Investor Relations 2 0 -  Global Benchmark Study 2012 - University of Leipzig
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Investor Relations 2 0 - Global Benchmark Study 2012 - University of Leipzig

on

  • 11,676 views

Empirical study investigating how corporations in the United States, Germany, United Kingdom, France, and Japan use social media for financial communications, both on their own websites and on ...

Empirical study investigating how corporations in the United States, Germany, United Kingdom, France, and Japan use social media for financial communications, both on their own websites and on external platforms including mobile channels. Global benchmark of 190 companies including the 150 largest firms listed on DJIA (Dow Jones Industrial Average, USA), FTSE (Financial Times London Stock Exchange Index, UK), CAC (Cotation Assistée en Continu quarante, France), DAX (Deutscher Aktien-Index, Germany), NIKKEI (Nihon Keizai Shimbun Index, Japan), as well as the top 10 companies in regard to market cap, and the top 10 companies in regard to performance of the US mid- and small-cap indices Russell Midcap and Russell 2000. As the third annual study in a row, this research provides longitudinal data and in-depth analysis based on content analysis and statistical evaluation. Authors: Ansgar Zerfass and Kristin Koehler, University of Leipzig, Germany

Statistics

Views

Total Views
11,676
Views on SlideShare
10,224
Embed Views
1,452

Actions

Likes
6
Downloads
192
Comments
0

10 Embeds 1,452

http://www.online-investorrelations.de 1019
http://www.irclub.de 175
http://www.scoop.it 146
http://www.ad-ministracao.com 93
https://www.rebelmouse.com 12
https://twitter.com 2
http://www.twylah.com 2
http://us-w1.rockmelt.com 1
http://translate.googleusercontent.com 1
http://www.wirtschaftskommunikation-studium.de 1
More...

Accessibility

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
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Investor Relations 2 0 - Global Benchmark Study 2012 - University of Leipzig Presentation Transcript

  • 1. INVESTOR RELATIONS 2.0 – GLOBAL BENCHMARK STUDY 2012Financial Communications, Online Dialogue and Mobile Information Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 1
  • 2. IMPRINT CONTENTS About this study 03 Methodology and sample 06 IR 2.0: Social media activities 13 Social media use in investor relations 14 Intensity of social media use 33 Social media activity index and summary 37 Best practices for IR 2.0 activity 42 IR 2.0: Dialogue and relationship building 51 Dialogic approach on IR websites 54 Dialogic approach on external platforms 59Ansgar Zerfass & Kristin Koehler Social media dialogue index and summary 67 Best practices for IR 2.0 dialogue 70Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012:Financial Communication, Online Dialogue and Mobile Information IR 2.0: Mobile applications 82Leipzig: University of Leipzig, 2012. Mobile applications in investor relations 83 Social media mobility index and summary 87With special thanks to Anika Mueller and Isabel Reinhardt for their Best practices for mobile applications 89great support.The use of the charts and data from this report in own presentations and IR 2.0: Management summary 95publications is permitted when quoting the source “© University of Global benchmark and summary of findings 96Leipzig / Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012” with Independent variables 99every figure and reference. Digital distribution and publishing of this Implications for investor relations practice 104report as well as storing the file on online platform by third parties isprohibited. About the authors 107This document is available for free at www.slideshare.net/communicationmanagement. References 111© June 2012 by the authors. All rights reserved. Appendix 114 Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 2
  • 3. ABOUT THIS STUDYInvestor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 3
  • 4. INVESTOR RELATIONS 2.0 – GLOBAL BENCHMARK STUDY 2012Key Facts Empirical study by the University of Leipzig with insights into how investor relations officers (IROs) in the United States, Germany, United Kingdom, France, and Japan are using social media to enhance their investor relations programs. Annual study, conducted for the third year in a row. Analysis of 190 global corporations including the 150 largest companies listed on DJIA (Dow Jones Industrial Average, USA), FTSE (Financial Times London Stock Exchange Index, UK), CAC (Cotation Assistée en Continu quarante, France), DAX (Deutscher Aktien-Index, Germany), NIKKEI (Nihon Keizai Shimbun Index, Japan), the top 10 companies in regard to market cap, and the top 10 companies in regard to performance of the US mid- and small-cap indices Russell Midcap and Russell 2000.Topics of the Study Current state of Investor Relations (IR) 2.0 in an international context, especially how DJIA, FTSE, NIKKEI, DAX, and CAC-listed companies are engaging online (tools, platforms, applications). Benchmark of large-cap companies in different major markets and emerging best practices for online IR. IR 2.0 trends and potential developments and opportunities for large-caps as well as small- and mid-cap companies. Relevance of social media in financial communications, e.g. impact on volatility, share performance, trading volume, foreign investment, free float, retail shareholders, or shareholder activism. Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 4
  • 5. BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH QUESTIONSFinancial markets are experiencing turbulent times. An atmosphere of high uncertainty is prevalent amonginvestors and other stakeholders within the financial community. Even more, the internet and especially socialmedia are increasing the amount of information and rumors distributed.Listed companies are facing the challenