i.e. a corporation’s track record. A company’s standing in the community and in the marketplace all help shape its reputation. Whereas corporate image can be seen as the latest thoughts or beliefs stakeholders may hold about a company, corporate reputation represents the long-term collective assessment of a corporation’s integrity. Although corporate identity has traditionally referred to the physical ways an organization defines itself (logos, typography, colors, signage, packaging, uniforms, and so on), the idea that corporate identity is just the visual elements of a corporation and how these distinguish one organization from another is too narrow. “Such a view fails to take into account the day- to-day operational reality that employees, suppliers, distributors and consumers experience; In this regard, corporate identity and corporate image overlap considerably”, argue Dalton 31
  • 32. and Croft (2003: 11). They discuss that corporate identity should include at its core the visual expression of a corporation, but it also refers to the wider issues of how employees and internal markets interpret this identity compared with the projected, external identity, which alongside positioning, helps create the desired image. Therefore, identity is not the only determinant of image as both help form the other to some extent (p. 11). Corporate image reflects the set of beliefs or attributes that people ascribe to an organization. It is in part, the identity. Identity is evaluated and what different stakeholders ‘perceive’ can be called ‘image’. In essence, corporate image is all the knowledge and beliefs that individual stakeholders hold about a corporation at any one time. Image is formed as a mixture of cognitive (rational/functional) and emotional attributes, with brands being best at conveying the emotional attributes. This holistic evaluation involves interpreting and recognizing the identity, then developing a set of beliefs and feelings about that product or organization, based on the stakeholders own experience of the company, its integrity and behavior. It is important to distinguish between corporate image and brand image. In authors’ Report, the term corporate image refers to a corporate brand (such as SONY or Virgin), whereas a brand image more specifically refers to a product brand (such as a typical food brand, e.g. Kit Kat; p. 12). Figure 13: Corporate reputation – The interplay of identity and image (Dalton & Croft 2003) 32
  • 33. Once corporate identity and image are established and communicated, a positive or negative corporate reputation results. If an individual’s own values seem to fit with a company’s image, then that person is more likely to be of the opinion that the company has a good reputation. In essence, corporate reputation can be explained in terms of how audiences make value judgments over time, based on collective assessments of knowledge and beliefs. Irrespective of the method of influence, individuals within stakeholder groups will form their own reputation assessment, which can often differ significantly (p. 12). Cornelissen (2004) draws lines between identity, image and reputation, offering the following definitions of the three. He defines corporate identity as the profile and values communicated by an organization (p. 25). Corporate identity involves the self-representation of an organization through communications, products and services, and employee behavior. It is based on the basic, distinct and enduring values of an organization that guide its operations and that, when figuring in communications, set it apart from rival organizations in the eyes of important stakeholder groups (p.56). Corporate image is seen as the immediate set of meanings inferred by an individual in confrontation/ response to one or more signals from or about a particular organization at a single point in time (p. 25). Corporate reputation, on the other hand, is an individual's collective representation of past images of an organization (induced through either communication or past experiences) established over time (p. 25). In other words, the ways in which stakeholder groups regard and value the organization is defined as corporate reputation. Ideally, from a corporate perspective, such a corporate reputation is in line with the communicated corporate identity and thus broadly consistent with the way in which the organization wants itself to be understood (p. 56). Figure 14 suggests nonetheless that successful companies realize and work from the position that their own communications, products and behavior have a key impact on the reputations that stakeholders hold, and that their own corporate identity mix needs to be managed accordingly. In this process, organizations need to link the corporate identity – the picture of the organization that is presented to external stakeholders – to the organizational identity – the values that members of the organization themselves associate with the organization and ascribe to it (p. 69). 33
  • 34. Figure 14: Identity, reputation and stakeholder management (Cornelissen, 2004) Recent research firmly suggests that organizations with stronger identities have more positive reputations. That is, a strong identity is more visible to stakeholders outside the organization and serves as a differentiation signal. When a reputation is indeed broadly consistent with that organization’s corporate identity, it also ensures that the organization is respected and understood in the way in which it wants and aims to be understood. Alternatively, when there is a discrepancy between the identity of an organization and the way in which it is regarded, an organization is not standing out on its own turf and may not have a strong enough reputation as a result. Its reputation is then based, rather, upon more general associations with the industry in which the organization is based or is informed by reports from the media (p.79-80). Davies et al. (2003) use the Corporate Reputation Chain to illustrate how reputation is managed using a study of one of the organizations we have worked with. The chain (Figure 15), represents an ideal, a series of linkages that should be present, but all too often in our experience are not. At the heart of the chain are the key elements of image and identity (p. 159). 34
  • 35. Figure 15: The Corporate Reputation Chain (Davies et al. 2003) “Two of the more important questions in the management of corporate reputation are ‘Who are you?’, the question most likely to be asked by an external stakeholder and ‘Who are we?’, the question most likely to be asked by an internal stakeholder”, say the authors. They explain that the first question concerns the external image of the organization. The second concerns the way employees view the organization they work for, its identity. Identity and image are believed to be linked, either through their mutual dependency on factors including the company culture, mission, and strategy, or because they share a common core, or because any gaps between what a company is and what it is seen to be, can be a source of concern. The picture such ideas present is of organizations needing to and trying to make the way customers and employees see them as similar as possible, while at the same time being seen in as positive a way as possible. As the aim of any commercial organization in promoting such initiatives is to improve company performance both financially and in terms of employee and customer satisfaction, there should be evidence that harmonizing image and identity is beneficial to both (p. 159-160). Chris Cooke (1999), an associate director in Context Consulting, a London-based consultancy specializing in brand, reputation and communication, thinks that generally, marketing people tend to talk about ‘brand’ and ‘brand management’, and communication people tend to talk about ‘reputation’ and ‘reputation management’. He argues that brand management is principally concerned with the consumer and uses marketing techniques; the management of reputation is concerned with other audiences and uses corporate communication (or PR) techniques. 35
  • 36. Although he claims that “the two definitions of both brand and reputation can be seen as two aspects of the same thing”, in order to distinguish them, he proposes a model in which the two aspects of brand and reputation are separated according to whether they are controlled by the organization or by the stakeholder (Figure 16). Figure 16: Cooke model of brand and reputation (Cooke, 1999) In his model, identity is the way an organization wishes to be seen. The organization develops "brand values" and "brand identity" to represent these wishes. The values do this through words, and the identity through visual cues with which the values can be associated. The second part of the model is image. This is the way an organization’s stakeholders interpret its brand values and brand identity. Stakeholders will look at an organization’s identity and, depending on how well it is constructed and communicated, they will interpret it correctly or incorrectly, positively or negatively. The third part of the model is performance. At the point where stakeholders interact with the organization, they experience the organization’s quality of products or service, its behaviors and its applied values. To maintain positive perceptions with the stakeholder at this point, the organization needs to ensure that brand values are indeed fulfilled. The fourth part of the model is reputation. From the image a stakeholder has of an organization and reassessment on the basis of experiences with that organization, the stakeholder develops a new attitude toward the company - the collective attitudes of all 36
  • 37. stakeholders at this stage form an organization’s full reputation. Given that it is rooted in the substance of an organization, the reputation is relatively more stable than the image, which is abstract and transient. II.3. What Influences Corporate Reputation? Reputations take years, even decades, to build, and yet they can be lost rapidly. And when reputations are ruined, there can be considerable collateral damage as well. But what makes the corporate reputation? What influences it, what are the factors that affect and drive corporate reputation? On the following pages I will give an overview of different forces (internal and external) that are considered to have impact on corporate reputation. II.3.1. Reputation drivers (internal forces) So, what drives corporate reputation? Key components include factors such as product quality, management abilities, financial and social performance, and market leadership, as well as softer issues such as emotional appeal, openness, integrity, and environmental awareness. “Good reputations go a long way,” says Rossides (2008). It has been proven that they provide specific advantages like: • Customers being prepared to pay more for products and services and recommending an organization to others; • Employees being more committed to their company’s success; • Facilitating the attraction and retention of top talent; • More favorable treatment by business partners; • Investors feeling more secure – with a corresponding benefit to the share price; • Capital markets viewing organizations as less risky – supporting higher credit ratings; • Communities supporting companies in business endeavors; 37
  • 38. • Fair treatment by the media; and • Most importantly, all stakeholders allowing organizations more latitude to make decisions and take actions in both good and bad times (Rossides, 2008). The international public relations firm Hill & Knowlton and executive search firm Korn/Ferry International, conducted by research firm ORC International, in 2003 surveyed worldwide CEOs in order to secure their perceptions about the importance of corporate reputation, what factors influence it, who is responsible for it, and its impact on the achievement of business objectives.14 Among other questions, CEOs were asked about the impact of several types of influences on corporate reputation, including internal aspects of their company, external forces, and actual threats. In that respect, CEOs overall identified the ability to communicate by a wide margin as the top internal aspect of their company most influential on its corporate reputation (other than financial performance). Transparency, human values and treatment of employees were also frequently cited as being among the top three internal factors. Asian CEOs expressed a different view, placing the greatest weight on transparency, ability to innovate and adaptability to change. Overall, despite CEOs’ view that they are responsible for their company’s reputation, only 33% cited CEO reputation as being among the most influential factors. Figure 17: What internal factors affect corporate reputation (according to CEOs worldwide)? Corporate Reputation Watch 2003 14 Corporate Reputation Watch survey 2003: http://www.corporatereputationwatch.com/ or http://www2.hillandknowlton.com/crw/download.asp?filename=2003%20CRW%20Survey%20Summary.pdf 38
  • 39. Although CEOs did not identify one monumental threat to reputation, they suggested that there are many of equal concern. They ranked unethical corporate behavior and product and service problems as the top two threats (other than financial performance) to corporate reputation, with criticism from customers and the media not far behind. Criticism from NGOs, government, and the Internet were seen as representing relatively negligible threats. Figure 18: What are the main threats to corporate reputation (according to CEOs worldwide)? Corporate Reputation Watch 2003 Charles Fombrun, Chairman and Co-Founder of the Reputation Institute, who has written extensively on this topic (1990, 1996, 2003, 2004), has developed a set of six criteria that a company can use to gauge its reputation and benchmark its competition: • Emotional appeal: You simply like, admire and respect, or trust the company; • Products and Services: You think the company sells products or services that are high quality, innovative, reliable or good value for money; • Social Responsibility: You think the company is a good citizen – it supports good causes, doesn’t damage the environment, and does right by local communities; • Workplace Environment: You believe the company is well managed, has topnotch employees, and would be great to work for; • Vision and Leadership: You feel the company has a clear vision for the future and strong leadership; • Financial Performance: You’ve been happy with the company’s profitability, believe it has strong future prospects, and isn’t too risky to invest in. 39
  • 40. Figure 19: Fombrun’s six key reputational drivers. Photo by TrendsSpoting: http://www.flickr.com/photos/15168231@N00/2616209161/ Based on Fombrun’s six reputational drivers, in Reputation Institute a new proprietary tool was later developed to measure reputation across stakeholders, countries and industries. The RepTrak™ model tracks 23 key performance indicators (attributes) grouped around 7 core dimensions: Products & Services, Innovation, Workplace, Governance, Citizenship, Leadership and Performance.15 15 More details on RepTrak™ model available on the Reputation Institute web site: http://www.reputationinstitute.com/advisory-services/reptrak 40
  • 41. Figure 20: The RepTrak™ model tracks 23 key performance indicators (attributes) grouped around 7 core dimensions. Reputation Institute: www.reputationinstitute.com The selection of these dimensions as defined by Fombrun and the Reputation Institute is the first such systematic approach to a structured corporate reputation measurement methodology, and a basis for many measurements practiced across the world. II.3.2. Factors influencing the perception of reputation (external forces) As a part of Corporate Reputation Watch survey, among external forces, the CEOs surveyed overwhelmingly pointed to customers as having the greatest impact on reputation. Print media and financial analysts rounded out the top three external forces cited, though European CEOs surveyed placed a slightly higher weight on print media than on customers. Broadcast media were generally viewed by the CEOs as having less impact on reputation 41
  • 42. than print media, and the Internet, legislators, and labor unions were viewed as having negligible impact. Figure 21: What external factors have most influence on corporate reputation (according to CEOs worldwide)? Corporate Reputation Watch 2003 Media in general have a very strong impact on corporate reputation. Mainstream media, for example, have much to do with forming perceptions of a company “because people who don't know much about the corporation rely on media reports to form their opinions”, thinks Wilcox (2009). He explains: “If the corporation is in the news because of a plant disaster, or being forced to do a product recall, people usually perceive that the corporation is not very good -- thus lowering the reputation of the company. The extensive media coverage of corporate CEOs making large salaries (in some cases, $l00 million) while, at the same time, laying off thousands of workers and asking for government bail-outs caused a severe erosion of reputation for such companies as AIG, Citigroup, and the Bank of America. On the other hand, Walmart -- the world's largest retailer -- has improved its reputation in recent years by a series of actions and initiatives that have put it in the forefront of the ‘green’ movement and sustainability. Favorable media coverage of these initiatives have done much to improve its reputation among the general public” (Wilcox, 2009). In my view, corporate reputation is generally driven by four main external forces. In other words, the perception of an individual or a group of individuals about a company’s reputation is influenced by ‘realities’ created by different sources. For instance, corporate sources, such as the company’s web site, advertisements, brochures, and so on, present one reality of the company, as it wants to be seen. The mainstream media (TV, newspapers, magazines, radio, etc.) through their news, articles, interviews, TV shows etc., present another reality 42
  • 43. which is not necessarily same as that presented by the corporate sources. Word of mouth about a company is often spread among friends and networks (using for the purpose social media more and more every day), stimulating a discussion about it and thus actively building another reality about the company. And last but not least, the individual’s personal experience with the company (such as using its products or services, talking to sales staff or customer care, etc) again creates another reality. Good or bad, this experience will most likely be shared among his or her friends, or spread by word of mouth within his or her social network. Figure 22: Sources or external factors influencing public perception about a company’s corporate reputation (Bugariska, 2009) In some cases these four sources can present four different realities and they will all influence the individual to create his or her own perception about the company’s reputation. Companies’ task is to take care that these sources project synchronized and positive realities about them. Later on in this research paper, I will - using this approach - focus on exploring and measuring how the mainstream media (as one of the four external forces) influence corporate reputation. 43
  • 44. II.4. Drawing the lines Before I move on to the reputation measurement methodologies, I will shortly conclude by summarizing the discussions above and drawing the lines between the concepts discussed above. These conclusions will be the foundations on which I continue with further research for this paper. Plenty of definitions exist for corporate reputation. It has been the focus of much academic and business research lately, and as a result more models of reputation measurement have emerged. In this variety of definitions, the focus is most often put on the company or on the individual. Among the definitions where the company is put in the focus, reputation is understood as closer to company activities or strategy, company values, and images it projects about itself, and is rather seen as the key intangible asset of the company. On the other hand, in the approaches where the individual is put in the focus, reputation is defined as collective representations, a perception of the individual/stakeholder about the company. Putting the most important concepts into one framework, a synthesized definition can be drawn: Corporate reputation is a perception about a company, hold in the mind of its stakeholders. It is a perception of who and what the company is, where does it come from, who it does business with, how it runs the business, how it treats its employees, how it builds credibility and trust. This perception, or knowledge, is formed on a basis of all experiences an individual (stakeholder) has with the company. Regarding its stakeholders, they are different for each company or industry; they represent organization’s internal (employees, members) and external public (customers, shareholders, opinion leaders, specific target audiences, broader community). Multiplicity of definitions also brings to lack of consensus amongst academics as to what is corporate reputation and how it defers from concepts such as corporate image and brand. There is considerable overlap and the terms are not mutually exclusive. However, we must at least try to draw lines between these terms. 44
  • 45. First, for the purposes of this research paper, I will once again emphasize that under the term “reputation” I mean “corporate reputation”, and not “brand reputation” or “product reputation”. That means that I will explore the reputation of a company, i.e. the perception about the company (held in the mind of its stakeholders) only. Second, brand (both corporate or product brand) and corporate image are strongly related to the identity of the company or product (for eg. visual identity: logo, colors, etc), which is not necessarily the case with the corporate reputation. According to the American Marketing Association (AMA), a brand is “a name, term, sign, symbol, or design, or a combination of them, intended to identify the goods and services of one seller or group of seller and to differentiate them from those of competition”.16 Thus, a company may have at the same time a strong brand and a lousy reputation (for eg. McDonald’s has extremely strong corporate brand, but negative corporate reputation for many people), or vice versa (mid-sized or local company may have a weak brand because of its inconsistent visual identity, but has a good reputation, cause it offers good quality products, it treats employees well, it is socially responsible, etc.). Corporate image, seen as a ‘mental picture that springs up at the mention of a firm’s name’ (as defined in the Business Dictionary)17, is also very close to firm’s reputation. Similar to a firm's reputation, it is the public perception of the firm rather than a reflection of its actual state or position. However, corporate image is not as comprehensive as the reputation, and it is rather an impression than knowledge about a company. All in all, the terms ‘corporate image’, ‘corporate brand’ and ‘corporate reputation’ have lots of in common. Although they have overlaps, they also differ in some aspects, and the ‘corporate identity’ is an intersection of all. 16 See, for instance: http://marketing.about.com/cs/brandmktg/a/whatisbranding.htm 17 Online Business Dictionary: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/corporate-image.html 45
  • 46. Figure 23: Drawing the lines between image, brand, reputation and identity Regarding the factors that influence reputation, I will explore the internal forces that drive reputation according to Fombrun’s suggestion of the six reputation drivers. He has developed a set of six criteria (consisting of 20 attributes) that a company can use to gauge its reputation and benchmark its competition. These criteria are: emotional appeal, products and services, social responsibility, workplace environment, vision and leadership, and financial performance. The selection of these dimensions as defined by Fombrun and the Reputation Institute is the first such systematic approach to a structured corporate reputation measurement methodology, and a basis for many measurements practiced across the world. Thus it will also be a basis for this research as well. Using the approach of the four external forces as previously described (corporate sources, mainstream media, word-of-moth and individual’s personal experience, as sources of factors that influence public perception of a company’s reputation), I will focus on exploring and measuring how the mainstream media (as one of the four external forces) through their news, articles, interviews, TV shows etc., influence corporate reputation, specifically on the reputation of local telecommunication companies. 46
  • 47. III. Overview of existing measurement methodologies Exploring and analyzing the influence that media has on corporate reputation takes place in a variety of measuring models, regarding to both reputation and media measures. Before I move on to the proposed integrated model, on the following pages I break down the characteristics of each of the existing corporate reputation measurement tools, as well as the most popular and used media measurement and PR evaluation methods. III.1. Methods of measuring corporate reputation Probably the most famous measure of reputation is the Fortune magazine “Most Admired American Companies” survey conducted yearly. The survey is conducted on the ten companies with the largest revenues within each industry group (SIC code). Questionnaires are sent to executives, directors and financial analysts within the industry segment so that there is a level of familiarity with the companies in question. Eight attributes are analyzed: financial soundness, wise use of corporate assets, value as a long term investment, social and environmental responsibility, people management, quality of management, product and service quality, and innovation. These attributes are scored by respondents on a 1-10 scale with 10 being the highest. However, doubts about the validity of the Fortune rankings in particular have been raised (Fryxell and Wang, 1994), for several reasons. First, since the early development of the Fortune study, the index was not intended for scientific research. Second, the survey is limited to certain constituencies without taking into consideration other stakeholders’ opinions. Finally, evidence of financial bias of the valuations published in Fortune has shed shadows over the results of previous studies, suggesting the possibility of artificial relationships between corporate reputation or corporate social responsibility measures and financial performance. Davies et.al. have developed the Corporate Personality Scale which companies can use to determine how their organization is perceived on certain personality traits such as “warmth”, “emotion”, and others. This scale is used to determine how the organization is perceived by stakeholders and then to help it make changes to better match stakeholder needs. 47
  • 48. The Reputation Institute uses a measure called RepTrak™, which has been developed through factor analysis with respondents among the general public in about 25 countries. RepTrak™ is the proprietary tool used by Reputation Institute to measure reputation across stakeholders, countries and industries. The instrument has found seven drivers of reputation (products and services, innovation, workplace, citizenship, governance, leadership, and financial performance). There also are 23 attributes of reputation within these drivers.18 These attributes and dimensions can both be measured and prioritized in the context of their influence on reputation (what drives reputation?) as well as on key stakeholder supportive behavior (what can be done to influence behavior?). In addition to the overall RepTrak, the Reputation Institute uses a more frequent “Pulse” that examines emotion, feelings and trust toward companies. The Reputation Institute survey is published yearly in Forbes.com. Doubts about the RepTrak survey have focused on the fact that it was developed with a focus on the general public. There are two problems with this development: 1) the public may not have familiarity with an organization but still may rate the organization; and 2) for many industrial companies, there are many other stakeholders far more important than the general public.19 Harris Interactive uses a ‘Reputation Quotient’ (RQ), “an assessment tool that captures perceptions of corporate reputations across industries, among multiple audiences, and is adaptable to countries outside the United States”. It is a comprehensive measuring method of corporate reputation that was created specifically to capture the perceptions of any corporate stakeholder group such as consumers, investors, employees, or key influentials. The instrument enables research on the drivers of a company's reputation as well as comparisons of reputation both within and across industries. This business reputation model uses 6 drivers of corporate reputation (products and services, financial performance, workplace environment, social responsibility, vision and leadership, and emotional appeal) with subsequent 20 attributes. By making random checks (most often quarterly) these criteria taken together result in lists of most reputable and visible companies.20 The Harris Interactive survey is published yearly in the Wall Street Journal. Questions about the validity of the RQ 18 More on the RepTrack methodology explained on the Reputation Institute corporate website: http://www.reputationinstitute.com/advisory-services/reptrak 19 Overview of RepTrak methodology can be found at: http://www.slideshare.net/cfoglini/reputation-institute- free-report-global-rep-trak-pulse-2007 20 The methodological overview of the Annual RQ 2008 can be found at: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/services/pubs/HI_BSC_REPORT_AnnualRQ2008_Methodology.pdf 48
  • 49. survey are similar to those for RepTrak, since both were developed similarly and have common origins with Professor Charles Fombrun. Schreiber has developed a Reputation “Pillars” approach to both managing and measuring reputation. This approach looks at the various pillars of reputation, in a similar manner to the Ogilvy Mather approach to brand management (Schreiber, 2008a). Among the “pillars” are “differentiation, relevance, esteem, expectations, knowledge and experience”. Companies would then measure how they are perceived by stakeholders on each of these pillars and then assess and close the gaps between current and desired perceptions. Similarly, Schultz, et. al (2004) suggest that companies conduct a gap analysis between their values, perceptions and culture. The values-perception gap would show whether there are differences between the desired attributes and perceived attributes of the company; the gap between culture and perception would show whether the organization acted similar to the way it communicates; and the gap between culture and values would illustrate whether employees believed that the company “walked the talk” (Schreiber, 2008a). Delahaye Medialink, a worldwide communications research leader, and the Reputation Institute, a global authority on building corporate reputation, jointly prepare a Media Reputation Index (Mri). The Media Reputation Index is a study that assesses the media's impact on corporate reputation, providing the basis for understanding and improving a company's reputational positioning (Fombrun and Foss, 2001). Mri breaks down media coverage of companies into the categories of the Reputation Quotient, a measure of corporate reputation developed by the Reputation Institute and regularly featured in the Wall Street Journal. Through the Media Reputation Index, Delahaye Medialink and the Reputation Institute combine each organization’s strengths to bring a cost effective solution that monitors how media coverage impacts corporate identify (Norwalk, 2001). Analyzing news coverage in more than 100 media outlets, Mri measures the media impact on corporate reputation of the 100 largest US companies. Media Reputation Index is based on the drivers of corporate reputation as developed through extensive research: products and services, financial performance, workplace environment, social responsibility, vision and leadership, and emotional appeal. 21 21 A sample of MRI report can be seen at: http://www.delahayemedialink.com/comeserv.cfm. 49
  • 50. SPEM Communication Group, a Slovenian agency specialized in strategic communications and public relations, designed a special model called IRIS© – Intelligent Reputation Information System that provides the reputation managers with necessary data support for effective integration of corporate reputation. The reason for this was the need of reputation management based on integrated clipping data and reputation surveys, because “expert surveys demonstrate that media have the greatest influence on reputation (that is where we get the most information about an organization we are not employed in or we are not in cooperation with)”.22 The model encompasses the clipping data and the data of the reputation researches, performed twice a year. It is based on the same six reputation drivers, as defined by Fombrun (similar to RQ and MRI models). In 2005, Factiva®, a Dow Jones and Reuters Company, announced the availability of Factiva Insight™: Reputation Intelligence, a tool that empowers executives to monitor known issues and discover emerging opportunities and threats from across the mainstream media, radio and television transcripts and consumer-generated content, including blogs and message boards, in one solution. It also enables executives to create effective reputation and brand management strategies that tie to business objectives and drive competitive advantage.23 CARMA International has developed the CARMA Reputation Matrix™ which measures the following four criteria: 1. Opinion and perceptions can be identified through qualitative survey or interview questions; 2. Awareness of the organization and/or of its services, products, strategy, values, etc, can be identified in quantitative survey or interview questions; 3. Profile can be identified through quantitative media analysis measuring volume of coverage x audience reach; and 4. Discourse can be identified through qualitative media analysis examining key sources, messages and tone of comments in key media coverage. It then ‘quadrangulates’ the four data sets, converted to a uniform scale (e.g. 10 or 100), to provide a comprehensive overview of reputation that is more informative and more reliable than single metrics (Macnamara, 2006). The study is based on daily media analysis of 750 companies and is based on leading media coverage in the USA on key issues that appear to have the greatest impact on corporate reputation. The measurement combines both impact and positive/negative coverage to determine which companies get the best and worst media coverage. 22 From SPEM coportae web site: http://www.spem.si/eng/Activities/Researches/IRIS/ 23 More: http://factiva.com/investigative/releases/2005080405_reputation.asp?node=menuElem1176 50
  • 51. In May 2008, the statistical and content media analysis company, Monitoring South Africa, and the inventor Prof. Nixon Kariithi, announced the patenting of the Media Perception Index (MPI), “part of the first-ever family of indices tracking media coverage of issues and organizations”.24 Also known as MediaPlus, the indices were developed from a two-year research initiative, and allegedly break new ground in the often grey area of corporate reputation measurement by providing organizations and other media users with an objective measure of media coverage. The indices collate raw media coverage data from more than 1500 print, broadcast and online media sources. The data is analyzed for publishing placement and organizational reputation factors, resulting in a new database that forms the basis for the new indices. However, beside the variety of measures which are in place to assess corporate reputation, methods of measuring reputation, the most often used are monitoring of media coverage and financial performance, as well as financial analysts and general word of mouth, reveal the CRW results.25 Actual research on customers, employees, and other stakeholders is also being done, but this is not the most often-mentioned measurement type. In fact, approximately half of the CEOs surveyed indicated that they do conduct stakeholder research or have created the measurement systems required to make decisions concerning the management of their company’s reputation. III.2. Media measurement and PR evaluation methods There has been a good deal of attention in the recent years on how important it is to measure and evaluate the effectiveness of public relations programs and activities.26 Dozens of articles, booklets and reports have been published giving advice and counsel on how PR practitioners might more effectively build research, measurement and evaluation tools and techniques into their work (Lindenmann, 2005; p.3). 24 Launch of media coverage indices, BizzCommunity. May 1, 2008. Article available at: http://www.bizcommunity.com/Article/196/15/24296.html 25 Corporate Reputation Watch survey 2003: http://www.corporatereputationwatch.com/ or http://www2.hillandknowlton.com/crw/download.asp?filename=2003%20CRW%20Survey%20Summary.pdf 26 See bibliography on Public Relations measurement (as prepared by Tina Carroll and Don W. Stacks, from the University of Miami) at: http://www.instituteforpr.org/research_single/bibliography_of_measurement/ 51
  • 52. As with all research, media measurement and PR evaluation comes in many different forms, depending on purpose and objective. Usually done by clipping, research or PR agencies, research briefs are best built to the requirements of each individual client (unless syndicated data is available). Typical projects can range from individual campaign analysis to continuous international competitor tracking. Some simply track broad favourability by target audience, while others break down media coverage to release sophisticated market intelligence about individual brands. All media evaluation companies have different methodologies but, whichever particular system is applied, broadly similar conclusions should be reached given the same set of coverage and the same brief. It is a matter for each client to determine which individual methodology they prefer, but there are certain quality markers set out in the next paragraph which apply universally. Here are the most common approaches and methodologies used most often by the agencies. III.2.1. Measuring PR outputs, PR outtakes and PR outcomes In focusing on PR measurement and evaluation, one of the key guiding principles is to differentiate between measuring PR outputs, which are usually short-term and ‘surface- scratching’ (e.g. the amount of press coverage received or exposure of a particular message), PR outtakes, which are usually more far-reaching and can have more impact (e.g. determining if those to whom the activity was directed received, paid attention to, comprehended and retained particular messages) and PR outcomes, (e.g. did the program or activity change opinion and attitude levels, and possibly behavior patterns?). Closest to measuring of media impact on reputation is the measuring of PR outputs. Outputs are usually the immediate results of a particular PR program or activity. More often than not, outputs represent what is readily apparent to the eye. Outputs measure how well an organization presents itself to others, the amount of exposure that the organization receives. In media or press relations efforts, outputs can be the total number of stories, articles, or "placements" that appear in the media, the total number of "impressions" (that is, the number of those who might have had the opportunity to be exposed to the story), as well as an 52
  • 53. assessment of the overall content of what has appeared. Media Content Analysis is one of the principal methodologies used to measure media outputs. For other facets of public relations, outputs can be white papers, speaking engagements, the number of times a spokesperson is quoted, specific messages communicated, or specific positioning on an important issue or any number of quantifiable items that are generated as a result of the effort. Outputs also might be assessment of a specific event, a direct mail campaign, the number of people who participated in a given activity, how a CEO handles himself or herself at a press conference, or the appearance and contents of a given brochure or booklet. In any event, both the quantity and quality of outputs can be measured and evaluated. Media can be evaluated for their content; an event, as to whether the right people were there; a booklet or brochure for its visual appeal and substance; and so on. III.2.2. Measuring media content Measuring media content, while of great value, needs to be viewed as only a first step in the PR measurement and evaluation process. It can measure possible exposure to PR messages and actual press coverage; however, it cannot, by itself, measure whether target audiences actually saw the messages and responded to them in some way. Media content analysis is the process of studying and tracking what has been written and broadcast, translating this qualitative material into quantitative form through some type of counting approach that involves coding and classifying of specific messages. Some researchers and PR practitioners in the U.S. refer to this as "Media Measurement" and/or "Publicity Tracking" research. In the United Kingdom, the technique is often referred to as "Media Evaluation;" and in Germany as "Media Resonance" (Lindeman, 2002). Whatever the terminology used to describe this particular technique, more often than not its prime function is to determine whether the key messages, concepts and themes that an 53
  • 54. organization might be interested in disseminating to others via the media do, indeed, receive some measure of exposure as a result of a particular public relations effort or activity. The coding, classifying and analysis that is done can be relatively limited or far-reaching, depending on the needs and interests of the organization commissioning the research (Lindenmann, 2002; pp. 9-11). More often, Media Content Analysis studies take into consideration variables such as these: Media Vehicle Variables, such as date of publication or broadcast, frequency of publication or broadcast of the media vehicle, media vehicle or type (that is, whether the item appeared in a newspaper, magazine, a newsletter, on radio, or on television) and geographic reach (that is, region, state, city, or markets in which the item appeared). Placement or News Item Variables, such as source of the story (that is, a press release, a press conference, a special event, or whether the media initiated the item on their own), story form or type (a news story, feature article, editorial, column, or letter to the editor), degree of exposure (that is, column inches or number of paragraphs if the item appeared in print, number of seconds or minutes of air time if the item was broadcast) and the story's author (that is, the byline or name of the broadcaster). Audience or `Reach' Variables. The focus here usually is on total number of placements, media impressions and/or circulation or potential overall audience reached (total readers of a newspaper or magazine, total viewers and listeners to a radio or television broadcast). The term "impression" or "opportunity to see" (OTS) usually refers to the total audited circulation of a publication. For example, if The Wall Street Journal has an audited circulation of 1.5 million, one article in that newspaper might be said to generate 1.5 million impressions or opportunities-to-see the story. These data often can be obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau or from various commercial organizations, such as Standard Rate and Data Services. In addition to considering a publication's actual circulation figures, researchers often also take into consideration how many other individuals might possibly be exposed to a given media vehicle, because that publication has been routed or passed on to others. Subject or Topic Variables, such as who was mentioned and in what context, how prominently were key organizations and/or their competitors referred to or featured in the 54
  • 55. press coverage (that is, were companies cited in the headline, in the body copy only, or in both, etc.), who was quoted and how frequently , how much coverage, or "share of voice" did an organization receive in comparison to its competitors, what issues and messages were covered and to what extent, how were different individuals and groups positioned -- as leaders, as followers, or another way? Judgment or Subjective Variables. The focus here usually is on the stance or tone of the item, as that item pertains to a given organization and/or its competitors. Usually tone implies some assessment as to whether or not the item is positive, negative or neutral; favorable, unfavorable or balanced. It is extremely important to recognize that measuring stance or tone is usually a highly subjective measure, open to a possibly different interpretation by others. Clearly-defined criteria or groundrules for assessing positives and negatives --- and from whose perspective -- need to be established beforehand, in order for stance or tone measures to have any credibility as part of Media Content Analysis. "Advertising Value Equivalency" (or AVE) is often an issue that is raised in connection with Media Content Analysis studies. Basically, advertising equivalency is a means of converting editorial space into advertising costs, by measuring the amount of editorial coverage and then calculating what it would have cost to buy that space, if it had been advertising. Most reputable researchers contend that "advertising equivalency" computations are of questionable validity. In many cases, it may not even be possible to assign an advertising equivalency score to a given amount of editorial coverage (for example, many newspapers and/or magazines do not sell advertising space on their front pages or their front covers; thus, if an article were to appear in that space, it would be impossible to calculate an appropriate advertising equivalency cost, since advertising could never ever appear there). Some organizations artificially multiply the estimated value of a "possible" editorial placement in comparison to advertising by a factor of 2, 3, 5, 8 or whatever other inflated number they might wish to come up with, to take into account their own perception that editorial space is always of more value than is advertising space. Most reputable researchers view such arbitrary "weighting" schemes aimed at enhancing the alleged value of editorial coverage as unethical, dishonest, and not at all supported by the research literature. Although some studies have, at times, shown that editorial coverage is sometimes more credible or believable than is advertising coverage, other studies have shown the opposite, and there is, 55
  • 56. as yet, no clearly established consensus in the communications field regarding which is truly more effective: publicity or advertising. In reality, it depends on an endless number of factors. Sometimes, when doing Media Content Analysis, organizations may apply weights to given messages that are being disseminated, simply because they regard some of their messages as more important than others, or give greater credence (or weight) to an article that not only appears in the form of text, but also is accompanied by a photo or a graphic treatment. Given that the future is visuals, organizations are more and more beginning to measure not only words, but also pictures. It should be noted that whatever groundrules, criteria and variables are built into a Media Content Analysis, whatever "counting" approaches are utilized to turn qualitative information into quantitative form, it is important that all of the elements and components involved be clearly defined and explained upfront by whoever is doing the study. The particular system of media analysis that is applied and utilized by one researcher should -- if a second researcher were called in and given the same brief and the same basic criteria pertaining to the aims of the study -- result in broadly similar research findings and conclusions. Increasingly, a key measure of an organization's image or reputation and of how that organization might be positioned is the chatter and discussion about that organization in cyberspace -- specifically in chat rooms, forums and new groups on the World Wide Web. The same criteria used in analyzing print and broadcast articles can be applied when analyzing postings on the Internet. 56
  • 57. IV. The practice of Corporate Reputation measurement in Macedonia In the previous chapter I gave an overview of the existing methodologies used for measuring corporate reputation and evaluation of PR efforts. From that overview it is clear that there is an established and developed practice and that many agencies and companies in the world measure how their company or brand is perceived and how much their PR efforts are giving results. The question is -- how much of these measuring tools, known and widely accepted, are implemented in Macedonia and by Macedonian companies and agencies? In Macedonia there are several specialized monitoring agencies (Press Clipping DOO, Pristop Kliping, and Image PR), who beside these media monitoring and clipping services also offer analysis of the media coverage (the clippings), using standardized analysis (measuring PR outputs, media content analysis, judgment of tone/value of reports, AVE, etc.). Some of the clipping agencies have also developed their own, customized analyses (or simply have given their own names to standard analyses). Pristop Kliping,27 for instance, offers several types of analyses: Analysis KAM (provides basic information about company’s media appearance, including: quantitative analysis, media reach and evaluation of impression points), Analysis REFLEKS (upgraded: includes the KAM analysis plus provides the amount of favorable, unfavorable and neutral reports, as well as analysis of planner reports), Analysis PAM-ET (Analysis REFLEKS plus content analysis and analysis of cited sources) and Analysis KOMPLEKS (comprehensive overview of media activities of the company and its competitors; combines all of the previous three types, plus includes the measuring of efficiency of advertising activities next to the analysis of reports).28 Press Clipping (Media Intelligence Group)29 offers two main types of customized analyses: KVALIA and MEMO. KVALIA Analysis of media reports30 research variables are adjusted 27 Corporate info about Pristop Kliping is available at http://www.pristop.mk/en_about_who_kliping.htm. 28 Detailed description of the clipping and analysis services of Pristop Kliping can be found at http://kliping.si/en/services/media_analysis/. 29 Corporate info on Press Clipping DOO is available at http://pressclipping.com.mk. 57
  • 58. to the requirements and needs of each particular client and usually contain the following: thematic structure of publicity, value structure, planned/unplanned publicity, analysis of media and authors, comparison with the competition, other research variables (advertising value equivalent, report's visual constructions), analysis of various other segments. Research variables included in the model also take into consideration the characteristics of the media market (researches on readership and viewer ratings). MEMO31 analysis is also designed based on the agency experience with clients’ requirements and it contains analysis in two main categories: qualitative analysis – analysis of style of reporting, placement of the article, audio-visual representation, connotation, etc. The quantitative analysis contains net surface/length of the article (in cm² or seconds), and rating of the medium. They measure the exposure and media efficacy of the client versus its competition, which is represented with points (max. 10 points for a media article). The offer of Image PR32 press clipping and analysis services also includes a qualitative and quantitative analyses of media coverage according to various standard parameters, such as: keyword, topic, author, media source, etc. They also offer33 analyses of media and topics (issues and approaches), analyses of journalists, qualitative and quantitative analyses of the content of media reports, and make assessment of the effectiveness of the PR program (results, effects, success). Similar to the specialized clipping agencies, advertising and PR agencies may also offer the same services, rather doing their own analyses based on the clipping reports usually provided by outsourcing clipping agency. These analyses are often related to evaluating programs that the PR agencies are implementing themselves for their clients. For instance New Moment New Ideas Company offers many types of analyses of media articles, based on the clipping reports, but also provides communication analyses, measurement of brand image, evaluation of different PR programs, key publicity indicators, and other analyses, surveys and 30 Detailed description of the Press Clipping analyses of media reports is available at http://www.pressclip.net/www/services/analysis.php. 31 MEMO is an acronym from “Максимална Ефикасност на Медиумската Објава” (in Macedonian), which means Maximum Efficacy of the Media Article. 32 Corporate info about Image PR is available at http://imagepr.com.mk/. 33 Detailed description of the services of Image PR can be found at http://imagepr.com.mk/page.aspx?language=EN&page=WKx6ruQiUa7h1LPQGkaw6Q== and http://imagepr.com.mk/action.aspx?action=RoOsxmGLUGry2XgPRsw6DQ==&language=EN 58
  • 59. researches. Simply, the agency is capable to provide different standard or customized types of analyses and research, but usually only upon client’s request. Some companies also measure their media performance themselves, in order to evaluate their communication programs. In short, it can be said that the communication industry in Macedonia knows and practices measuring media and evaluating PR programs. The faults of this practice are pretty much the same everywhere, and Macedonian communication industry is not an exception. But when it comes to measuring corporate reputation the picture is much different. Only a few professionals in Macedonia have even heard of such a thing. In order to check my first impression I carried out a small survey to examine how much the Macedonian companies (or do they at all) measure corporate reputation. The survey was published online34 and was distributed through several channels: web, blog,35 social media (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc.), e-mail, as well as face-to-face interviews. It was intended to PR and communication professionals (or upper management level) from companies in Macedonia, who were invited to answer five questions about their experience with measuring corporate reputation. 10% 21% Micro (1‐20 employees) 10% Small (21‐60 employees) 26% Medium (61‐120 employees) 33% Large (121‐300 employees) Large (300+ employees) Figure 24: Stratification of sample by size of companies 34 The survey was published at: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=b3jF2BFK5_2f2hD8DEhOItLA_3d_3d 35 Published on the blog Волгавно Јавно http://bugariska.crnaovca.mk/2009/08/reputation_measurement_survey/ and the business news web portal Total http://www.total.com.mk/default.aspx?mId=34&articleId=1192 59
  • 60. Representatives from 124 companies responded, out of which more than a half were coming from small (21-60 employees) or mid-size companies (61-120 employees). Most of the companies were based in Skopje (54%). By their line of work, the companies differed from trade (15%) and production companies (13%), through financial (11%) and intellectual services (11%), to non-profit organizations (6%) and public service institutions (4%).36 Only 10 respondents (8%) reported that reputation of their company was measured. 69% reported it was not measured at all, and 23% answered that they have never heard of such a thing like corporate reputation. Large companies with more than 300 employees and small companies with 21-60 employees have shown to have most experience in measuring corporate reputation. All of the respondents who claimed that have measured corporate reputation come from companies with headquarters in Skopje. 23% 8% Yes, it is. No, it isn't. 69% Never heard. Figure 25: Responses to the question “Is reputation of your company measured in any way?” Reputation measurement was done for: companies that deal with intellectual services (3), financial institutions (2), hotels/restaurants (2), telecommunications (2) and a production company (1). 36 Full sample stratification and survey results are given in Annex III. 60
  • 61. 0% Construction  0% 0% Energy Financial 0% 20% 20% 0% Healthcare 0% HoReCa 10% Intelectual services 20% missing data 0% Non‐profit 0% 30% Production Public service Publishing Telecommunications Trade Figure 26: Measuring reputation according to company’s line of work Out of those who reported that reputation measurement was done for their company, 4 respondents said it was done in-house (by a specialized department or a specialized person), and 5 respondents claimed it was done be an outsourced specialized agency. 5 5 4 In‐house (specialized department  4 or person) 3 Outsource (specialized agency) 2 Missing data 1 1 0 Figure 27: Responses to the question “Who does (who is responsible for) the measurement of your company’s reputation?” When asked what method was used for measuring their company’s reputation, the responses ranged between the answers offered as following: Intelligent Reputation Information 61
  • 62. System© (IRIS) – 40%, Reputation Quotient (RQ) and Corporate Reputation Index (RI) – 10% each, Media Reputation Index (MRi), Safeguarding Reputation™ and CARMA Reputation Matrix™ - 0%. 4 Corporate Reputation Index (RI) 4 3,5 3 Intelligent Reputation  3 Information System© (IRIS) 2,5 Reputation Quotient (RQ) 2 1,5 1 1 1 Other 1 0,5 Missing data 0 Figure 28: Responses to the question “Which method is used for measuring your company’s reputation?” It should be noted that probably the answers on this question are not fully reliable, since these methods are not used in the specialized agencies at all. 34% of the respondents who claimed that they measure reputation reported that the reputation measurement is done on quarterly basis, 33% do it once a year and 22% measure reputation monthly. 11% 22% Monthly 33% Quarterly Annually 34% Other Figure 29: Responses to the question “How often is the measurement made?” 60% find research data from the measuring the reputation useful and applicable in sense of improving of company’s reputation and correcting the next steps in implementing the 62
  • 63. communication strategy. 30% are not sure if it helped. Only one respondent (10%) claimed the research data didn’t help in improving in his company’s reputation. 30% Yes 60% 10% No I don't know Figure 30: Responses to the question “Did you find research data useful and applicable in improving your company's reputation?” From the comments given in the open ended questions or in the ‘Notes’ field, the impression is that majority of the respondents know (or feel) the reputation of their company by heart. However, while they are cognizant of the need to manage their company’s reputation, most of them have not yet approached this issue with the vigor and completeness with which they protect their firms against other forms of business risk. There is also a lack of (professional or academic) understanding of what corporate reputation is or how it can be measured (or can it be at all), and it is understood in a too general sense, not as a corporate reputation driven by predefined attributes. Regarding the agencies implementing reputation measurement, among the all the agencies specialized in monitoring, clipping, communication and PR, including the research agencies, only Image PR is offering a survey regarding reputation (quantitative and qualitative surveys, corporate image, topic research and special services), but if we understand reputation as defined in the previous chapters, this service is rather survey of the corporate image than of corporate reputation. Press Clipping and other clipping or research companies will do the analysis on demand (upon clients request) and by predetermined methods and criteria provided by the client. This again confirms the extremely low knowledge of corporate reputation and ways of measuring corporate reputation that the communication professionals in Macedonia have. 63
  • 64. V. Measuring Media Impact on reputation: The case of telecommunication companies in Macedonia (MICRa model) From the overview given in the previous chapter it is clear that the Macedonian communication industry is not much familiar with the ways of measuring corporate reputation. Starting from this point, and taking into consideration the worldwide established practice of measuring how companies or brands are perceived and how much the PR efforts are giving results, I have developed a model of measuring corporate reputation which adjusted to local conditions was implemented on Macedonian (in this case 37 telecommunication) companies. The model measures one specific (external) factor – the mainstream media and the impact it has on the companies’ reputation. For the purposes of this paper, the model here is called MICRa: Media Impact on Corporate Reputation analysis. MICRa is a tailor made method of measuring the media impact on the corporate reputation, adjusted to a specific market (small market, market segment or industry), using as a base the existing PR evaluation models and the key reputational drivers as defined by Charles Fombrun and the Reputation Institute. Compared to the Fombrun model and some other common methods as described in previous chapters, several important adjustments are made here: • Reputation must be taken within the context of the industry or competitive group of the organization. That is why MICRa model analyses and explores the reputation values of companies within the industry. Reputation Institute on the other hand measures reputation across countries and industries, based on the list of most visible companies as ranked by stakeholders. • Using the approach of the four external forces as previously described (corporate sources, mainstream media, word-of-moth and individual’s personal experience, as sources of factors that influence public perception of a company’s reputation), MICRa focuses on 37 Telecommunication companies hereinafter are reffered to as “telecoms”. 64
  • 65. exploring and measuring how the mainstream media (through their news, articles, interviews, TV shows etc.) influence corporate reputation (specifically on the reputation of local telecommunication companies). • Most reputation measurement efforts monitor 30 or more different attributes. Whilst most companies cannot change this many attributes simultaneously, they can often be combined into themes or dimensions that highlight commonalities. It then becomes possible to create and monitor changes in a narrower set of reputation dimensions. Reputation management is not the same as other aspects of research which focus on one or two key parameters of a company’s operations. In order to understand if stakeholders have effectively perceived the strategies being undertaken by a company, the attributes being measured must represent all business activities and all functional areas. With this type of in-depth research, a company can understand the nature of actions that it can take for improvement. As a pilot analysis using MICRa model, I will measure here 18 components under 6 reputational drivers, although it tends to be a tailor made model measuring tailor-made set of reputational components, depending on the industry measured and what’s important to its stakeholders. • The media content analysis according to the reputational components cannot be measured alone, but taken in combination with other PR evaluation methods (such as measuring the visibility, the tonality and the media exposure). Without them, measuring only reputational drivers will not give full insight about the real impact media have on corporate reputation of the measured companies. The MICRa model measures the media impact on the corporate reputation through measuring the visibility, tonality and media exposure, and analyzing the media content according to the set of key reputational drivers. The analysis will show the ranking of telecommunication companies, by different components, factors and reputation drivers. It is an assessment of how news coverage reflects and helps to shape the public’s perception on the corporate reputation of the telecommunication companies in Macedonia, and does not show the actual public’s perception of corporate reputation of these companies. 65
  • 66. V.1. Overview of telecommunication market in Macedonia Macedonia possesses a small but developing telecoms market. EU structural reforms have found their way into the communications industry, with the EU’s regulatory framework for communications transposed into national law, with the aim of establishing a fair and competitive communications market. The telecoms market has been liberalized and recent regulatory developments in the area of network access are improving the prospects for competition, as evident by increasing uptake of wholesale offers.38 Service No. of active operators /service providers Fixed telephony 8 Mobile telephony 3 Cable operators 74 Internet providers 56 VoiP providers 28 Figure 31: Overview of Macedonian communication market (source: Agency for Electronic Communication, January 2010, available at www.aec.mk) Competition in the fixed telephony has been finally launched in November 2006 (after many years of monopoly in this segment), by On Net as the first alternative operator boasting a nationwide wireless broadband access network, one of the largest in the world. Today eight companies provide fixed telephony services: T-Home (previously known as Makedonski Telekomunikacii - MT), One (formed in 2009 by merger between Cosmofon, mobile operator, and On Net, internet provider, both also offered fixed telephony), and some cable operators, such as: CableTel, Telekabel, etc. The merger of Cosmofon and On Net into One happened in November 2009, after Cosmofon was sold to Telekom Slovenia, the owner of On Net (March 2009). The sales took place after the takeover of Deutsche Telekom of Cosmote, owner of Cosmofon (May 2008). With dominant ownership of MT (T-Home) and Mobimak (T-Mobile) and now Cosmofon, Deutsche Telekom became again monopoly of the Macedonian telecommunication market, with more than 90% market share, which is not acceptable according to Macedonian laws. 38 Macedonia: Telecoms, Mobile and Broadband report. Research and Markets, October 2009. Summary and ordering available at: http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/06ece1/macedonia_teleco 66
  • 67. Selling Cosmofon (~30% market share) would legally solve the problem for Deutsche Telekom, rather than to shut down its business in Macedonia. Regulatory developments are opening up the fixed line market, introducing local loop unbundling, naked DSL, line resale, wholesale line rental and number portability. Competing operators have taken up unbundling offers as well as resale and WLR offers. Within six months of introduction several thousand fixed numbers have been ported. However total fixed lines are in decline as end users abandon fixed lines for mobile phones. Strong broadband growth recorded in recent years will continue due to the significant number of remaining dial-up subscribers. Regulatory developments are improving competition in the wholesale broadband market, with evidence from broadband markets in EU countries indicating a healthy wholesale market is viable. Internet and broadband penetration is growing, in part due to initiatives to improve the IT literacy and public Internet access. Broadband services are available via DSL, cable, WiFi and WiMAX. The launch of IPTV services looks more likely given the approval of the incumbent’s board to launch services. Not to be outdone, the cable TV operators are upgrading infrastructure to eventually launch triple play services. Internet user and subscriber penetration is growing with a shift to broadband evident as it now represents the majority of Internet subscriptions. Improving Internet speeds has paved the way for new Internet based services such as broadband TV (IPTV) and fostering development of an Internet society. TV programming is accessible via cable, FTA and IPTV and the digital TV market is emerging due to introduction of IPTV and developments in the DTTV market during 2009. Three mobile network operators offer services (T-Mobile, One/Cosmofon and VIP), with competition increasing following the introduction of mobile number portability in September 2008. Competition is intensifying in the mobile market as a the newest mobile network operator aggressively chases subscriber growth, an international investor consolidates its presence in Macedonia’s telecom market by acquiring the second largest mobile network operator and the introduction of mobile network portability to reduce barriers for users choosing to take advantage of competitive offerings and switching service providers. The launch of WCDMA/HSDPA networks opened a new revenue opportunity as subscriber levels 67
  • 68. indicate saturation in the mobile voice market and overall broadband levels in the country are relatively low. 70 60 50 40 T‐Mobile 30 Cosmofon/One 20 VIP 10 0 2008, Q1 2008, Q2 2008, Q3 2008, Q4 2009, Q1 2009, Q2 2009, Q3 Figure 32: Mobile telephony market share trends, 2008-2009 (source: Agency for Electronic Communication, January 2010, available at www.aec.mk) After the takeover of the two biggest telecommunication companies in Macedonia, T-Home (previously Makedonski Telekomunikacii – MT) and T-Mobile (previously Mobimak) by Deutsche Telekom, and after the rebranding process of both companies was successfully finished, they are now in the process of merging into one company which will be recognized under the label “T”. However, this paper research is focused on the media coverage from 2008, when the conditions in the telecommunication market were not as they are today. 2008 was critical to the telecommunication market in Macedonia and many crucial changes took place. Back in 2008, the newly entered alternative players in the fixed telephony – Cosmofon (mobile operator) and On Net (internet provider), as separate companies, have struggled against the monopoly of Makedonski Telekomunikacii to grab a share of the fixed telephony market. At the same time, Makedonski Telekomunikacii was going through rebranding process that year, and in May 2009 became known as T-Home. 68
  • 69. 10% 31% T‐Mobile 59% Cosmofon VIP Figure 33: Mobile telephony market share in 2008 (source: Agency for Electronic Communication, January 2010, available at www.aec.mk) On the mobile market, VIP as the new, third operator (entered through Vodafone), have just started working commercially in May 2008. Today VIP has strengthened its position and the terrain is preparing for entrance of a fourth mobile operator on the Macedonian market. That same month, Deutsche Telekom becomes the new owner of Cosmofon (through the takeover of Cosmote), and thus dominating the market with more than 90% share, which is not allowed according to Macedonian laws. Deutsche Telekom had to either sell or shut down the company. The next year Deutsche Telekom sells Cosmofon to Telekom Slovenia, also owner of On Net. Today, Cosmofon and On Net (together with Germanos, mobile accessories retail network) are merged into one telecommunication company – One, having barely 20% market share. V.2. MICRa analysis of telecommunication companies in Macedonia As analysis data MICRa is based on relevant news articles from national and local, print and electronic media in Macedonia (including online news portals) in the period from January to December 2008. The media base included a list of: 11 daily newspapers, 18 magazines (weeklies and monthly magazines), 12 television channels (mainly prime time news and a selection of relevant TV shows), 2 radio stations (informative programs/news), and 29 web sites and news portals. 69
  • 70. 29 30 25 18 20 15 11 12 10 5 2 0 Daily  Magazines TV Radio Web portals newspapers Figure 31: Sources of analysis data (MICRa model) Relevant articles from those media were selected according to a list of key words contained in the coverage, such as: telecommunication, telephone, mobile operator, internet, etc., also including the names of all telecommunication companies.39 In total 4,154 articles containing at least one of the key words were located (advertisements, advertorials, grey advertising (photographs) and paid-for placements for all operators are excluded from the analysis base), out of which 1,952 specifically mention at least one of the telecoms (T-Home, T-Mobile, Cosmofon, VIP, or On Net) that were a subject of detailed MICRa analysis and profiling for purposes of this research paper. The rest of the articles (2,202) speak generally about telecommunication (market, trends, etc.) Each of the 1,952 news articles were specifically analysed according to several factors, in order to measure the impact they have on corporate reputation: • Visibility: number of media mentions, media types; • Tonality: tone of media mentions (positive, neutral, negative); • Media content: presence of reputation components and drivers (6 key reputation drivers, 18 components); and 39 The full list of key words and media monitored is given in Annex IV. 70
  • 71. • Media exposure: exposure to audience (impressions), and factors contributing to the likelihood that a company within a story will be seen and better remembered (front page, headline, first mention, citation, and visual corporate identity). V.2.1. Measuring visibility Visibility understands the degree to which the article may be seen by the target audience. It is expressed in number of media mentions (articles or media stories about a specific company), and specifically number of media mentions by type of media. Measuring visibility of competitive companies in the media helps to monitor progress and evolution against competitors in local telecommunication market and assess the efforts to maintain high visibility for company developments and operations and reinforce publicity share leadership. For instance, among the telecommunication the most visible in the media was T-Home (Makedonski Telekomunikacii) with 673 media mentions, which represents 34.48% of telecommunication articles subject of this analysis. Slightly behind is Cosmofon with 651 media mentions or 33.35% of analyzed articles. It is followed by VIP (323; 16.55%), T- Mobile (247; 12.65%) and On Net (58; 2.97). 3% 13% 34% T‐Home (MT) 17% Cosmofon VIP T‐Mobile OnNet 33% Figure 32: Number of media mentions by company Most of these articles (44.47%) were published in the daily newspapers, then on the internet (27.82%) and television (20.59%). 71
  • 72. 28% 44% Daily newspapers Magazines Radio Televisions 21% Internet 2% 5% Figure 33: Number of media mentions by company Splitting the media mentions of companies by the media type where they were published, it can be noticed that T-Home was most visible in the newspapers, but it was Cosmofon that was most visible on television, and even slightly more visible on the internet and in the magazines than the other four companies. Split of media type by company Company T‐Home T‐Mobile Cosmofon VIP OnNet Total Daily newspapers 307 111 260 167 23 868 Magazines 31 17 34 16 3 101 Radio 11 8 11 7 1 38 Televisions 140 40 161 47 14 402 Internet 184 71 185 86 17 543 Total 673 247 651 323 58 1.952 350  307  300  260  250  Daily newspapers 184  185  Magazines 200  161  167  140  Radio 150  111  Televisions 86  100  71  Internet 40  47  31  34  23  14  50  11  17 8  11  16 7  17  3  1  0  T‐Home T‐Mobile Cosmofon VIP OnNet Figure 34: Split of media type by company When exploring the media mentions over time, peaks can be easily detected and analyzed. 72
  • 73. 180  160  140  120  T‐Mobile 100  80  VIP 60  Cosmofon 40  20  OnNet 0  T‐Home (MT) Figure 35: Visibility over time (media mentions of companies by months) V.2.2. Measuring tonality Tonality describes the tone (timbre, quality) of media mentions and shows how each of the company was represented. It can be coded as positive, neutral or negative article, depending on the ‘tone of voice’ the author uses in the media mention when writing about a certain company. Tonality is sometimes also referred as media sentiment. Clear criteria have been established for the definition of positive, negative and neutral coverage. The definitions are straightforward because this is the most subjective area of monitoring: • Negative: where the company is criticized or where the media/journalist is clearly biased against the company; • Neutral: where information is presented in an unbiased way; there is no discernable tone. • Positive: where the media/journalist is clearly biased in favor of the company (sometimes the company is even praised). 73
  • 74. The tone is based on the entire article - it captures the overall tone for companies based on the entire piece. Predictably, most company mentions that are clearly positive or negative occur in editorial or opinion pieces, while most of the front-section news remain relatively neutral. "Net tone" is measured by coding the tone (positive, negative, neutral) for every mention of a company in the stories of the analysis base) and then taking the sum of company mentions that are positive and neutral, and subtracting the sum of company mentions that are negative. Company Positive Neutral Negative Total T‐Mobile 157 60 ‐30 187 VIP 256 58 ‐9 305 COSMOFON 474 153 ‐24 603 OnNet 54 4 0 58 T‐Home (MT) 274 172 ‐227 219 TOTAL 1215 447 ‐290 1372 474 500 400 256 274 300 157 153 172 200 Positive 100 60 58 54 Neutral 4 0 Negative 0 ‐30 ‐9 ‐24 ‐100 ‐200 ‐227 ‐300 Figure 36: Net tone, presented as a sum Beside as a sum, tonality can also be presented as a percentage of total coverage of a company. The measure thus runs from -100% (all company mentions are negative) to +100% (all company mentions are positive). Many mentions are simply neutral, but the relative weight of positive versus negative mentions can be quite telling. 74
  • 75. Figure 37: Net tone, presented as a percentage However, measuring tonality only (presented either as a sum or as a percentage) is not enough to give the full picture of the reasons of such media sentiment. It will contribute to a useful analysis only if related to key publicity indicators, i.e. detecting the reasons for the peaks, positive/neutral or negative. Such analysis is given in Figure 38 bellow. Figure 38: Tonality over time, with descriptions of the peaks (key publicity indicators) 75
  • 76. From the graphic given in Figure 38, which presents the tone of media mentions over time, several important points can be drawn: • In January 2008, T-Mobile’s bidding offer for 3G services has been disqualified and the company announced to file a complaint against such decision of the Agency for Electronic Communications. This issue brought a fair coverage in favor of T-Mobile. • In April 2008 the media attacked Makedonski Telekomunikacii raising the issue of company’s demand to make 500 employees leave the company voluntarily. • On May 12, 2008 On Net held a press conference to launch the fixed telephony service. As a second fixed operator that opened the closed and under a monopoly fixed telephony market, On Net gained a vast positive coverage in the media. • In May 2008, Makedonski Telekomunikacii went through a re-branding process. To mark the start-up under the new name (as T-Home), the company organized a huge free open-air concert, attracting thousands of people who joined their celebrations. Having celebrities such as Sugarbabes and Zdravko Colic, the company gained lots of positive coverage in the media who were writing about the concert for celebration of company’s rebranding. • Not long after that, the same company had to struggle with series of negative articles in the media about a huge financial scandal. The audit in the company has discovered an embezzlement of nearly 7 million euro. • The attacks of Makedonski Telekomunikacii/T-Home continued in the following months. In June 2008 T-Home was accused for monopolistic behavior and that they again don’t want to pay the dividend to the Macedonian Government, a shareholder in the company. The company started ‘a war’ with IT companies and with the Government. • At the same time, speculation started to spread about closing Cosmofon down, because of Cosmote (Greek owner of Cosmofon) takeover by Deutsche Telekom. Cosmofon has reacted promptly and denied these speculations. This issue raised vast media coverage, which were generally neutral and objective for Cosmofon. • In September, Cosmofon announced they are starting to offer video telephony to their customers, which was welcomed overwhelmingly by media. • On a press conference in September, among other things VIP also announced that when time comes they (or more precisely Vodafone) would be interested in buying 76
  • 77. Cosmofon from Deutsche Telekom. This information was gladly accepted and transferred through majority of the media as positive news for VIP. • In October 2008, the Competition Protection Commission decided that Cosmofon has to be sold. This news again raised the issue in media about sales of Cosmofon and predictions of potential buyers, which brought lots of (mainly neutral) coverage for Cosmofon. • The same month, a bid for awarding three 3G Technology licenses were going on. At the public opening of the bids, T-Mobile as the only bidder, and this news brought lots of (mainly neutral) coverage for T-Mobile. • At the end of the year, T-Home (Makedonski Telekomunikacii) was once again in the focus of media, with negative news: Attila Szendrei, former CEO of MT, suspected of embezzlement of 4 million euro. This was a continuation of the negative news of financial scandals in the company that have marked 2008. As a closure of tonality measurement section, a top list of telecoms can be given according to tone of articles (see Figure 39). Rank # Company Net tone (sum) 1 Cosmofon 603 2 VIP 305 3 T-Home (MT) 219 4 T-Mobile 187 5 On Net 58 Figure 39: Ranking of companies by tonality According to the net tone, Cosmofon is ranked as #1 company (top), and On Net as #5 (bottom of the list). V.2.3. Media content analysis The purpose of media content analysis is exploring the internal forces that drive corporate reputation. It understands measuring the level of presence of reputation components and drivers at the media articles, broke down into the categories of 6 drivers and 18 components, 77
  • 78. similar to Fobrun’s suggestion used in the Reputation Quotient model developed by the Reputation Institute. These categories are based on the following criteria: products and services, financial performance, workplace environment, social responsibility, vision and leadership, and emotional appeal. They are furthermore broken down to additional 18 components (see Figure 40). Reputational driver Reputational components 1 Products and Services ‐ offers high quality products/services ‐ offers value-for-money products/services ‐ develops innovative products/services 2 Financial Performance ‐ record of profitability ‐ tends to outperform its competitors ‐ strong prospects for future growth 3 Vision and Leadership ‐ has excellent leadership ‐ has a clear vision for the future ‐ recognizes/takes advantage of market opportunities 4 Workplace Environment ‐ looks like a good company to work for ‐ looks like it has good employees ‐ is well managed 5 Social Responsibility ‐ supports good causes ‐ environmentally responsible ‐ treats people well 6 Emotional Appeal ‐ like/have good feeling about the company ‐ admire and respect the company ‐ trust the company Figure 40: List of criteria for the media content analysis (MICRa model) Compared to the Fombrun’s list of criteria, only a slight adjustment has been made here, mainly in the number of the components. Here, the components are reduced to 18, because 2 of the suggested components were practically inapplicable for the local circumstances. For 78
  • 79. example, the component under Financial Performance, described as ‘looks like a low risk investment’ is not relevant on a share-market with no free trade. The presence of each component in a media article is coded with 1 if mentioned in positive or neutral sense, or -1 if mentioned in a negative sense. Theoretically, a value of one article can range from -18 (if all of the components are mentioned with a negative tone), through 0 (if none of the components are present), to 18 points (if all of the components are mentioned in neutral or positive sense). "Net reputation" represents the sum of those codes, measured by subtracting the sum of negative reputation codes out of the positive. Company Net Reputation COSMOFON 2570 VIP 1056 T-Home (MT) 654 T-Mobile 599 On Net 142 TOTAL 5021 3000 2570 2500 2000 1500 1056 Net Reputation 1000 654 599 500 142 0 COSMOFON VIP T‐Home  T‐Mobile OnNet (MT) Figure 41: Net Reputation (presented as a sum of codes) Beside as sum, Net Reputation can also be presented as a percentage of total coverage of all companies. 79
  • 80. 3% 12% COSMOFON 13% VIP 51% T‐Home (MT) 21% T‐Mobile OnNet Figure 41: Net Reputation (presented as a percentage) Specific Net Reputation for each company depending on reputational driver or specific component can be clearly seen as if we break down into a table as presented in Figures 42, 43 and 44: T‐Home  Company: T‐Mobile VIP COSMOFON OnNet TOTAL (MT) Quality 73 147 114 43 114 491 Product and  Value for money 16 80 250 18 17 381 Services Innovative 55 62 101 4 99 321 Total 144 289 465 65 230 1193 Profitability 10 8 125 0 13 156 Financial  Out-performs 6 ‐7 9 0 ‐26 ‐18 Performance Growth Prospects 11 23 135 0 ‐28 141 Total 27 24 269 0 ‐41 279 Key reputational drivers Strong leadership 2 20 32 1 16 71 Vision and  Clear vision 80 130 227 7 115 559 Leadership  Opportunities 16 64 303 0 71 454 Total 98 214 562 8 202 1084 Good to work for 0 0 1 0 ‐27 ‐26 Workplace  Good employees ‐1 0 ‐3 0 ‐11 ‐15 Environment Well-managed 0 0 ‐1 0 ‐30 ‐31 Total ‐1 0 ‐3 0 ‐68 ‐72 Causes 15 2 127 5 29 178 Social  Environment 1 ‐2 9 0 ‐2 6 Responsibility People 67 94 66 2 86 315 Total 83 94 202 7 113 499 Like 161 242 452 54 172 1081 Emotional  Admire 12 34 131 0 ‐30 147 Appeal Trust 75 159 492 8 76 810 Total 248 435 1075 62 218 2038 TOTAL 599 1056 2570 142 654 5021 Figure 42: Breakdown of Net Reputation by drivers and components 80
  • 81. 1200 1000 800 T‐Mobile VIP 600 COSMOFON 400 OnNet T‐Home (MT) 200 0 Products and  Financial  Vision and  Workplace  Social  Emotional  ‐200 Services Performance Leadership Environment Responsibility Appeal Figure 43: Breakdown of Net Reputation of companies by reputational drivers 500 400 300 T‐Mobile 200 VIP COSMOFON 100 OnNet T‐Home (MT) 0 ‐100 Figure 44: Breakdown of Net Reputation of companies by reputational components Presenting Net Reputation over time as a graphic, for each reputational driver, can additionally help in the analysis (Figures 45-50). It is especially handy to detect key points and discover some potential trends. For example: May, September and November are months with most communication activities promotions regarding Products and Services (Figure 45); T-Home managed to improve the negative reputation related to Financial Performance (Figure 46), as well as and to Workplace Environment (Figure 48); etc. 81
  • 82. 100 80 60 T‐Mobile 40 VIP COSMOFON 20 OnNet 0 T‐Home (MT) ‐20 Figure 45: Products and Services over time (by months) 80 60 40 T‐Mobile 20 VIP 0 COSMOFON ‐20 OnNet ‐40 T‐Home (MT) ‐60 ‐80 ‐100 Figure 46: Financial Performance over time (by months) 140 120 100 80 T‐Mobile 60 VIP 40 COSMOFON 20 OnNet 0 T‐Home (MT) ‐20 ‐40 Figure 47: Vision and Leadership over time (by months) 82
  • 83. 10 0 T‐Mobile ‐10 VIP ‐20 COSMOFON OnNet ‐30 T‐Home (MT) ‐40 ‐50 Figure 48: Workplace Environment over time (by months) 80 70 60 50 T‐Mobile 40 VIP 30 20 COSMOFON 10 OnNet 0 T‐Home (MT) Figure 49: Social Responsibility over time (by months) 200 150 T‐Mobile 100 VIP 50 COSMOFON OnNet 0 T‐Home (MT) ‐50 ‐100 Figure 50: Emotional Appeal over time (by months) 83
  • 84. All in all, it can be concluded that media write about products and services most often. Leadership and communicating vision of the company is also pretty visible, because of the number of interviews and the statements by company management used as a part of majority of articles. On the other hand, media talk about workplace environment least. The only time they write on this topic is when they talk about lay-offs, criticizing the employees and their impolite behavior, and other negative examples in general. The positive examples of good working environment are rarely an issue. V.2.4. Measuring media exposure In advertising terms, media exposure understands a presentation of a promotion piece or advertisement to an individual, such as a person viewing a television commercial or a reader opening a magazine to an advertisement page. The number of exposures achieved is an important measure of the effectiveness of an advertisement if it is measured in conjunction with the quality of the exposures achieved (for example, if a golf club advertisement is exposed to 1000 golfers, it has greater value than if it is exposed to 1 million nongolfers). Exposure may also refer to publicity, as an activity designed to rouse public interest. In this case, for the purposes of this paper research, the term media exposure is used to describe the degree to which information can be accessed, or level of likeability that a certain target audience will receive certain information or news. Besides the number of consumers who are likely to see or hear a media vehicle or article, whether or not they paid attention to it (impressions), additional factors contributing to the likelihood that a company within a story is seen and better remembered (front page, headline, first mention, citation, and presence of visual corporate identity) will also be analyzed as part of media exposure measurement. Impressions, Reach or OTS As a measure of audience, ‘impressions’ represent the sum of all [advertising] exposures and expressed in terms of numbers of individuals (or homes) rather than as a percentage (Surmanek, 1996: 25). Impressions can be calculated by adding the audience delivered (number) for each announcement (or magazine insertion, etc.) in a schedule. ‘Reach’ on the other hand is the number of different individuals (or homes) exposed to a media schedule within a given period of time, generally expressed as a percentage. To calculate reach, 84
  • 85. viewers are counted only once, no matter how many programs they view. Also, as a program or programs attract new viewers, these viewers contribute to reach (Surmanek, 1996: 25). Reach generally refers to the percentage of people who will be exposed to the media in which commercials or advertisements (or news articles in this case) have been placed. It does not necessarily refer to the percentage of people who are exposed to the actual articles. When people record their media consumption (via various syndicated research companies' surveys) they record only that they consumed the vehicle (the TV program, the radio station, the magazine, etc.), but not that they actually saw/heard a commercial or an ad. Reaching people with advertising media is therefore an opportunity to expose consumers to advertising. Reach can also be referred to as OTS: opportunity to see (in Europe, for example). Although at first site most of us would rather have reach and frequency data than just impressions, when analyzing news articles instead of advertisements impressions are more adequate measurement method. The reason for that is duplication. In advertising, the reach also measures how many times an advertisement is seen. Measuring the media impact on reputation counts the articles published in mainstream media as unique media mentions that are repeated (re-ran). That is why, although reach as a measuring tool seems to give more precise insight into the exposure of media mentions of measured companies, impressions are more applicable to the method of measuring media impact on reputation. 80.000.000       70.000.000       60.000.000       T‐Mobile 50.000.000       VIP 40.000.000       Cosmofon 30.000.000       20.000.000       OnNet 10.000.000       T‐Home (MT) ‐ T‐Mobile VIP Cosmofon OnNet T‐Home  (MT) Figure 51: Audience measurement: Impressions presented as a sum of absolute numbers (not depending of tone of media mentions) 85
  • 86. Impressions may be presented as a sum of all media mentions impressions (sum of absolute numbers), split per different criteria (cross analysis), for example per company (Figure 51). However, we will get more relevant data if impressions are presented as sum of media articles impressions, depending of tone of media mentions, as shown in Figure 52. This way of presenting the data is referred as to Net Impressions. Net Impressions 70.000.000       60.000.000       T‐Mobile 50.000.000       40.000.000       VIP 30.000.000       Cosmofon  20.000.000       OnNet 10.000.000       ‐ T‐Home (MT) T‐Mobile VIP Cosmofon  OnNet T‐Home  (MT) Figure 52: Audience measurement: Net Impressions (sum of media articles impressions, depending of tone of media mentions) From Figure 51 we can see that media mentions for Cosmofon and T-Home were likely to be seen most by target audience, while from Figure 52 it is clear that the majority of the impressions of T-Home were however negative. Another conclusion that could be drawn from the chart above is that Cosmofon not only gained most coverage, but have gained far more impressions than its competition, focusing on key media with highest reach and rating points. Other factors Besides the Net Impressions, additional factors contributing to the likelihood that a company within a story is seen and better remembered are analyzed here, as a part of media exposure measurement. These factors are: position of the article on a front page (or cover page), mention of the company brand or the product brand in the headline, mention of the company brand or the product brand in the lead (head, or the first mention), using a citation or a quote of a representative of the company (it can be an interview of the CEO, statement of the PR 86
  • 87. Manager, or any other employee or spokesperson talking or giving statement on behalf of the company), and presence of visual corporate identity in the article (logo, graphic, photography, brand color, etc.). All of these elements are contributing to liking that the certain company and what is said about it in the article will be better remembered. In the following figures the factors are presented as sum of absolute numbers, not taking into consideration the tone of the articles. 200 166 144 150 100 51 46 50 16 0 Cosmofon  OnNet T‐Home  T‐Mobile VIP (MT) Figure 53: Media mentions on front pages (split by company) From the Figure 53 it can be seen that T-Home has most mentions on front pages (166 mentions), followed by Cosmofon (144), regardless if they are positive or negative. The rest of the telecoms (T-Mobile, VIP and On Net) have far less mentions on front pages. It is similar with the mentions in headlines (Figure 54) and in the first mentions (in the news head; Figure 55): T-Home and Cosmofon lead the way and the rest are far behind. 476 453 500 400 300 219 166 200 100 37 0 Cosmofon  OnNet T‐Home  T‐Mobile VIP (MT) Figure 54: Mentions of companies in news headlines 87
  • 88. 550 540 600 500 400 262 300 197 200 49 100 0 Cosmofon  OnNet T‐Home  T‐Mobile VIP (MT) Figure 55: Mentions of companies in the news head (first mentions) When it comes to quotations of company representatives, Cosmofon has again leading position. This time VIP is slightly ahead of T-Home (Figure 56). Usually the most quoted representatives are CEOs and CADs. 200 170 128 150 115 100 46 29 50 0 Cosmofon  OnNet T‐Home  T‐Mobile VIP (MT) Figure 56: Number of articles containing citations by company representatives The most visible companies through the visual corporate identity used as a part of media mentions are Cosmofon and T-Home (Figure 57). Photographs of company building or company representative, with a visible logo, are the most often used corporate visual identity elements in these media mentions. 88
  • 89. 238 250 212 200 150 103 70 100 22 50 0 Cosmofon  OnNet T‐Home  T‐Mobile VIP (MT) Figure 57: Number of articles containing visual corporate identity elements When all of these elements described above are put in one graphic and compared (Figure 58), it can be noticed that the media mention a company’s name in the headline or news head rather than using its corporate element (logo, photo, graphic). Putting media mentions on telecoms on front pages is pretty rare, except when it is about a scandal, negative news, or some major issue such as company sales or merger. Using graphics in print vehicles are also rare since most of the articles are only short news promoting new products and services or corporate social responsible events. 89
  • 90. Corporate: Monopoly of MT; financial scandals (audit and embezzlement), dividend payment, layoffs… Corporate: Sales of Cosmofon Corporate: Sales of Cosmofon Corporate: Financial scandals, P&S: 3G and fixed telephony P&S: 3G and fixed telephony layoffs, company rebranding CSR events and activities 1600  1400  1200  Company T‐Home (MT) rebranding 1000  OnNet to T-Home 800  Cosmofon  600  VIP 400  T‐Mobile 200  0  Front page Headline First  Citing Graphics mention Figure 58: Factors contributing to liking that the certain company and what is said about it in the article will be better remembered In order to measure how these exposure factors actually contribute to liking that a certain company and what is said about in the article is better remembered (in other words - the impact of factors on the company’s reputation presented by media), value is added to the value of reputational drivers. For example, for each media impact factor 20% value is added to the initial (basic) value of reputational drivers. Thus theoretically a reputational driver can reach up to 200% of its initial value. Presented in numbers, the value of a reputational driver can range from -2 (if the reputational driver in the article is negative, and it contains all five media impact factors) to 2 (if the reputational driver in the article is positive or neutral, and it contains all five media impact factors), and a value of an article can range from -36 to 36 (maximum absolute value of sum of reputational drivers is 18). 90
  • 91. 3500 3000 2500 2000 Initial value of reputational  drivers 1500 1000 Media Impact on  500 Reputational Drivers 0 COSMOFON VIP T‐Home  T‐Mobile OnNet (MT) Figure 59: Total media impact on reputational drivers (compared to initial value of reputational drivers) From Figure 59 it can be concluded that after adding the value from the media impact factors to initial value of reputational drivers, Cosmofon have strengthen the leading position regarding the presentation of reputational values through media. However, if presented in percents, the graph shows that all of the companies gained more or less same added value (23-26%, excluding T-Mobile with 19%) from the media impact factors (Figure 60), where T-Home is on the top, and T-Mobile on the bottom of the list: Company Total Media Impact (added value) T-Home (MT) 26,42% On Net 25,21% COSMOFON 24,49% VIP 23,37% T-Mobile 18,86% Figure 60: Total media impact on reputational drivers (added value, in %) Specific distribution and comparison of the values of reputational drivers and components (including added value from the media impact factors), among each other and to total, across companies, can be thoroughly analysied as presented in Figures 61, 62 and 63. 91
  • 92. Company: T‐Mobile VIP COSMOFON OnNet T‐Home (MT) TOTAL Quality 93,00 187,00 146,30 56,90 143,80 627,00 Value for Product and  money 19,40 100,40 319,70 23,20 22,60 485,30 Services Innovative 69,00 79,70 129,70 5,00 125,60 409,00 Total 181,40 367,10 595,70 85,10 292,00 1521,30 Profitability 12,60 10,80 157,10 0,00 11,80 192,30 Financial  Out-performs 7,80 ‐8,60 11,60 0,00 ‐32,50 ‐21,70 Growth Media Impact on Reputational Drivers Performance 14,00 30,60 170,30 0,00 ‐36,00 178,90 Prospects Total 34,40 32,80 339,00 0,00 ‐56,70 349,50 Strong leadership 2,80 26,20 41,40 1,00 22,20 93,60 Vision and  Clear vision 90,70 154,20 270,70 7,30 142,30 665,20 Leadership  Opportunities 20,00 83,40 387,60 0,00 92,70 583,70 Total 113,50 263,80 699,70 8,30 257,20 1342,50 Good to work for 0,00 0,00 1,20 0,00 ‐34,20 ‐33,00 Good Workplace  employees ‐1,20 0,00 ‐4,10 0,00 ‐13,70 ‐19,00 Environment Well- managed 0,00 0,00 ‐1,30 0,00 ‐37,80 ‐39,10 Total ‐1,20 0,00 ‐4,20 0,00 ‐85,70 ‐91,10 Causes 17,30 2,10 155,00 5,10 32,50 212,00 Social  Environment 1,20 ‐2,20 10,00 0,00 ‐2,30 6,70 Responsibility People 74,80 107,10 72,00 2,00 113,50 369,40 Total 93,30 107,00 237,00 7,10 143,70 588,10 Like 191,20 295,40 557,60 69,00 225,10 1338,30 Emotional  Admire 14,80 45,00 164,80 0,00 ‐42,20 182,40 Appeal Trust 84,60 191,70 609,80 8,30 93,40 987,80 Total 290,60 532,10 1332,20 77,30 276,30 2508,50 TOTAL 712,00 1302,80 3199,40 177,80 826,80 6218,80 Figure 61: Table of total media impact on reputational components 1400,00 1200,00 1000,00 800,00 T‐Home (MT) 600,00 OnNet 400,00 COSMOFON 200,00 VIP 0,00 T‐Mobile Out‐performs Environment Admire Innovative Opportunities Well‐managed Profitability Good employees Like Quality  Value for money Causes  People  Trust Growth Prospects Clear vision Strong leadership Good to work for ‐200,00 Figure 62: Total media impact on reputational components 92
  • 93. 3000,00 2500,00 2000,00 1500,00 T‐Home (MT) 1000,00 OnNet 500,00 COSMOFON 0,00 VIP Workplace Environment Emotional Appeal Products and Services Financial Performance Vision and Leadership Social Responsibility ‐500,00 T‐Mobile Figure 63: Total media impact on reputational drivers From the table and charts given above, several important points can be drawn: • Products and services: VIP was presented by media as company with highest quality products (Cosmofon and T-Home are slightly behind on that list). However, Cosmofon is perceived to have best value-for-money products and services, far more than its competitors. Regarding innovation of products, Cosmofon and T-Home are leaders on telecommunication market, according to media. Overall, regarding Products and Services, Cosmofon has the highest and On Net the lowest Net Reputation. • Financial Performance: According to media coverage, Cosmofon is the most profitable company and have biggest growth prospects and T-Home the least. The financial performance of On Net was even not a topic in media at all. Financial work of T-Home was presented mainly in a negative sense. • Vision and Leadership: Cosmofon was presented through media as a telecom with the clearest vision for the future that recognizes advantages of the market opportunities. • Workplace Environment: Not much has been done by all five companies to present the working environment in a positive way. Mostly negative news for T-Home was 93
  • 94. published related to this issue, due to the series of lay-offs in the company. Several negative articles about employees of Cosmofon and T-Mobile were also noticed. • Social Responsibility: Cosmofon is presented as most dedicated to support of good causes and humanitarian activities, helping marginalized groups in many ways. On the other hand VIP and T-Home were visible with entertaining festivals and events for the general audience. All in all, companies have dedicated very little effort to environmental issues. • Emotional Appeal: This is the most subjective set of reputational components to code and it depends much on the rest of the reputational components and drivers. Having that in mind, as expected, Cosmofon is the company that is perceived as company which is most liked, admired, respected and trusted among telecoms in Macedonia. V.2.5. Relative performance Relative performance is based on comparing the individual performance to that of others, instead of to an absolute standard. In order to measure the reputational performance in media, reputational values of the five companies examined for the purposes of this research are compared with the average figures, by all elements of analysis: visibility, tonality, media content and media exposure (including media impact factors). Above Average Average T‐Home  Cosmofon VIP T‐Mobile OnNet (MT) Below Average Figure 64: Relative performance of companies in number of media mentions In number of media mentions, T-Home and Cosmofon have best and On Net worst performance (Figure 64). 94
  • 95. Above  average T‐Home VIP Cosmofon Average OnNet T‐Mobile Daily  Magazines Radio Televisions Internet Bellow newspapers average Figure 65: Relative performance of companies by media type According to media types (Figure 65), On Net has best performance in the daily newspapers and on the internet and Cosmofon on television. T-Mobile has the worst performance in newspapers, on television and internet, followed by VIP who also has a lousy performance in terms of mentions by media type. Above  average T‐Mobile VIP COSMOFON Average OnNet Positive Neutral Negative T‐Home (MT) Bellow average Figure 66: Relative performance of companies by tone Regarding the tone of articles, Cosmofon has best performance and On Net the worst. How the companies specifically perform regarding positive, neutral or negative tone of the media mentions can be seen from Figure 66. Cosmofon holds the leading position regarding relative performance in terms of reputational drivers (Figure 67) and media exposure (i.e. media impact on reputational drivers and sum of impressions; Figures 68 and 69). 95
  • 96. Above  average T‐Mobile VIP COSMOFON OnNet Average T‐Home (MT) Products and  Financial  Vision and  Workplace  Social  Emotional  Below  Services Performance Leadership Environment Responsibility Appeal average Figure 67: Relative performance of companies by reputational drivers Above  average T‐Mobile VIP COSMOFON Average OnNet T‐Home (MT) Products and  Financial  Vision and  Workplace  Social  Emotional  Services Performance Leadership Environment Responsibility Appeal Below average Figure 68: Relative performance of companies by media impact factors Above  average Average Bellow  T‐Home  Cosmofon  VIP T‐Mobile OnNet average (MT) Figure 69: Relative performance of companies by impressions 96
  • 97. Based on their relative performance regarding media impact on reputation drivers, the companies can be ranked as in Figure 70. Company Net Reputation Total Media Share RANK Impact COSMOFON 2570 3199,40 51,45% #1 VIP 1056 1302,80 20,95% #2 T-Home (MT) 654 826,80 13,30% #3 T-Mobile 599 712,00 11,45% #4 On Net 142 177,80 2,86% #5 TOTAL 5021 6218,80 100,00% Figure 70: Top 5 ranking of telecommunication companies in Macedonia, based on their relative performance regarding media impact on corporate reputation (2008) The rank list shows that Cosmofon holds the highest position in terms of media impact on corporate reputation, with more than twice bigger value of total media impact than the second company on the list - VIP. T-Home (Makedonski Telekomunikacii) and T-Mobile hold the third and the fourth place, and On Net as fifth on the reputation rank list is far behind its competitors regarding media impact on corporate reputation. This ranking does not show the actual general public’s perception on companies’ reputation. It only shows how the mainstream media might influence the public perception on corporate reputation of the companies, and may indicate how well these companies are handling their media relations. In other words, it is an assessment of how news coverage reflects and helps to shape the corporate reputation of the telecommunication companies in Macedonia. V.2.6. Reputation media portraits In addition to the detailed analysis of media impact on corporate reputation of the telecoms in Macedonia presented on the previous pages, making of specific reputation portraits of each of the companies may also come pretty handy. 97
  • 98. Media tracking data and analysis are used to understand how these companies are being portrayed in the news and survey research data to understand the effectiveness of their media relations efforts. The objective is to explore the possibility that news has a measurable effect on desired outcomes over PR. All data refer to year 2008. Cosmofon Key facts: Cosmofon entered in 2003 as second on the Macedonian mobile telephony market. As part of Cosmote group, it is owned by OTE, the Greek national (state owned) telecommunication company. After 5 years in of commercial work in Macedonia (2003- 2008) Cosmofon has 31% market share. Cosmofon is pretty visible in the media, having total 651 media mentions during 2008, which represents 33% share of total media coverage of the top 5 telecoms. It is only slightly behind T-Home with 673 media mentions (34%). Most of the articles on Cosmofon (260) were published in the daily newspapers (40%), then on the internet (185; 28.4%) and on TV (161; 24.7%). Compared to its competitors, Cosmofon was the most visible, regarding TV, internet, radio and magazines. Only the newspapers have written more on T-Home (307 media mentions) than on Cosmofon. 28% 40% Daily newspapers Magazines Radio 25% Televisions Internet 5% 2% Figure 71: Visibility of Cosmofon: Number of media mentions by type of media 98
  • 99. However, the media were generally writing more in favor of Cosmofon than to other telecoms. Cosmofon for instance has in total 474 positive articles (73%), 153 neutral (18%) and 24 negative media mentions (4%). ‐4% 23% Positive Neutral 73% Negative Figure 72: Net Tone of Cosmofon In June 2008, speculations started to spread about closing down of Cosmofon, because of Cosmote takeover by Deutsche Telekom. Cosmofon has reacted promptly and denied these speculations. This issue raised vast media coverage, which were generally neutral and objective for Cosmofon. In September Cosmofon announced that starts offering video telephony, which was overwhelmingly welcomed by media. In October 2008, The Competition Protection Commission decided that Cosmofon has to be sold. This news again raised the issue in media about sales of Cosmofon and prediction of potentional buyers, which brought lots of (mainly neutral) coverage for Cosmofon. Issue Category Time Articles Bid for providing services for Government P&S 10-21.01.2008 3 Layoffs in Cosmofon Corporate 2-3.06.2008 4 Speculations of closing down of Cosmofon Corporate 8-9.06.2008 11 Germanos - Financial scandal Germanos 14-15.07.2008 2 Speculations on Cosmofon phone tapping Corporate 10.01 and 28.05.2008 2 Other Other 2008 2 TOTAL 24 Figure 73: Negative issues on Cosmofon (published in 2008) 99
  • 100. The negative articles on Cosmofon were mostly related to the speculations about company’s closing down (11 articles, 46%) and about layoffs (4 articles; 16.6%). See Figure 73. Dnevnik and Vest are the media that have published most negative articles about Cosmofon (4 articles each). 4 4 4 3,5 3 2,5 2 2 2 2 1,5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0,5 Negative articles 0 Dnevnik  Vest  A1  Utrinski Vesnik  www.dnevnik.com.mk  Biznis  MTV1  Nova Makedonija  Sitel  Vecer  www.a1.com.mk  www.makfax.com.mk  www.netpress.com.mk  www.tocka.com.mk  Telma  Figure 74: Negative issues on Cosmofon in media Cosmofon holds a leading position among its competitors in terms of Net reputation. Out of all media that covered telecommunication issues in 2008, Vecer has contributed most to the overall reputation of Cosmofon (Net reputation value = 230). It is followed by Sitel (204), MIA (179), Kanal 5 (142) and Utrinski Vesnik (140). 100
  • 101. 250 200 150 100 50 0 www.netpress.co… MTM  Fakti  www.kajgana.com  ALSAT Vecer  www.mia.com.mk  Utrinski Vesnik  A1  Biznis  MTV1 Globus  www.kurir.com.mk  Makedonsko Radio www.spic.com.mk  Lajm  Denes  Tea moderna  Spic Figure 75: Cosmofon Net reputation (split by medium)40 Regarding separate reputational components, the same media have contributed most to liking and trust in Cosmofon (Vecer 61 and 48, Sitel 57 and 49, MIA 57 and 40, accordingly). The editorial staff in Dnevnik has contributed to the negative image of Cosmofon in regard to the politeness of employees (Dnevnik -2; www.dnevnik.com.mk -2), and Netpress in regard of quality of management (-1). See Figure 76 for reputational components broken down by each of the media. 70 Quality  60 Value for money Innovative 50 Profitability 40 Out‐performs Growth Prospects 30 Strong leadership 20 Clear vision Opportunities 10 Good to work for Good employees (plesent, polite) 0 Well‐managed A1  Alfa Vecer  ERA  Koha  Sitel  Vikend  ALSAT  Denes  Globus  Kanal 5  Dnevnik  Lajm  Spic  Tea moderna  Vest  Fakti  Kanal 77  MTV1  MTV2  Vreme  Utrinski Vesnik  Biznis  Sky Net  Vip Gala  Nova Makedonija  Telma  Kapital  Life magazin  MTM  Makedonsko Radio  www.kurir.com.mk  www.vecer.com.mk  www.idividi.com.mk  www.kanal77.com.mk  www.sitel.com.mk  www.utrinskivesnik.com.mk  www.vest.com.mk  www.dnevnik.com.mk  www.netpress.com.mk  www.vreme.com.mk  www.netpress.com.mk www.kirilica.com.mk  www.spic.com.mk  www.a1.com.mk  www.makfax.com.mk  www.kajgana.com  www.kanal5.com.mk  www.tocka.com.mk  www.total.com.mk  www.mmm.com.mk  www.novamakedonija.com.mk  www.mia.com.mk  www.style.blog.com.mk  ‐10 Causes (CSR, donations) Environment (eco friendly) People (sponsorships) Like Admire Trust Figure 76: Cosmofon’s reputation (split by medium and reputational component)41 40 Large and detailed chart given in Annex V 41 Large and detailed chart given in Annex V 101
  • 102. Overall, the company should work more to create an image of a company which has good employees, which is good to work for and is well managed. Improving the image of an eco- friendly company with a strong management will also contribute to the complete positive reputational image of the company. The strongest and most valuable reputational component of Cosmofon presented in the media (excluding the sentimentality components, such as liking, trust and admiration) is the opportunity offered by the company. VIP Key facts: VIP entered in May 2008, as third operator on the Macedonian mobile telephony market, owned by Vodafone. After only a few months of commercial work in Macedonia it has 10% market share.42 VIP holds the third position according to visibility in media, with total 323 media mentions during 2008, which represents 16.55% share of total media coverage of the top 5 telecoms. Most of the articles on VIP (167) were published in the daily newspapers (52%), then on the internet (86; 27%) and on TV (47; 14%). 27% Daily newspapers Magazines 52% 14% Radio Televisions Internet 2% 5% Figure 77: Visibility of VIP: Number of media mentions by type of media Media were generally publishing in favor of VIP, with 256 positive (79%) and 58 neutral articles (18%). Only 9 articles (3%) were negative, which makes VIP a company with least negative media mentions in 2008 among its competitors. 42 Source: AEK Market Analysis 102
  • 103. ‐3% 18% Positive Neutral 79% Negative Figure 78: Net Tone of VIP In September 2008, the company had a press conference reporting about their work and results. They sent a message that they are generally pleased with the work in Macedonia, and also announced that they are interested in buying Cosmofon. This message was picked up by most of the media, which presented the news positively. The negative articles on VIP were mostly related to the negative financial results of the company (7 articles or 78%) and about citizens’ reactions against VIP’s base stations (2 articles; 22%). Issue Category Time Articles VIP working with a financial loss Finance 14-18.05.2008 and 21.08.2008 7 Citizens reaction against VIP’s base Network 22.07.2008 and 10.10.2008 2 station TOTAL 9 Figure 79: Negative issues on VIP (published in 2008) Utrinski Vesnik is the medium that published most negative articles about Cosmofon (2 articles; see Figure 80). Out of all media that covered telecommunication issues in 2008, Utrinski Vesnik has contributed most to the overall reputation of Cosmofon (Net reputation value = 110). It is followed by Vecer (99), Biznis (90), Spic (72) and Nova Makedonija (70). See Figure 81. 103
  • 104. 2 2 1,8 1,6 1,4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1,2 1 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0 Negative articles Figure 80: Negative issues on VIP in media 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Net reputation ‐20 Figure 81: VIP Net reputation (split by medium)43 In terms of separate reputational components, the following media have contributed most to liking of VIP: Utrinski Vesnik (Net reputation value = 40), Vecer (36), Biznis and Total (27 each), Spic (21). Utrinski Vesnik, Vecer, Total.com.mk, Spic and Biznis (Net reputation value between 9 and 16) contributed to positive image in terms of quality of products, value for money and clear company’s vision. On the other hand, the editorial staffs of Vecer, Netpres, Utrinski Vesnik and Dnevnik have contributed to the negative image of VIP in terms of financial performance of the company, environmental consciousness and admiration 43 Large and detailed chart given in Annex V 104
  • 105. (between -3 and -1). See Figure 82 for reputational components broken down by each of the media. 45 40 Quality  Value for money 35 Innovative 30 Profitability 25 Out‐performs Growth Prospects 20 Strong leadership 15 Clear vision 10 Opportunities 5 Good to work for Good employees (plesent, polite) 0 Well‐managed A1  Vecer  ERA  Forum  Kanal 5  Koha  Makedonsko Sonce  Sitel  ALSAT  Globus  Lajm  Spic  Vest  Dnevnik  Fakti  Tea moderna  Vreme  Kanal 77  MTV1  Toj  Ubavina i zdravje  Utrinski Vesnik  Biznis  MTM Vip Gala  Kapital  Nova Makedonija  Telma  Makedonsko Radio  www.kurir.com.mk  www.vecer.com.mk  www.idividi.com.mk  www.sitel.com.mk  www.utrinskivesnik.com.mk  www.vest.com.mk  www.vreme.com.mk www.dnevnik.com.mk  www.netpress.com.mk  www.kirilica.com.mk  www.spic.com.mk  www.makfax.com.mk  www.total.com.mk  www.kajgana.com  www.kanal5.com.mk  www.mia.com.mk  www.novamakedonija.com.mk  www.avtoplus.com.mk  ‐5 Causes (CSR, donations) ‐10 Environment (eco friendly) People (sponsorships) Like Admire Trust Figure 82: VIP’s reputation (split by medium and reputational component)44 Compared to its competitors, the strongest reputational component of VIP (as presented by media) is the quality of products and services, and the weakest is its financial performance. The company should also work more to present itself as a social responsible and environmentally friendly company in order to improve its overall reputation. T-Home Key facts: T-Home is the first telephony operator in Macedonia, and for a long time the only one. At first it worked as a part of the Macedonian Post (PTT Macedonia) and in 1997 was registered as an independent company (under the name Makedonski Telekomunikacii), but remained state owned. It was privatized in 2000, with the acquisition by the Hungarian telecom Matav (with 51% shares). T-Home is on the Top 5 list of largest and Top 5 most successful companies in Macedonia.45 After the entrance of the alternative fixed operators, the market share of T-Home has decreased from 100% to 94%.46 44 Large and detailed chart given in Annex V 45 Source: Euro Business Center – Skopje. 46 Source: AEK Market Analysis 105
  • 106. Amongst its competitors, T-Home is the most visible one in the media, having total 673 media mentions during 2008, which represents 34% share of total media coverage of the top 5 telecoms. Most of the articles on T-Home (307) were published in the daily newspapers (46%), then on the internet (184; 27%) and on TV (140; 21%). The newspapers in 2008 have written more on T-Home (307 media mentions) than on the other telecoms. 27% Daily newspapers 46% Magazines Radio 21% Televisions Internet 2% 4% Figure 83: Visibility of T-Home: Number of media mentions by type of media The media were generally not always in favor to T-Home. Due to several financial scandals, T-Home has ‘earned’ far more negative articles (227) that the other telecoms (Cosmofon - 24, T-Mobile – 30 and VIP - 9), which represents a considerable portion of all media mentions – 34% (for instance, its competitors have between 0% and 12% negative coverage). ‐34% 41% Positive Neutral 25% Negative Figure 84: Net Tone of T-Home 106
  • 107. Main issues on T-Home in the media: • In April 2008 the media attacked the company raising the issue of company’s demand to make 500 employees leave the company voluntarily. • In May 2008, Makedonski Telekomunikacii went through a re-branding process. To mark the start-up with the new name (as T-Home), the company organized a huge free open-air concert, attracting thousands of people who joined their celebrations. Having celebrities such as Sugarbabes and Zdravko Colic, the company gained lots of positive coverage in the media who were writing about the concert for celebration of company’s rebranding. • Not long after that, the company had to struggle with series of negative articles in the media about a huge financial scandal. The audit in the company has discovered an embezzlement of nearly 7 million euro. • The attacks of T-Home continued in the following months. In June 2008 T-Home was accused of monopolistic behavior and that they again don’t want to pay the dividend to the Macedonian Government, a shareholder in the company. The company started ‘a war’ with IT companies and with the Government. • At the end of the year, T-Home (Makedonski Telekomunikacii) was once again in the focus of media, with negative news: Attila Szendrei, former CEO of MT, suspected of embezzlement of 4 million euro. This was a continuation of the negative news of financial scandals in the company that have marked 2008. For specific breakdown of negative issues in media, see Figure 85 below. Issue Category Time Articles Negotiations with the Government about dividend payment Finances 26.02.-23.10.2008 39 Former CEO of Makedonski Telekom, Attila Szendrei, Finances 5.09.-13.12.2008 37 suspected of embezzlement of 4 million euro Layoffs announced: Makedonski Telekomunikacii demands Corporate 10-25.04. and 25 that 500 employees to voluntarily leave the company 28.05.-2.06.2008 The internal audit in the Telecom revealed illegal agreements Finances 13-28.05.2008 and 25 worth 6.7 million euro 4.12.2008 Attacks about high prices of products and services: The P&S 1.02.-7.11.2008 18 telephone impulse prices of T-Home are unacceptably high Makedonski Telekom under investigation by the Anti- Finances 18-31.03.2008 and 17 Monopoly Authorities 20-27.06.2008 Cutting the 100 minutes free talk P&S 23-24.06.2008 14 Makedonski Telekom accused of monopolistic behavior Corporate 8.01.-18.08.2008 11 107
  • 108. Problems with internet connections (ADSL) P&S 12.09.2008 and 25- 6 26.11.2008 Games regarding the director’s position in Makedonski Management 26.04.-1.06.2008 6 Telekomunikacii Telecom in war with the IT Companies Corporate 15.03., 24.06. and 5 3.07.2008 The opposition SDSM asking for revision of the project P&S 3-27.03.2008 4 ‘Computer for every child’ Government and opposition blaming each other for T-Home’s Finances 16-19.05.2008 4 financial scandals (during the elections campaign) Problems with telephone lines P&S 22.07 and 1.11.2008 2 10 tons of garbage collected after the re-branding concerts: CSR - 20-22.05.2008 2 Telekom did not pay for cleaning up the square environment Other Various 2008 12 TOTAL 227 Figure 85: Negative issues on T-Home (published in 2008) Vecer is the medium that has published most negative articles about T-Home (20 articles in total), followed by: Utrinski Vesnik (16), Vest (16), A1 (15), Nova Makedonija (14), Dnevnik (13), and so on. 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Negative articles Vecer Vest Nova Makedonija  Vreme  MTV1  Biznis  Forum  www.a1.com.mk  www.makfax.com.mk  Makedonsko Radio  www.total.com.mk  www.vest.com.mk  MTM  www.kirilica.com.mk  Telma Kanal 5  www.kurir.com.mk  Figure 86: Negative issues on T-Home in media47 Utrinski Vesnik has contributed most to the liking of T-Home, with net reputation value 31, followed by Vecer and Total.com.mk (28 each) and Biznis (24). The company has also gained trust thanks to the favorable coverage in the media (eg. Netpress 25, Biznis 21, etc.). However, in spite the amount of positive and neutral coverage, T-Home has lots of gaps in its 47 Large and detailed chart given in Annex V 108
  • 109. media reputation portrait, in terms of value-for-money (high prices of products and services), financial performance, leadership and workplace environment. Lack of admiration for the company, for instance, is proved with the following figures: net reputation in A1 = -18, Vecer -17, Dnevnik -13, Sitel -12, and so on. Net reputation value of admiration component is -109. See Figure 87 for reputational components broken down by each of the media. 40 Quality  30 Value for money Innovative Profitability 20 Out‐performs Growth Prospects Strong leadership 10 Clear vision Opportunities Good to work for 0 Good employees (plesent, polite) Vecer  ALfa  ALSAT  Dnevnik  Spic  A1  A2  Kanal 77  Vreme  Avantgarde  Biznis  ERA  Fokus  Forum  Kapital  Koha  Makedonsko Sonce  MTM  Sitel  Telma  Globus  Kanal 5  Makedonsko Radio  Tea moderna  Vest  MTV1  www.vecer.com.mk  Utrinski Vesnik  Valuta  Nova Makedonija  www.dnevnik.com.mk  www.netpress.com.mk  www.a1.com.mk  www.kirilica.com.mk  www.spic.com.mk  www.kurir.com.mk  www.kajgana.com  www.kanal5.com.mk  www.novamakedonija.com.mk  www.mia.com.mk  www.mmm.com.mk  www.idividi.com.mk  www.sitel.com.mk  www.utrinskivesnik.com.mk  www.vest.com.mk  www.makfax.com.mk  www.total.com.mk  Well‐managed Causes (CSR, donations) ‐10 Environment (eco friendly) People (sponsorships) Like ‐20 Admire Trust ‐30 Figure 87: T-Home Net reputation (split by medium)48 All in all, T-Home has extremely negative reputation, followed by many financial scandals. The company should work very hard to create an image of a company with good reputation, a company with high-quality products offered by reasonable prices, a transparent company with strong leadership and clear vision, a company that will show care for its employees and will create a good workplace environment (without the fear of being laid off), and a socially responsible and eco-friendly company that will support causes and help people. But above all, a company that will work transparently, that will respect both its customers and shareholders. 48 Large and detailed chart given in Annex V 109
  • 110. T-Mobile Key facts: T-Mobile is the first mobile operator in Macedonia, previously known under the name MobiMak. It started working in 1996 as a part of Makedonski Telekomunikaci and separated as an independent company in 2001. In September 2006 Mobimak was re-branded and changed its name in T-Mobile, becoming as part of the T-family. After total 12 years of commercial work and 7 years of monopoly it is still dominant mobile operator in the country, with 59% market share.49 T-Mobile is on the Top 10 list of largest and Top 5 most successful companies in Macedonia.50 By media visibility of telecoms, T-Mobile holds the fourth place, with total 247 media mentions during 2008, which represents 12.65% share of total media coverage of the top 5 telecoms. Most of the articles on T-Mobile (111) were published in the daily newspapers (45%), far more than on the other types of media (see Figure 88). 29% Daily newspapers 45% Magazines Radio 16% 7% Televisions Internet 3% Figure 88: Visibility of T-Mobile: Number of media mentions by type of media T-Mobile has pretty balanced media coverage in terms of tonality: 157 positive (64%), 60 neutral (24%) and 30 negative (12%) media mentions. 49 Source: AEK Market Analysis 50 Source: Euro Business Center – Skopje. 110
  • 111. ‐12% 24% Positive 64% Neutral Negative Figure 89: Net Tone of T-Mobile In January 2008, T-Mobile’s bidding offer for 3G services has been disqualified and the company announced to file a complaint against such decision of the Agency for Electronic Communications. This issue brought a fair coverage in favor of T-Mobile. In October 2008, a new bid for awarding three 3G Technology licenses was going on. At the public opening of the bids, T-Mobile as the only bidder, and this news brought lots of (mainly neutral) coverage for T-Mobile. The negative articles on T-Mobile were mostly related to the bid for services for MPs (10 articles, 33.3%) and the bid for 3G services (8 articles, 26.7%). Issue Category Time Articles T-Mobile’s offer for 3G Technology is considered to be P&S 3G 28-30.01.2008 8 inadequate Bid for mobile services for MPs: T-Mobile gave luxury P&S MPs 8.01.-10.02.2008 10 mobile phones to MPs, the Anti-Corruption Committee opens a procedure Makraduli: T-Mobile is Charging More than it Promised P&S 9.04.2008 1 T Mobile’s network blocked P&S 25.07.2008 1 Skopje New Year decoration, sponsored by T-Mobile, is Sponsorship 16-26.12.2008 3 late, confusion of colors in Skopje City Square Other Various 2008 7 TOTAL 30 Figure 90: Negative issues on T-Mobile (published in 2008) 111
  • 112. Vest is the medium that published most negative articles about T-Mobile (4 articles), followed by Biznis and Sitel (3 negative articles each). 4 3,5 3 2,5 2 1,5 1 0,5 0 Negative articles Biznis  Sitel  A1  Denes  Dnevnik  Forum  Globus  MTV1  Nova Makedonija  Utrinski Vesnik  Valuta  Vecer  Vreme  www.dnevnik.com.mk  www.makfax.com.mk  www.total.com.mk  Vest  www.vest.com.mk  Kanal 5 Telma  Vest www.vreme.com.mk  Figure 91: Negative issues on T-Mobile in media Out of all media that covered telecommunication issues in 2008, Utrinski Vesnik has contributed most to the overall reputation of T-Mobile (Net reputation value = 84), followed by Dnevnik, Vecer (52 each), Sitel (46) and Vest (44). 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 ‐10 Figure 92: T-Mobile net reputation (split by medium)51 51 Large and detailed chart given in Annex V 112
  • 113. Regarding separate reputational components, again Utrinski Vesnik is the one that has contributed most to liking and trust in the company (Net reputational value = 21 and 16, accordingly). On the other hand, Forum magazine has contributed most to the negative image of T-Mobile in regard of emotional appeal, financial performace and vision and leadership, as well as Denes and Valuta. See Figure 93 for reputational components broken down by each of the media. 25 Quality  20 Value for money Innovative 15 Profitability Out‐performs 10 Growth Prospects Strong leadership Clear vision 5 Opportunities Good to work for 0 Good employees (plesent, polite) Vecer  ALSAT  Denes  Dnevnik  Spic  Kanal 77  Vreme  A1  Biznis  Antena  Magazin Plus  ERA  Forum  Kapital  Koha  Makedonsko Sonce  Sitel  Telma  Globus  Kanal 5  Makedonsko Radio  Lajm  Vest  MTV1  MTV2  www.vecer.com.mk  Semeen Magazin  Utrinski Vesnik  Valuta  Nova Makedonija  www.vreme.com.mk  www.dnevnik.com.mk  www.kirilica.com.mk  www.netpress.com.mk  www.spic.com.mk  www.kurir.com.mk  www.tocka.com.mk  www.mia.com.mk  www.novamakedonija.com.mk  www.idividi.com.mk  www.vest.com.mk  www.sitel.com.mk  www.utrinskivesnik.com.mk  www.telma.com.mk  www.makfax.com.mk  www.total.com.mk  Well‐managed ‐5 Causes (CSR, donations) Environment (eco friendly) People (sponsorships) Like Admire Figure 93: T-Mobile’s reputation (split by medium and reputational component)52 Overall, the company should work more on all areas to create a good reputation, but most of all to work on improving the reputation of a company which is good to work for, has good employees and is well-managed (workplace environment). On Net Key facts: After six years in the internet segment (mainly as an internet provider), from January 2007 On Net continued to spread its portfolio of services by offering fixed telephony. On Net was the first competitor to Makedonski Telekomunikacii, which until then was a monopoly. As an alternative fixed operator On Net had approximately 2% market share at the end of 2008. 52 Large and detailed chart given in Annex V 113
  • 114. Out of the top five telecommunication companies on the Macedonian market which have been examined for the purpose of this research, On Net is the least visible one. With only 58 media mentions during 2008, it holds less than 3% share of the telecommunication media coverage, out of which 40% in daily newspapers. 29% Daily newspapers 40% Magazines Radio 24% Televisions Internet 5% 2% Figure 94: Visibility of On Net: Number of media mentions by type of media On Net have gained little, but mostly positive coverage in media (93% positive and 7% neutral media mentions), generally thanks to the launch of the fixed telephony service in May 2008. As a second fixed operator that opened the fixed telephony market wish was till then under a monopoly of T-Home, On Net gained a vast positive coverage in the media. 7% 0% Positive Neutral 93% Negative Figure 95: Net Tone of On Net Having in mind the limited scope of coverage, it could be said that out of all media, Nova Makedonija and Vecer has contributed most to the overall reputation of On Net (Net reputation value = 12 each). See Figures 96 and 97 for net reputation and reputational components broken down by each of the media. 114
  • 115. 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Figure 96: On Net Net reputation (split by medium)53 6 Quality  5 Value for money Innovative 4 Profitability Out‐performs Growth Prospects 3 Strong leadership Clear vision Opportunities 2 Good to work for Good employees (plesent, polite) 1 Well‐managed Causes (CSR, donations) Environment (eco friendly) 0 People (sponsorships) Like Admire Trust Figure 97: On Net’s reputation (split by medium and reputational component)54 Overall, the company should work not only on promoting the quality of its products and services but on all areas equally in order to build a reputation. Lack of visibility in media brings lack of a clear perception of company’s reputation in general and it should make more effort to create its image through the media. 53 Large and detailed chart given in Annex V 54 Large and detailed chart given in Annex V 115
  • 116. VI. Conclusion Measuring corporate reputations accurately is crucial if they are to be managed. With regular measurements of reputation a company could accurately identify weak, strong and critical elements of reputation, which is crucial for building successful programs of reputation management. And at the same time regular measurements provide ongoing verification of successfulness possible. Measuring reputation can show how effectively a company is communicating with the media, stakeholders and employees, among others. This information can then be incorporated into future planning to help improve the effectiveness of PR, and subsequently, reputation. Yet measures of reputation proliferate, encouraging chaos and confusion about a company’s reputational assets. Some are randomly performed by private panels and so are not replicable. Some are carried out with private information and so are unverifiable. The result has been a veritable cacophony of ratings, few of which are directly comparable. To overcome the inherent biases of different rating systems, in 1998 the Reputation Institute and the market research firm of Harris Interactive collaborated to create a standardized instrument that could be used to measure perceptions of companies across industries and with multiple stakeholder segments. They differentiated 20 attributes (under 6 dimensions) according to which a corporate reputation should be measured. Today, these attributes are a basis for the most popular reputation measurement methods in world’s markets. The Macedonian industry, on the other hand, has extremely low knowledge of reputation management and ways of measuring corporate reputation. The survey conducted on 124 Macedonian communication professionals and CEOs revealed that only 8% of the companies have tried to measure their corporate reputation and many as 23% have never heard that corporate reputation can be measured. Monitoring, clipping and research agencies do not offer standardized reputation measurement services neither, although they are willing to run reputation surveys and analysis on demand. In general, there are no standardized methods of measuring reputation and no public ranking lists of companies’ reputation. Most companies 116
  • 117. and their management have a gut feeling for whether their reputation is good or poor, but this is not always reliable or accurate. Starting from this point, and taking into consideration the worldwide established practice of measuring how companies or brands are perceived and how much the PR efforts are giving results, I have developed a model of measuring corporate reputation which adjusted to local conditions was implemented on Macedonian (in this case telecommunication) companies. The model measures one specific (external) factor – the mainstream media and the impact they have on the companies’ reputation. For the purposes of this paper, the model is called MICRa - Media Impact on Corporate Reputation analysis. MICRa is a tailor made method of measuring the media impact on the corporate reputation, adjusted to a specific market (small market, market segment or industry), using as a base the existing PR evaluation models and the key reputational drivers as defined by Charles Fombrun and the Reputation Institute. Compared to the Fombrun model, several key adjustments are made: 1) reputation is analyzed within the context of the industry only; 2) MICRa focuses only on the impact that mainstream media have on the corporate reputation; 3) the set of reputational dimensions are narrowed and adjusted to relevancy of the industry; and 4) MICRa model includes other PR evaluation methods of analysis as well. As such, the MICRa model measures the media impact on the corporate reputation through measuring the visibility, tonality and media exposure, and analyzing the media content according to the set of relevant reputational drivers. The analysis shows the ranking of telecommunication companies, by different components, factors and reputation drivers. It is an assessment of how news coverage reflects and helps to shape the public’s perception of the corporate reputation of the telecommunication companies in Macedonia, and does not show the actual public’s perception of corporate reputation of these companies. The analysis is based on relevant news articles from national and local, print and electronic media in Macedonia (including online news portals) published during 2008. The media base included a list of: 11 daily newspapers, 18 magazines, 12 television channels, 2 radio stations and 29 web sites and news portals. Relevant articles from those media were selected according to a list of relevant key words contained in the coverage, such as: telecommunication, telephone, mobile operator, internet, etc., also including the names of all 117
  • 118. telecommunication companies. In total 4,154 articles containing at least one of the key words were located, out of which 1,952 specifically mention at least one of the telecoms (T-Home, T-Mobile, Cosmofon, VIP, or On Net) that were a subject of detailed MICRa analysis and profiling for purposes of this research paper. As an output, the MICRa analysis presents rankings of the top five telecommunication companies by visibility, tonality, net reputation (also broken down by each of the reputational dimensions separately) and media impact, as well as by media exposure. The analysis also provides the ranking of the companies by their relative performance, and presents each of the companies with their reputational media portrait (i.e. reputational media reality of each of the companies). These outputs at the end are used to understand how these companies are being portrayed in the news and to understand the effectiveness of their media relations efforts. Recommendations to each of the companies are provided, where (in which segments or areas, and with what media) to invest their PR efforts in order to improve their overall corporate reputation. As overall result, this research suggests an applicable tailor-made model for measuring media impact on corporate reputation on the local market and specifically telecommunication industry in Macedonia. The main implication that could be drawn for communication practitioners is that the public relations profession should turn its attention to reputation management as a strategic process, with measurable business outcomes that differentiate the organization against competitors. The traditional focus on public relations on crisis communications and corporate social responsibility (CSR) should be seen as tactics within the overall reputation program, but it should be recognized that these are tactics, not a reputation program. Reputation measurement should be an ongoing part of doing business. Another important implication refers to the small business (small and medium enterprises – SME). Reputation for the SME is equally important as for the large companies, but they often have not enough resources for such a complex and sophisticated analysis of their reputation. The SME can invest in more simple analysis and measure reputation, focusing only on the most relevant reputation dimensions, and surveying special audiences and specific stakeholders. For instance, out of the six drivers and 20 components listed that influence 118
  • 119. reputation, the perception of a company’s products and services is the key factor driving overall reputation. That means that smaller companies wanting to improve their reputations should strive mostly to emphasize product quality, innovation and value. From this perspective, also a key recommendation ensues for further development of corporate reputation measurement. The next level is finding an accurate way to measure online reputation, focusing on social media, including social networks (like Facebook, MySpace, hi5, Ning, Bebo), blogs, forums, video and image sharing sites (YouTube, Flickr), message boards, newsgroups, microblogging (such as Twitter and Yammer), and so on. Every day nearly a billion people are active on the web: blogging, commenting, creating, sharing ideas, forming into groups, organizing and discussing brands and companies among other, and all this means vast amounts of data. There are hundreds products that claim to offer online reputation management and metrics and research brands and reputation. The problem is that they only cover the surface of the web, using a connection just to Google or a combination of consumer search engines. They don’t connect to the deep web, or into social networks, newsgroups, forums or more. Online reputation metrics offered as a service on the web very often only measure visibility and traffic, not taking into consideration the share of voice and content analysis by reputational drivers. Social media understands first of all a conversation and this is what it should be measured. That is why this will be the next big challenge in measuring reputation of companies and brands and consequently in online reputation management. In addition, it will be even bigger challenge to find a way to monitor and measure reputation of word-of-mouth conversation happening offline. But that will probably remain to be more explored in the next communication revolution. 119
  • 120. VII. Reference List Key words: Reputation, Reputation management, Reputation Measurement Balboni, Bernardo. 2008. Perceived corporate credibility as the emergent property of corporate reputation’s transmission process. Munich Personal RePEc Archive. MPRA Paper No. 7944, posted 27. March 2008. Online at http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/7944/ Balmer, John M. T. And Greyser, Stephen A. Eds. 2003. Revealing the Corporation: Perspectives on identity, image, reputation, corporate branding, and corporate-level marketing. London, UK and New York, USA: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group. Brady, Arlo Kristjan O. 2005. The Sustainability Effect: Rethinking Corporate Reputation in the 21st Century. Hampshire and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Bugariska, Branka. 2009. Defining Corporate Reputation. Paper, manuscript. Cooke, Chris. 1999. Brand vs. reputation: managing an intangible asset. Communication World (February 1, 1999). Available online at: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Brand+vs.+reputation:+managing+an+intangible+asset.- a054116091 Cravens, Caren; Oliver, Elizabeth Goad and Ramamoorti, Sridhar. 2003. The Reputation Index: Measuring and Managing Corporate Reputation. In: European Management Journal Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 201–212, April 2003. Dalton, John and Croft, Susan. 2003. Managing Corporate Reputation. London, UK: Thorogood. Davies, Gary et al. 2003. Corporate Reputation and Competitiveness. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Doorley, John and Garcia, Helio Fred. 2007. Reputation Management: The Key to Successful Public Relations and Corporate Communication. New York, NY, USA: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Dunn, Jennifer. 2006. Reputation and Trust: A Multi-Dimensional Perspective. Wharton University of Pennsylvania, OPIM web. Available online at: http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/risk/ackoff/Ackoff2006/Dunn2006.pdf Elearn (Elearn training company). 2005. Reputation Management: Management Extra. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Ltd. 120
  • 121. Figini, Silvia; Giudici, Paolo and Sayago, Juan Tomas. 2009. Statistical Methods for Reputation Measurements. Dipartimento de Statistica ed Economia applicate “Libero Lenti”. Available online at: http://www-1.unipv.it/dipstea/workingpapers/final_paper_reputation.pdf Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Available online at: http://people.umass.edu/aizen/f&a1975.html Fombrun, C. and Shanley, M. 1990. What's in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 233-258. Fombrun, Charles. 1996. Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Fombrun, Charles J. and Foss, Christopher B. 2001. Developing a Reputation Quotient. The Gauge. Delahaye Medialink’s Newsletter of Worldwide Communications Research, Vol. 14, No. 3, May 14th, 2001. Fombrun, Charles. 2003. Corporate reputations can be measured and managed. Communicating CSR Magazine. Available online at: http://www.reputationinstitute.com/press/Fombrun_CSREurope_2003.pdf. Fombrun, Charles; and van Riel, Cees B.M. 2004. Fame & Fortune: How Successful Companies Build Winning Reputations. NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. Gaines-Ross, Leslie. 2008. Corporate Reputation: 12 Steps to Safeguarding and Recovering Reputation. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Gregory, James R. and Wiechmann, Jack G. 1997. Leveraging the Corporate Brand. Lincolnwood (Chicago, Illinois: NTC Contemporary Publishing Group, Inc. Griffin, Andrew. 2008. New Strategies for Reputation Management: Gaining Control Of Issues, Crises And Corporate Social Responsibility. London, UK and Philadelphia, PA, USA: Kogan Page. Griffin, Gerry. 2002. Reputation Management. Oxford, UK: Capstone Publishing (a Wiley company). Golin, Al. 2003. Trust or Consequences. New York, NY: Institute for Public Relations. Available online at: http://www.instituteforpr.org/files/uploads/Al_Golin2003.pdf Hannington, Terry. 2004. How to Measure and Manage Your Corporate Reputation. Hants, England: Gower Publishing Limited. Haywood, Roger. 2005. Corporate Reputation, the Brand and the Bottom Line: Powerful Proven Communication Strategies for Maximizing Value. 3rd ed. London and Sterling, VA: Kogan Page Ltd. Jackson, Kevin T. 2004. Building Reputational Capital: Strategies for Integrity and Fair Play That Improve the Bottom Line. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc. 121
  • 122. Klein, Pamela. 1999. Measure What Matters. Communication World (October 1, 1999). Available online at: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Measure+What+Matters.(corporate+image)-a057786894 Lienemann, Ralf and Baikaltseva, Elena. 2004. Media relations measurement: Determing the value of PR to your company’s success. Hants, England and Burlingto, USA: Gower Publishing Ltd. Mahon, John F. 2002. Corporate Reputation. Business & Society, Vol. 41, No. 4, 415-445 (2002), DOI: 10.1177/0007650302238776. Marconi, Joe. 2001. Reputation Marketing: Building and Sustaining Your Organozation’s Greatest Asset. American Marketing Association (AMA) and McGraw Hill Text. Macnamara, Dr Jim. 2006. Reputation Measurement and Management. Research paper. CARMA Media Monitors Pty Ltd. Martin, Graeme and Hetrick, Susan. 2006. Corporate Reputations, Branding and People Management: A Strategic Approach to HR. Burlington, MA, USA: Butterworth-Heinemann is an imprint of Elsevier. Melewar, T. C. Ed. 2008. Facets of Corporate Identity, Communication, and Reputation. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Money, Kevin and Hillenbrand, Carola. 2005. Beyond Reputation Measurement: Placing Reputation within a model of value creation by integrating existing measures into a theoretical framework. Paper for presentation at the 10th International Conference on Corporate Reputation, Image, Identity and Competitiveness, New York 25-28 May. Neef, Dale. 2003. Managing Corporate Reputation and Risk: Developing a Strategic Approach to Corporate Integrity Using Knowledge Management. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Ltd. Norwalk, Conn. 2001. New Measure of Corporate Reputation Released by Delahaye Medialink and The Reputation Institute. Business Wire, Aug. 21, 2001. Available at: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2001_August_21/ai_77346371/ Quinn, Lawrence Richter. 2004. Corporate reputations: don't give them something to talk about; observing the pummeling of many brands and reputations, smart companies are valuing their assets and designing programs to minimize negative fallout following a disaster--and reduce possibilities that one will occur. Financial Executive (January 1, 2004). Available online at: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Corporate+reputations%3a+don%27t+give+them+something+ to+talk+about%3b...-a0112360401 Rayner, Jenny. 2003. Managing Reputational Risk: Curbing Threats, Leveraging Opportunities. Chichester, West Sussex PO19 8SQ, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 122
  • 123. Reuvid, Jonathan. Ed. 2005. Managing Business Risk: A practical guide to protecting your business. 2nd ed. London, UK and Sterling, VA, USA: Kogan Page Ltd. Rindova, V. and Fombrun, C. 1999. Constructing competitive advantage: The role of firm- constituent interactions. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 691-710. Available online at: http://www.smith.umd.edu/Faculty/vrindova/pdfs/Rindova&Fombrun(1999).pdf Rindova, V. P., Williamson, I. O., Petkova, A. P., & Sever, J. M. 2005. Being good or being known: An empirical examination of the dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of organizational reputation. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 1033-1049. Rossides, Dr. Nicos. 2008. Reputation Management: A key intangible asset. MASMI. Available online at: http://www.masmi.com/masmic5_v1en/front- end/main.php?action=aatext&page=&design=default&aatext_id=113 Schreiber, Elliot S., Ph.D. 2006. Reputation and Brand Management: The Role of Corporate Communications in Building and Retaining Value. Presentation given at the Public Relations Leadership Forum, Atlanta, Georgia, January 26, 2006. Schreiber, Elliot S., Ph.D. 2008a. Reputation. Institute for Public Relations. Essential Knowledge Project. Available online at: http://www.instituteforpr.org/essential_knowledge/detail/reputation/ Schreiber, Elliot S., Ph.D. 2008b. Brand and Reputation: A Leadership Perspective. Presentation given at the Reputation Conference, Henley Business School, November 25, 2008. Available online at: http://www.instituteforpr.org/files/uploads/Schreiber_Henley_Presentation.pdf Schultz, M; Mouritsen, J. and Gabrielsen, G. 2001. Sticky Reputation: Analyzing a Ranking System. Corporate Reputation Review (2001) 4, 24–41; doi:10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540130. Copenhagen Business School, Denmark. Shapiro, Carl. 1983. Premiums for High Quality Products as Returns to Reputations. In The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1983, vol. 98, issue 4, pages 659-79. Available online at: http://www.jstor.org/pss/1881782 Solove, Daniel J. 2007. The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor, and Privacy on the Internet. Yale University Press. Stigler, George Joseph. 1962. The organization of industry. 5th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Taylor, Simon. 2001. Defending Your Reputation: A Practical Guide to Crisis Communications. London, UK: Thorogood. Yang, S. U., & Grunig, J.E. 2005. Decomposing organizational reputation: The effects of organization-public relationship outcomes on cognitive representations of organizations and evaluations of organizational performance. Journal of Communication Management, 9, 305- 325. 123
  • 124. Zabala, Ignacio; Panadero, Goyo ; Gallardo, Luis M.; Amate, Carlos Martín; Sánchez- Galindo, Miguel; Tena, Ignacio and Villalba, Ignacio (Corporate Reputation Team of Deloitte Spain). 2005. Corporate Reputation in Professional Services Firms: 'Reputation Management Based on Intellectual Capital Management'. Corporate Reputation Review (2005) 8, 59–71; doi:10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540239. Key words: Brand, Brand equity, Brand management, Measurement of brand values, Marketing Aaker, David A. 1995. Building strong brands. New York, NY, USA: The Free Press, A Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc. Abrahams, David. 2008. Brand Risk: Adding Risk Literacy to Brand Management. Hampshire, England: Gower Publishing Ltd. Arvidsson, Adam. 2006. Brands: Meaning and Value in Media Culture. London, UK: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Batey, Mark. 2008. Brand Meaning. London, UK: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Belch, George. E. and Belch, Michael A. 2003. Advertising and Promotion: An Integrated Marketing Communications Perspective. 6th ed. The McGrow-Hill Companies. de Chernatony, Leslie and McDonald, Malcolm. 2003. Creating Powerful Brands in Consumer, Service and Industrial Markets. 3rd ed. Oxford and Burlington: Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann. Clifton, Rita and Simmons, John. 2003. Brands and Branding. London, UK: Profi le Books Ltd. Copeland, Tom et al. 2000. Valuation: Measuring and Managing the Value of Companies. 3rd ed. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. David Haigh and Jonathan Knowles. 2004. How to define your brand and determine its value. MM, May/June 2004. Available online at: http://www.howbigisbrand.com/articles/2004%2006%20Defining%20Brand%20- %20MM.pdf Fog, Klaus; Budtz, Christian and Yakaboylu, Baris. 2005. Storytelling: Branding in Practice. Berlin, Heidelberg and New York: Springer. Glynn, Mark S. Ed. 2009. Business-To-Business Brand Management: Theory, Research and Executivecase Study Exercises. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Haig, Matt. 2003. Brand Failures. London, UK and Sterling, VA, USA: Kogan Page Ltd. Harris, Phil and McDonald, Frank. Eds. 2004. European Business and Marketing. 2nd ed. London, UK: SAGE Publications. 124
  • 125. Heding, Tilde; Knudtzen, Charlotte F. and Bjerre, Mogens. 2009. Brand Management: Research, theory and practice. London, UK: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Jaffe, Andrew. 2003. Casting for big ideas: A new manifesto for agency managers. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Joachimsthaler, Erich et al. 1999. Harvard Business Review on Brand Management. 5th ed. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Keller, Kevin Lane. 2001. Building Customer Based Brand Equity: A Blueprint for Creating Strong Brands. MSI Working Paper, Report No. 01-107, 2001. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute. Available online at: http://mktg.uni- svishtov.bg/ivm/resources/CustomerBasedbrandEquityModel.pdf Kotler, Philip. 2004. Ten Deadly Marketing Sins: Signs and Solutions. Hoboken, New Jersey, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Lenskold, James D. 2003. Marketing ROI: The Path to Campaign, Customer and Corporate Profitability. Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Miller, Jon and Muir, David. 2004. The Business of Brands. Chichester, West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Nicolino, Patricia F. The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Brand Management. Indianopolis, IN, USA: Alpha Books, Pearson USA, Inc. Ormeño, Marcos. 2007. Managing Corporate Brands: A new approach to corporate communication. Germany: Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag. Schmitt, Bernd H. and Rogers, David L. Eds. 2008. Handbook on Brand and Experience Management. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. Schultz, Don E. and Barnes, Beth E. 1999. Strategic Brand Communication Campaigns. 5th ed. Lincolnwood, Illinois USA: NTC Contemporary. Swystun, Jeff. Ed. 2007. The Brand Glossary. © Interbrand 2007. Hampshire, England and New York, USA: Palgrave Macmillan. Key words: Corporate Communications, Public Relations and Reputation Anthonissen, Peter F. Ed. 2008. Crisis Communication: Practical PR Strategies for Reputation Management and Company Survival. London, UK and Philadelphia, PA, USA: Kogan Page. Cornelissen, Joep. 2004. Corporate Communications: Theory and Practice. London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd. 125
  • 126. Heath, Robert L. Ed. 2005. Encyclopedia of public relations. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc. Moloney, Kevin. 2000. Rethinking Public Relations: The spin and the substance. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Regester, Michael and Larkin, Judy. 2008. Risk Issues and Crisis Management in Public Relations: A Casebook of Best Practice. 4th ed. London, UK and Philadelphia, PA, USA: Kogan Page. Ruff, Peter and Aziz, Khalid. 2003. Managing Communications in a Crisis. Hants, England: Gower Publishing Limited. Seitel, Fraser P. 2007. The Practice of Public Relations. 10th ed. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc. Smith, Ronald D. Ed. 2002. Strategic planning for public relations. 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers. Theaker, Alison. 2004. The public relations handbook. 2nd ed. London, UK: Routledge (Taylor & Francis Group). Wilcox, Dennis L. et al. 2003. Public Relations: Strategies and Tactics. 7th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc. Wilcox, Dennis L. 2009. Репутацијата се гради со дела, а не со слогани и возвишени говори. Interview given for PR blog “Воглавно Јавно”, http://bugariska.crnaovca.mk/2009/11/intervju-wilcox/ Yaverbaum, Eric et al. 2006. Public Relations For Dummies®, 2nd Edition. Indianapolis, Indiana: Wiley Publishing, Inc. Key words: PR research, Media measurement and Public Relations evaluation Benchpoint/AMEC. 2009. Global Survey of Communications Measurement 2009 – Final Report. Available online at http://www.benchpoint.com/summit.pdf and http://www.amecorg.com/images/public/Global-Survey-Communications_Measurement- 2009.pdf. Carrol, Tina and Stacks, Don W. 2004. Bibliography of Public Relations Measurement (Underwritten by a grant from General Motors). Published by Institute of PR. Available at: http://www.instituteforpr.org/research_single/bibliography_of_measurement/ and http://www.instituteforpr.org/files/uploads/PRM_Bibliography.pdf Daymon, Christine and Holloway, Immy. Eds. 2002. Qualitative Research Methods in Public Relations and Marketing Communications. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. 126
  • 127. Daymon, Christine and Holloway, Immy. 2005. Qualitative Research Methods in Rublic Relations and Marketing Communications. London, UK: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Grunig, James E. and Grunig, Larissa A. 2001. Guidelines for Formative and Evaluative Research in Public Affairs. Published by Institute of PR. Available at: http://www.instituteforpr.org/research_single/guidelines_for_research/ Jeffries-Fox, Bruce. 2003. A Discussion of Advertising Value Equivalency (AVE). Florida: Institute for Public Relations, Commission on PR Measurement and Evaluation. Likely, Fraser. 2006. Communication and PR: Made to Measure. How to manage the measurement of communication performance. Strategic Communication Management. Canada: Melcrum Publishing Ltd. Lindenmann, Dr. Walter K., Ph.D. 2002. Guidelines for Measuring the Effectiveness of PR Programs and Activities. Published by Institute of PR, 2003. Available online at: http://www.instituteforpr.org/files/uploads/2002_MeasuringPrograms_1.pdf Lindenmann, Dr. Walter K., Ph.D. 2005. Putting PR Measurement and Evaluation into Historical Perspective. Published by Institute of PR, February 2005. Available online at: http://www.instituteforpr.org/files/uploads/PR_History2005.pdf Lindenmann, Walter K., Ph.D. 2006. Public Relations Research for Planning and Evaluation (Resource booklet). Published by the Institute for Public Relations, May 2006. Available on: www.instituteforpr.org. Michaelson, David and Griffin, Toni L. 2005. A New Model for Media Content Analysis. Published by the Institute for Public Relations. Available on: www.instituteforpr.org. Moss, Danny; Verčić, Dejan and Warnaby, Gary. Eds. 2000. Perspectives on Public Relations Research. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Paine, Katie Delahaye. 2002. How to measure your results in a crisis. Gainesville, FL: The Institute for Public Relations. Available from: http://www.instituteforpr.org/files/uploads/Crisis_2002.pdf Paine, K.D. 2007. Measuring Public Relationships. Berlin, NH: KD Paine and Partners. Riffe, Daniel; Lacy, Stephen and Fico, Frederick G. 2005. Analyzing Media Messages: Using Quantitative Content Analysis in Research. 2nd ed. Mahwah, New Jersey, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Assotiates, Inc., Publishers. Stacks , Dr. Don W. (ed). 2006. Dictionary of Public Relations Measurement and Research. Published by the Institute for Public Relations. Available on: www.instituteforpr.org. Surmanek, Jim. 1996. Media Planning: A Practical Guide, Third Edition. Chicago, Illinois, USA: NTC Business Books, NTC/Contemporary Publishing Group. (pp.25-30) 127
  • 128. Watson, Tom and Noble, Paul. 2007. Evaluating Public Relations: A Best Practice Guide to Public Relations Planning, Research and Evaluation. 2nd ed. London and Philadelphia: Kogan Page Ltd. Weiner, Mark and Bartholomew, Don. 2006. Dispelling the Myth of PR Multipliers and Other Inflationary Audience Measures. Published by the Institute for Public Relations, August 2006. Available on: www.instituteforpr.org. Williams, Sean D. 2009. Measuring “Company A”: A Case Study and Critique of a News Media Content Analysis Program. Institute for Public Relations, Commission on Measurement and Evaluation. Willis, Jackie. 2004. Data Analysis and Presentation Skills: An Introduction for the Life and Medical Sciences. Chichester, West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. References on Methodology, Research and Analysis Blaikie, Norman. 2003. Analyzing Quantitative Data: From Description to Explanation. London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd. Booth, Wayne C. et al. 2003. The Craft of Research. 2 ed. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Browne, M. Neil, and Keely, Stuart M. 2007. Asking the right questions: a guide to critical thinking. 8th ed. New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc. Crano, William D. and Brewer Marilynn B. 2008. Principles and Methods of Social Research. 2 ed. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers. Daraio, Cinzia and Simar, Léopold. 2007. Advanced Robust And Nonparametric Methods In Efficiency Analysis: Methodology And Applications. New York: Springer. Hartley, James. 2008. Academic Writing And Publishing: A Practical Guide. New York: Routledge. Law, John. 2004. After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. New York: Routledge. Luey, Beth (ed.) 2004. Revising Your Dissertation: Advice From Leading Editors. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University Of California Press. Moore, Sarah and Murray, Rowena. 2006. The Handbook of Academic Writing: A Fresh Approach. England: Open University Press. Patton, Michael Quinn. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 3 ed. SAGE Publications, Inc. Potter, Stephen (ed.). 2006. Doing Postgraduate Research. 2 ed. London, UK: SAGE Publications. 128
  • 129. Rugg, Gordon and Petre, Marian. 2007. A Gentle Guide to Research Methods. England: Open University Press, McGraw-Hill Education. Sapsford, Roger and Jupp, Victor. Eds. 2006. Data Collection and Analysis. 2nd ed. London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd. Willis, Jackie. 2004. Data Analysis and Presentation Skills: An Introduction for the Life and Medical Sciences. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Woods, Peter. 1999. Successful Writing for Qualitative Research. London, UK: Routledge. 129
  • 130. VIII. ANNEXES 130
  • 131. VIII.1. Overview of reputation definitions Company in the focus (company Individual in the focus activities/strategy, company values, and (perception of the Author of definition images it projects about itself) individual/stakeholder about the company) Stigler, 1962 Reputation is the way in which stakeholders determine whether an organization is worthy of their trust. Fombrun, 1996 Reputation is an intangible asset: As an A Corporate Reputation is a Rindova and Fombrun, 1999 intangible, reputation represents a firm’s perceptual representation of a Mahon, 2002 past actions and describes a firm’s ability company’s past actions and future to deliver value outcomes to multiple prospects that describe the firm’s stakeholders. overall appeal to all of its key constituents when compared with other leading rivals. Zaballa et. al, 2005 Corporate reputation of an enterprise is the prestige maintained through time which, based on a set of shared values and strategies and through the eminence achieved with each stakeholder, assures the sustainability and differentiation of the company via the management of its intellectual capital. Yang and Grunig, 2005 Reputation is the collective representations shared in the minds of multiple publics about an organization over time. Money and Carola, 2005 Reputation in a strategic context: asset Reputation in the generating activities of the firm, corporate personal/perceptual context: while reputation can be conceptualized as an reputation is clearly an asset of the intangible asset and consequences are firm, it is also clearly a concept understood as market assets and improved held in the minds, or cognitions of performance of a firm. stakeholders. Macnamara, 2006 Reputation Molecule: Reputation is what the people who matter think about what THEY think matters. Doorley and Garcia, 2007 Reputation is based on the organization’s behaviors, communications and relationships: sum of images= (performance and behavior) + Communication = sum of relationships Hurd, 2007 Reputation for businesses: a reputation is Reputation for individuals: a perceived by the parts of all the reputation is created by an inspired individuals that create it, the attitude of professional, detailing an ability to the team from top to bottom, the ability to execute strategic business manage financial changes, market shifts, decisions, display a talent for a product issues, workforce evolutions, niche, and noting critical situations corporate responsibility, social culture, that were expertly handled. and the ethics of the leadership. Rossides, 2008 Reputation as an asset (reputation is Reputation as a state of awareness something of value and significance to a (stakeholders have an awareness of 131
  • 132. firm) a company without judging it). Reputation as an assessment (stakeholders are judging or evaluating a firm). Balboni, 2008 Reputation from institutional perspective: Reputation from socio-economic an organization is widely recognized perspective: stakeholders evaluate among counterparts and stakeholders in its a company on specific attribute; organizational fields; it stands out defines corporate reputation as the compared to competitors, represents the counterpart’s expectations of a basic dimension of corporate reputation. particular attribute of an organization developed over long time. Schreiber, 2008 Organization’s perspective of reputation: Stakeholder’s perspective of reputation is an intangible asset that reputation: reputation is the allows the company to better manage the intellectual, emotional and expectations and needs of its various behavioral response as to whether stakeholders, creating differentiation and or not the communications and barriers vis-à-vis its competitors. actions of an organization resonate with their needs and interests. Wilcox, 2009 Corporate image: what the organization Corporate Reputation: collective believes it is and wants to project. perceptions of an organization's various stakeholders. A table of most common definition on corporate reputation, according to their focus (Bugariska, 2009) 132
  • 133. VIII.2. Overview of reputation measurement methodologies Name of Method Measured by Description of method Attributes measured Financial soundness, wise use of corporate assets, Top 10 companies by revenue are surveyed: value as a long term investment, social and Most Admired Fortune Magazine questionnaires are sent to executives, directors and environmental responsibility, people management, American Companies financial analysts within the industry segment quality of management, product and service quality, and innovation 7 reputational drivers (products and services, Factor analysis with respondents among the general innovation, workplace, citizenship, governance, RepTrak™ Reputation Institute public in about 25 countries leadership, and financial performance) with subsequent 23 attributes. 7 reputational drivers (products and services, Reputation Institute, Factor analysis with respondents among the general innovation, workplace, citizenship, governance, RepPulse published in Forbes public in about 25 countries leadership, and financial performance) with subsequent 23 attributes. 6 drivers of corporate reputation (products and Harris Interactive, services, financial performance, workplace Reputation Quotient Surveys corporate stakeholder group such as published in Wall environment, social responsibility, vision and (RQ) consumers, investors, employees, or key influentials Street Journal leadership, and emotional appeal) with subsequent 20 attributes 133
  • 134. Companies measure how they are perceived by stakeholders on each of the pillars and then assess Differentiation, relevance, esteem, expectations, Reputation “Pillars” Elliot S. Schreiber and close the gaps between current and desired knowledge and experience perceptions Analyzing news coverage in more than 100 media 6 drivers of corporate reputation (products and Delahaye Medialink outlets, Mri measures the media impact on corporate services, financial performance, workplace Media Reputation and Reputation reputation of the 100 largest US companies. Mri environment, social responsibility, vision and Index (Mri) Institute breaks down media coverage of companies into the leadership, and emotional appeal) with subsequent 20 categories of the Reputation Quotient attributes 6 drivers of corporate reputation (products and IRIS© – Intelligent The model encompasses the clipping data and the SPEM Communication services, financial performance, workplace Reputation data of the reputation researches, performed twice a Group environment, social responsibility, vision and Information System year. leadership, and emotional appeal) Monitor known issues and discover emerging opportunities and threats from across the mainstream Factiva Insight™: Factiva media, radio and television transcripts and consumer- N/A Reputation Intelligence generated content, including blogs and message boards 134
  • 135. Four criteria: 1. Opinion and perceptions (through qualitative survey or interview questions); 2. Awareness of the organization and/or of its services, Daily media analysis of 750 companies and is based products, strategy, values, etc. (in quantitative survey CARMA Reputation on leading media coverage in the USA on key issues or interview questions); 3. Profile (through CARMA International Matrix™ that appear to have the greatest impact on corporate quantitative media analysis measuring volume of reputation coverage x audience reach); and 4. Discourse (through qualitative media analysis examining key sources, messages and tone of comments in key media coverage). Media Perception Monitoring South The data is analyzed for publishing placement and Analyzing raw media coverage data from more than Index (MPI) or Africa (Prof. Nixon organizational reputation factors, resulting in a new 1500 print, broadcast and online media sources MediaPlus Kariithi) database that forms the basis for the new indices. Corporate Personality Personality traits, such as “warmth”, “emotion”, and Gary Davies Surveying stakeholders Scale others. 135
  • 136. VIII.3. Measuring corporate reputation in Macedonia – Survey results The objective of the survey was to examine how much the Macedonian companies (or do they at all) measure corporate reputation? The survey was published online and distributed through several (mainly online) channels: web, blog, social media, e-mail, as well as face-to-face interviews. The survey was made on 124 companies working in Macedonia, by random choice SAMPLE STRATIFICATION Companies by size (number of employees) Total no. of  Size of company % respondents Micro (1‐20 employees) 26 20,97% Small (21‐60 employees) 32 25,81% Medium (61‐120 employees) 41 33,06% Large (121‐300 employees) 13 10,48% Large (300+ employees) 12 9,68% Total 124 100,00% 10% 21% 10% Micro (1‐20 employees) Small (21‐60 employees) 26% 33% Medium (61‐120 employees) Large (121‐300 employees) Large (300+ employees) Companies by headquarter/city Total no. of  Company HQ: City % respondents Skopje 67 54,03% Bitola 14 11,29% Strumica 10 8,06% Ohrid 9 7,26% Stip 6 4,84% Kumanovo 5 4,03% Tetovo 4 3,23% Gostivar 3 2,42% Veles 2 1,61% Kavadarci 2 1,61% Missing data 2 1,61% Total 124 100,00% 136
  • 137. 3% Skopje 2% 2% 2% 2% 4% Bitola 5% Strumica 7% Ohrid 54% Stip 8% Kumanovo 11% Tetovo Gostivar Veles Kavadarci Companies by industry segment Total no. of  Companies: Line of work  % respondents Trade 19 15,32% Production 16 12,90% Financial 13 10,48% Intelectual services 13 10,48% HoReCa 10 8,06% Telecommunications 10 8,06% Healthcare 8 6,45% Non‐profit 8 6,45% Construction and building 7 5,65% Energy 6 4,84% Public service 5 4,03% Publishing 5 4,03% Missing data 4 3,23% Total 124 100,00% 137
  • 138. Trade 4% 4% 3% Production 5% 15% Financial 6% 13% Intelectual services 6% HoReCa 11% 8% Telecommunications 8% 11% 6% Healthcare Non‐profit Construction and building Energy RESULTS: OVERVIEW OF RESPONSES 1. Is reputation of your company measured in any way? Is reputation of your company  No.of  % measured in any way? respondents Yes, it is. 10 8,06% No, it isn't. 85 68,55% Never heard. 29 23,39% Total 124 100,00% 23% 8% Yes, it is. No, it isn't. 69% Never heard. 2. Who does (who is responsible for) the measurement of your company’s reputation? No.of  Where is the measurement done? % respondents In‐house (specialized department or person) 5 4,07% Outsource (specialized agency) 4 3,25% Other 1 0,81% Don't know (or: no one) 112 91,06% Missing data 1 0,81% Total 123 100,00% 138
  • 139. 1% 4% 3% 1% In‐house (specialized department or person) Outsource (specialized agency) Other Don't know / no one  91% Missing data No.of  Where is the measurement done? % respondents In‐house (specialized department or person) 4 40,00% Outsource (specialized agency) 5 50,00% Missing data 1 10,00% Total 10 100,00% 10% 40% In‐house (specialized department or person) 50% Outsource (specialized agency) Missing data 3. Which method is used for measuring your company’s reputation? Responses offered: Reputation Quotient (RQ), Media Reputation Index (MRi), Intelligent Reputation Information System© (IRIS), Corporate Reputation Index (RI), Safeguarding Reputation™, CARMA Reputation Matrix™ Which method is used for measuring your  No.of  % company’s reputation? respondents Corporate Reputation Index (RI) 1 0,81% Intelligent Reputation Information System© (IRI 4 3,23% Reputation Quotient (RQ) 1 0,81% Other 3 2,42% Don't know 114 91,94% Missing data 1 0,81% Total 124 100,00% 139
  • 140. 1% 3% 1% 1% 2% Corporate Reputation Index (RI) Intelligent Reputation Information System©  (IRIS) Reputation Quotient (RQ) Other 92% Don't know Missing data Which method is used for measuring your company’s  No.of  % reputation? respondents Corporate Reputation Index (RI) 1 10,00% Intelligent Reputation Information System© (IRIS) 4 40,00% Reputation Quotient (RQ) 1 10,00% Other 3 30,00% Missing data 1 10,00% Total 10 100,00% Corporate Reputation Index (RI) 10% 10% Intelligent Reputation Information System©  30% (IRIS) 40% Reputation Quotient (RQ) 10% Other Missing data 140
  • 141. 4. How often is the measurement done? Responses offered: Monthly, Quarterly, Semiannually, Annually, I don’t know, Other. No.of  How often is the measurement made? % respondents Monthly 2 1,61% Quarterly 3 2,42% Annually 3 2,42% Other 1 0,81% Don't know   113 91,13% Missing data 2 1,61% Total 124 100,00% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% Monthly Quarterly Annually Other 91% Don't know   Missing data 11% 22% Monthly 33% Quarterly Annually 34% Other 141
  • 142. 5. Have the data from the measurement helped you in managing of a crisis or in improvement of your company’s reputation in general? Responses offered: No; I don’t know; Yes - How? Did you find research data useful and applicable in  No.of  % improving your company's reputation? respondents Yes 7 5,65% No 6 4,84% Don't know   110 88,71% Missing data 1 0,81% Total 124 100,00% 1% 5% 5% Yes No Don't know   89% Missing data 46% 54% Yes No CROSS ANALYSIS Experience in measuring reputation vs. Size of company Number of employees Is reputation of your company  measured in any way? 1‐20 21‐60 61‐120 121‐300 300+  Total Yes, it is. 2 3 1 0 4 10 No, it isn't. 15 16 36 10 8 85 Never heard. 10 13 4 2 0 29 Total 27 32 41 12 12 124 142
  • 143. 40 35 30 25 Yes, it is. 20 No, it isn't. 15 Never heard. 10 5 0 1‐20 21‐60 61‐120 121‐300 300+ Experience in measuring reputation vs. Headquarters of company Company HQ: City Is reputation of your company  measured in any way? Bitola Gostivar Kavadarci KumanovoVeles Ohrid Skopje Stip Strumica Tetovo Missing D Total Yes, it is. 10 10 No, it isn't. 10 1 3 1 8 49 3 7 3 85 Never heard. 4 2 2 2 1 1 8 3 3 1 2 29 Total 14 3 2 5 2 9 67 6 10 4 2 124 50 45 40 35 30 25 Yes, it is. 20 15 No, it isn't. 10 Never heard. 5 0 143
  • 144. Only companies from Skopje have measured corporate  reputation... Bitola Gostivar Kavadarci Kumanovo Veles Skopje; 100% Ohrid Skopje Stip Experience in measuring reputation vs. Industry Companies: Line of work  Is reputation of your company  measured in any way? ConstructiEnergy Financial HealthcareHoReCa Intelectumissing daNon‐profi ProductionPublic servPublishingTelecommTrade Yes, it is. 0 0 2 0 2 3 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 Measuring reputation according to company's line of work 0% 0% 0% Construction  0% 20% 20% Energy 0% 0% Financial 10% Healthcare 20% HoReCa Intelectual services 0% 30% missing data 0% Non‐profit Production Public service 144
  • 145. VIII.4. MICRa: Measuring media impact on corporate reputation of telecommunication companies in Macedonia Media tracking - selecting articles including the following list of key words (by alphabetical order): List of Key words 3G Nexcom AEK (Agency for Electronic Communications) On Net Cosmofon Ote, Cosmote Fiksna telefonija (fixed telephony) Telekom (Makedonski Telekomunikacii, T- Home) Germanos Telekomunikacii GPRS T-Mobile (Mobimak) Interkonekciski dogovor (Interconnection UMTS Agreement) Internet ponudi (internet offers) Vip Kabelski operatori (cable operators) Wifi Mobilen operator (mobile operator) Wimax Mobilna telefonija (mobile telephony) Wireless The media base included a list of: 11 daily newspapers, 18 magazines, 12 television channels, 2 radio stations and 29 web sites and news portals: Daily Newspapers Biznis Lajm Vecer Dnevnik Nova Makedonija Vest Fakti Spic Vreme Koha Utrinski Vesnik Magazines Antena Kapital Tea Moderna Avantgarde Kompletna Toj Denes Life Magazine Ubavina i zdravje Fokus Magazin Plus Valuta Forum Makedonsko Sonce Vikend Globus Semeen Magazin VIP Gala Television* A1 Era MTV2 A2 Kanal 5 Sitel Alfa MTM SkyNet Alsat MTV1 Telma * prime time news + selection of relevant special shows 145
  • 146. Radio* Kanal 77 Makedonsko Radio * news/informative programs Web Sites www.365.com.mk www.kurir.com.mk www.taratur.com www.a1.com.mk www.makfax.com.mk www.telma.com.mk www.avtoplus.com.mk www.mia.com.mk www.tirekovmirece.com.mk www.dnevnik.com.mk www.mmm.com.mk www.tocka.com.mk www.forum.com.mk www.netpress.com.mk www.total.com.mk www.idividi.com.mk www.novamakedonija.com.mk www.utrinskivesnik.com.mk www.kajgana.com www.on.net.mk www.vecer.com.mk www.kanal5.com.mk www.sitel.com.mk www.vest.com.mk www.kanal77.com.mk www.spic.com.mk www.vreme.com.mk www.kirilica.com.mk www.style.blog.com.mk Methodology Measuring media impact on corporate reputation (key factors): • Visibility: – Number of media mentions (articles, media stories) – Media types • Tonality: – Tone of media mentions (positive, neutral, negative) • Media content: – Presence of reputation components and drivers (6 key reputation drivers, 18 components) • Media exposure: – Exposure to audience (impressions) – Factors contributing to the likelihood that a company within a story will be seen and better remembered (front page, headline, first mention, citation, visual corporate identity) 146
  • 147. VISIBILITY Media mentions, media types Number of media mentions by company Company No. % T‐Home (MT) 673      16,20  Cosmofon 651      15,67  VIP 323       7,78  T‐Mobile 247       5,95  OnNet 58       1,40  Other 2202      53,01  Total 4154  100,00  16% T‐Home (MT) Cosmofon 16% VIP 53% T‐Mobile 8% OnNet 1% 6% Other Number of media mentions by company (subject of analysis) Company No. % T‐Home (MT) 673      34,48  Cosmofon 651      33,35  VIP 323      16,55  T‐Mobile 247      12,65  OnNet 58       2,97  Total 1952  100,00  3% 13% 34% T‐Home (MT) 17% Cosmofon VIP T‐Mobile OnNet 33% Number of media mentions by type of media 147
  • 148. Company No. % Daily newspapers 868      44,47  Magazines 101       5,17  Radio 38       1,95  Televisions 402      20,59  Internet 543      27,82  Total 1952  100,00  28% Daily newspapers 44% Magazines Radio Televisions 21% Internet 2% 5% Company vs. Media type Split of media type by company Company T‐Home T‐Mobile Cosmofon VIP OnNet Total Daily newspapers 307 111 260 167 23 868 Magazines 31 17 34 16 3 101 Radio 11 8 11 7 1 38 Televisions 140 40 161 47 14 402 Internet 184 71 185 86 17 543 Total 673 247 651 323 58 1.952 800  700  600  Internet 500  Televisions 400  300  Radio 200  Magazines 100  Daily newspapers 0  T‐Home T‐Mobile Cosmofon VIP OnNet 148
  • 149. TONALITY Tone of media mentions of companies Tone of media mentions of companies * Media mentions presented as absolute numbers (total number of media mentions) Company Positive Neutral Negative Total T‐Mobile 157 60 30 247 VIP 256 58 9 323 COSMOFON 474 153 24 651 OnNet 54 4 0 58 T‐Home (MT) 274 172 227 673 TOTAL 1215 447 290 1952 500 400 T‐Mobile 300 VIP 200 COSMOFON 100 OnNet 0 T‐Home (MT) Positive Neutral Negative Tone of media mentions of companies * Media mentions presented as a sum Company Positive Neutral Negative Total T‐Mobile 157 60 ‐30 187 VIP 256 58 ‐9 305 COSMOFON 474 153 ‐24 603 OnNet 54 4 0 58 T‐Home (MT) 274 172 ‐227 219 TOTAL 1215 447 ‐290 1372 474 500 400 256 274 300 157 153 172 Positive 200 60 58 54 Neutral 100 40 0 Negative ‐30 ‐9 ‐24 ‐100 ‐200 ‐300 ‐227 149
  • 150. Tone of media mentions of companies * Media mentions presented as a percentage of total coverage of a company Ranking of companies by tonality 150
  • 151. TIMELINE Media mentions of companies over time (by months and dates) * Media mentions by months, presented as absolute numbers (total number of media mentions) Month 2008 T‐Mobile VIP Cosmofon OnNet T‐Home (MT) Total media mentions January 55 7 95 6 8 171 February 21 37 35 0 22 115 March 12 22 93 3 28 158 April 16 12 31 3 70 132 May 2 43 26 39 163 273 June 3 27 94 3 104 231 July 13 24 57 0 52 146 August 15 16 5 1 17 54 September 5 67 61 1 56 190 October 10 15 41 0 13 79 November 39 17 43 0 51 150 December 56 36 70 2 89 253 Total 247 323 651 58 673 1.952 180  160  140  120  100  T‐Mobile 80  VIP 60  Cosmofon 40  OnNet 20  T‐Home (MT) 0  151
  • 152. Tone of media mentions of companies over time (with comments on the peaks) 152
  • 153. MEDIA CONTENT Presence of reputation components and drivers Key reputational drivers and components Products and Services Workplace Environment − offers high quality products/services − is well managed − offers products/services that are good − looks like a good company to work for value − looks like it has good employees − develops innovative products/services Financial Performance Social Responsibility − record of profitability − supports good causes − tends to outperform its competitors − environmentally responsible − strong prospects for future growth − treats people well Vision and Leadership Emotional Appeal − has excellent leadership − good feeling about the company − has a clear vision for the future − admire and respect the company − recognizes/takes advantage of market − trust the company opportunities Net Reputation (total coverage by reputational drivers) 3000 2570 2500 2000 1500 1056 1000 654 599 500 142 0 COSMOFON VIP T‐Home  T‐Mobile OnNet (MT) The presence of each component in a media article is coded with 1 if mentioned in positive or neutral sense, or - 1 if mentioned in a negative sense. Theoretically, a value of one article can range from -18 (if all of the components are mentioned with a negative tone), through 0 (if none of the components are present), to 18 points (if all of the components are mentioned in neutral or positive sense). "Net reputation" represents the sum of those codes, measured by subtracting the sum of negative reputation codes out of the positive. Beside as a sum, net reputation can also be presented as a percentage of total coverage of a company, similar to the net tone. 153
  • 154. "Net reputation" presented as a percentage of total coverage of a company, similar to the net tone. T‐Home  Company: T‐Mobile VIP COSMOFON OnNet TOTAL (MT) Quality 73 147 114 43 114 491 Product and  Value for money 16 80 250 18 17 381 Services Innovative 55 62 101 4 99 321 Total 144 289 465 65 230 1193 Profitability 10 8 125 0 13 156 Financial  Out-performs 6 ‐7 9 0 ‐26 ‐18 Performance Growth Prospects 11 23 135 0 ‐28 141 Total 27 24 269 0 ‐41 279 Key reputational drivers Strong leadership 2 20 32 1 16 71 Vision and  Clear vision 80 130 227 7 115 559 Leadership  Opportunities 16 64 303 0 71 454 Total 98 214 562 8 202 1084 Good to work for 0 0 1 0 ‐27 ‐26 Workplace  Good employees ‐1 0 ‐3 0 ‐11 ‐15 Environment Well-managed 0 0 ‐1 0 ‐30 ‐31 Total ‐1 0 ‐3 0 ‐68 ‐72 Causes 15 2 127 5 29 178 Social  Environment 1 ‐2 9 0 ‐2 6 Responsibility People 67 94 66 2 86 315 Total 83 94 202 7 113 499 Like 161 242 452 54 172 1081 Emotional  Admire 12 34 131 0 ‐30 147 Appeal Trust 75 159 492 8 76 810 Total 248 435 1075 62 218 2038 TOTAL 599 1056 2570 142 654 5021 Net Reputation, broken down by companies, reputational drivers and reputational components 154
  • 155. 100% 80% 60% 40% T‐Home (MT) 20% OnNet COSMOFON 0% VIP ‐20% T‐Mobile ‐40% ‐60% ‐80% ‐100% Net Reputation, broken down by companies and reputational drivers 100% 17 13 76 114 99 16 115 71 29 86 172 66 452 50% 114 250 101 125 135 32 227 303 131 492 T‐Home (MT) 127 9 9 OnNet 0% 1 ‐1 COSMOFON ‐28 ‐30 ‐3 Opportunities Environment  Out‐performs Like Admire Quality  Innovative Good employees  Well‐managed Causes  People  Trust Profitability Growth Prospects Good to work for Value for money Clear vision Strong leadership ‐2 VIP ‐26 ‐27 ‐50% ‐30 T‐Mobile ‐11 ‐100% Net Reputation, broken down by companies and reputational components 155
  • 156. REPUTATIONAL DRIVERS OVER TIME Measuring key reputational drivers Products and Services Month 2008 T‐Mobile VIP COSMOFON OnNet T‐Home (MT) TOTAL January 7 14 90 5 3 119 February 5 38 76 0 ‐2 117 March 1 16 25 1 ‐1 42 April 1 12 7 1 9 30 May 1 62 2 55 47 167 Jun 0 48 42 2 33 125 July 1 21 38 0 ‐3 57 August 3 0 0 0 4 7 September 1 14 72 1 35 123 October 20 10 25 0 2 57 November 64 14 7 0 74 159 December 40 40 81 0 29 190 TOTAL 144 289 465 65 230 1193 100 80 60 T‐Mobile 40 VIP 20 COSMOFON 0 OnNet October August April September December March May Jun January February July November ‐20 T‐Home (MT) 40 35 30 25 T‐Mobile 20 VIP 15 Cosmofon  10 5 OnNet 0 T‐Home (MT) ‐5 ‐10 156
  • 157. Financial Performance Month 2008 T‐Mobile VIP COSMOFON OnNet T‐Home (MT) TOTAL January 0 0 5 0 0 5 February 6 8 4 0 4 22 March 2 0 48 0 0 50 April 0 0 0 0 0 0 May 0 ‐15 14 0 ‐30 ‐31 Jun 0 3 2 0 ‐86 ‐81 July 0 0 2 0 31 33 August 21 2 0 0 ‐12 11 September 0 24 60 0 37 121 October 0 1 54 0 10 65 November ‐3 0 42 0 0 39 December 1 1 38 0 5 45 TOTAL 27 24 269 0 ‐41 279 80 60 40 T‐Mobile 20 VIP 0 COSMOFON September October November December March May January February August April Jun July ‐20 OnNet ‐40 T‐Home (MT) ‐60 ‐80 ‐100 40 30 20 T‐Mobile 10 VIP Cosmofon  0 OnNet T‐Home (MT) ‐10 ‐20 ‐30 157
  • 158. Vision and Leadership Month 2008 T‐Mobile VIP COSMOFON OnNet T‐Home (MT) TOTAL January ‐14 0 116 1 ‐4 99 February 11 14 37 0 8 70 March 11 14 88 2 25 140 April 14 6 31 1 87 139 May 2 52 19 0 53 126 Jun 0 2 73 2 ‐1 76 July 19 2 54 0 0 75 August 12 12 5 1 ‐5 25 September 2 70 36 0 15 123 October 0 9 14 0 3 26 November 7 12 26 0 17 62 December 34 21 63 1 4 123 TOTAL 98 214 562 8 202 1084 140 120 100 80 T‐Mobile 60 VIP 40 COSMOFON 20 OnNet 0 T‐Home (MT) ‐20 ‐40 50 40 30 T‐Mobile 20 VIP Cosmofon  10 OnNet 0 T‐Home (MT) ‐10 ‐20 158
  • 159. Workplace Environment Month 2008 T‐Mobile VIP COSMOFON OnNet T‐Home (MT) TOTAL January 0 0 0 0 ‐2 ‐2 February 0 0 0 ‐1 ‐1 March 0 0 3 0 ‐5 ‐2 April 0 0 0 0 ‐47 ‐47 May 0 0 0 0 ‐8 ‐8 Jun 0 0 ‐4 0 ‐9 ‐13 July 0 0 ‐2 0 ‐2 August 0 0 0 0 0 0 September ‐1 0 0 0 0 ‐1 October 0 0 0 0 0 November 0 0 0 0 0 December 0 0 0 0 4 4 TOTAL ‐1 0 ‐3 0 ‐68 ‐72 10 0 T‐Mobile ‐10 VIP ‐20 COSMOFON OnNet ‐30 T‐Home (MT) ‐40 ‐50 5 0 ‐5 T‐Mobile VIP ‐10 Cosmofon  OnNet ‐15 T‐Home (MT) ‐20 ‐25 159
  • 160. Social Responsibility Month 2008 T‐Mobile VIP COSMOFON OnNet T‐Home (MT) TOTAL January 2 0 30 1 0 33 February 12 8 8 0 15 43 March 11 13 60 2 6 92 April 13 6 24 1 6 50 May 1 6 17 0 68 92 Jun 3 0 6 1 4 14 July 0 1 21 0 0 22 August 5 9 5 1 2 22 September 2 31 13 0 1 47 October 0 5 1 0 4 10 November 1 9 13 0 1 24 December 33 6 4 1 6 50 TOTAL 83 94 202 7 113 499 80 70 60 50 T‐Mobile 40 30 VIP 20 COSMOFON 10 0 OnNet September November October December March January August February April May Jun July T‐Home (MT) 12 10 8 T‐Mobile 6 VIP 4 Cosmofon  OnNet 2 T‐Home (MT) 0 ‐2 160
  • 161. Emotional Appeal Month 2008 T‐Mobile VIP COSMOFON OnNet T‐Home (MT) TOTAL January ‐5 7 156 7 ‐5 160 February 31 45 71 0 11 158 March 23 35 188 5 4 255 April 27 18 62 3 12 122 May 4 59 42 38 106 249 Jun 3 29 103 4 ‐39 100 July 7 17 103 0 34 161 August 27 21 10 2 ‐10 50 September 4 122 95 1 47 269 October 10 18 55 0 10 93 November 35 26 63 0 46 170 December 82 38 127 2 2 251 TOTAL 248 435 1075 62 218 2038 200 150 T‐Mobile 100 VIP 50 COSMOFON OnNet 0 T‐Home (MT) September November October December March May January August February April Jun July ‐50 ‐100 50 40 30 T‐Mobile 20 VIP 10 Cosmofon  OnNet 0 T‐Home (MT) ‐10 ‐20 ‐30 161
  • 162. MEDIA EXPOSURE Exposure to audience and Factors contributing to the likelihood that a company within a story will be seen and remembered Impressions Company Audience T‐Mobile          13.307.290  VIP          22.197.980  Cosmofon           67.146.092  OnNet           5.518.846  T‐Home (MT)           4.956.094  Grand Total      113.126.301  80.000.000       70.000.000       60.000.000       T‐Mobile 50.000.000       VIP 40.000.000       Cosmofon 30.000.000       20.000.000       OnNet 10.000.000       T‐Home (MT) ‐ T‐Mobile VIP Cosmofon OnNet T‐Home  (MT) Impressions presented as a sum of absolute numbers (not depending on tone of media mentions) 70.000.000       60.000.000       50.000.000       T‐Mobile 40.000.000       VIP 30.000.000       Cosmofon  20.000.000       OnNet 10.000.000       T‐Home (MT) ‐ T‐Mobile VIP Cosmofon  OnNet T‐Home  (MT) Net Impressions (sum of media articles impressions, depending on tone of media mentions) 162
  • 163. 200 166 144 150 100 51 46 50 16 0 Cosmofon  OnNet T‐Home  T‐Mobile VIP (MT) Media mentions on front pages (split by company) 476 453 500 400 300 219 166 200 100 37 0 Cosmofon  OnNet T‐Home  T‐Mobile VIP (MT) Mentions of companies in news headlines 550 540 600 500 400 262 300 197 200 49 100 0 Cosmofon  OnNet T‐Home  T‐Mobile VIP (MT) Mentions of companies in the news head (first mentions) 163
  • 164. 200 170 128 150 115 100 46 29 50 0 Cosmofon  OnNet T‐Home  T‐Mobile VIP (MT) Number of articles containing citations by company representatives 238 250 212 200 150 103 70 100 22 50 0 Cosmofon  OnNet T‐Home  T‐Mobile VIP (MT) Number of articles containing visual corporate identity elements 1600  1400  1200  T‐Home (MT) 1000  OnNet 800  Cosmofon  600  VIP 400  T‐Mobile 200  0  Front page Headline First  Citing Graphics mention Factors contributing to liking that the certain company and what is said about it in the article will be better remembered 164
  • 165. Company Front page Headline rst mentio Citing Graphics Total T‐Mobile 51 166 197 46 70 530 VIP 46 219 262 128 103 758 Cosmofon  144 476 550 170 238 1578 OnNet 16 37 49 29 22 153 T‐Home (MT) 166 453 540 115 212 1486 Total 423 1351 1598 488 645 4505 Total components of media impact on reputation (represented as sum of absolute numbers, not depending on tone) 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 Initial value of  1000 reputational drivers 500 0 Media Impact on  Reputational Drivers Total media impact on reputational drivers (compared to initial value of reputational drivers) Key reputational drivers Total Media Impact on Products and Financial Vision and Workplace Social Emotional Reputational Company Services Performance Leadership Environment Responsibility Appeal Drivers T‐Mobile 181,40 34,40 113,50 ‐1,20 93,30 290,60 712,00 VIP 367,10 32,80 263,80 0,00 107,00 532,10 1302,80 COSMOFON 595,70 339,00 699,70 ‐4,20 237,00 1332,20 3199,40 OnNet 85,10 0,00 8,30 0,00 7,10 77,30 177,80 T‐Home (MT) 292,00 ‐56,70 257,20 ‐85,70 143,70 276,30 826,80 TOTAL 1521,30 349,50 1342,50 -91,10 588,10 2508,50 6218,80 Total media impact on reputational drivers 165
  • 166. Company: T‐Mobile VIP COSMOFON OnNet T‐Home (MT) TOTAL Quality 93,00 187,00 146,30 56,90 143,80 627,00 Value for Product and  money 19,40 100,40 319,70 23,20 22,60 485,30 Services Innovative 69,00 79,70 129,70 5,00 125,60 409,00 Total 181,40 367,10 595,70 85,10 292,00 1521,30 Profitability 12,60 10,80 157,10 0,00 11,80 192,30 Financial  Out-performs 7,80 ‐8,60 11,60 0,00 ‐32,50 ‐21,70 Growth Media Impact on Reputational Drivers Performance 14,00 30,60 170,30 0,00 ‐36,00 178,90 Prospects Total 34,40 32,80 339,00 0,00 ‐56,70 349,50 Strong leadership 2,80 26,20 41,40 1,00 22,20 93,60 Vision and  Clear vision 90,70 154,20 270,70 7,30 142,30 665,20 Leadership  Opportunities 20,00 83,40 387,60 0,00 92,70 583,70 Total 113,50 263,80 699,70 8,30 257,20 1342,50 Good to work for 0,00 0,00 1,20 0,00 ‐34,20 ‐33,00 Good Workplace  employees ‐1,20 0,00 ‐4,10 0,00 ‐13,70 ‐19,00 Environment Well- managed 0,00 0,00 ‐1,30 0,00 ‐37,80 ‐39,10 Total ‐1,20 0,00 ‐4,20 0,00 ‐85,70 ‐91,10 Causes 17,30 2,10 155,00 5,10 32,50 212,00 Social  Environment 1,20 ‐2,20 10,00 0,00 ‐2,30 6,70 Responsibility People 74,80 107,10 72,00 2,00 113,50 369,40 Total 93,30 107,00 237,00 7,10 143,70 588,10 Like 191,20 295,40 557,60 69,00 225,10 1338,30 Emotional  Admire 14,80 45,00 164,80 0,00 ‐42,20 182,40 Appeal Trust 84,60 191,70 609,80 8,30 93,40 987,80 Total 290,60 532,10 1332,20 77,30 276,30 2508,50 TOTAL 712,00 1302,80 3199,40 177,80 826,80 6218,80 Total media impact on reputational drivers and components 166
  • 167. RELATIVE PERFORMANCE Measuring relative performance of the companies (compared with the average figures) by visibility, tonality, media content and media exposure Relative performance of companies in number of media mentions Above Average Average Below Average Relative performance of companies by media type Above  average T‐Home VIP Cosmofon Average OnNet Daily  Magazines Radio Televisions Internet T‐Mobile Bellow newspapers average Relative performance of companies by tone Above  average T‐Mobile VIP COSMOFON Average OnNet Positive Neutral Negative T‐Home (MT) Bellow average 167
  • 168. Relative performance of companies by reputation drivers Above  average T‐Mobile VIP COSMOFON OnNet Average T‐Home (MT) Below  average Relative performance of companies by media impact Above  average T‐Mobile VIP COSMOFON Average OnNet T‐Home (MT) Below average Relative performance of companies by impressions Above  average Average T‐Home  Cosmofon  VIP T‐Mobile OnNet Bellow  (MT) average 168
  • 169. TOP 5 RANKING Ranking of companies by reputation drivers and media impact on reputation Media Media Impact on Net Net Reputation Company Impact on Reputation Share RANK Reputation Share (%) Reputation (%) Cosmofon 2,570 51.19% 3,199.40 51.45% #1 VIP 1,056 21.03% 1,302.80 20.95% #2 T-Home 654 13.03% 826.80 13.30% #3 (MT) T-Mobile 599 11.93% 712.00 11.45% #4 On Net 142 2.83% 177.80 2.86% #5 TOTAL 5,021 100.00% 6,218.80 100.00% 169
  • 170. VIII.5. Reputation media portraits In addition to the detailed analysis of media impact on corporate reputation of the telecoms in Macedonia (MICRa), making of specific reputation portraits of each of the companies may also be found pretty handy. Media tracking data and analysis are used to understand how these companies are being portrayed in the news and survey research data to understand the effectiveness of their media relations efforts. Net reputation values of the five telecoms are given bellow, split by media and reputational components. 170
  • 171. Net reputation of Cosmofon (split by medium) 171
  • 172. Net reputation of Cosmofon (split by medium and reputational component) 172
  • 173. Net reputation of VIP (split by medium) 173
  • 174. Net reputation of VIP (split by medium and reputational component) 174
  • 175. Net reputation of T-Home (split by medium) 175
  • 176. Net reputation of T-Home (split by medium and reputational component) 176
  • 177. Net reputation of T-Mobile (split by medium) 177
  • 178. Net reputation of T-Mobile (split by medium and reputational component) 178
  • 179. Net reputation of On Net (split by medium) www.sitel.com.mk  www.netpress.com.mk  www.kirilica.com.mk  Telma  MTV2 MTV1  Makedonsko Sonce  Makedonsko Radio  Fakti  ALSAT  www.vreme.com.mk  www.vest.com.mk  www.utrinskivesnik.com.mk  www.spic.com.mk  www.makfax.com.mk  www.dnevnik.com.mk  Utrinski Vesnik  MTM  Koha ERA  Dnevnik A1  www.vecer.com.mk  www.total.com.mk  www.kanal5.com.mk  Vest  Spic  Sitel  Kapital  Kanal 5  Biznis  Vreme  Vecer  Nova Makedonija  0 2 4 6 8 10 12 179
  • 180. Net reputation of On Net (split by medium and reputational component) 180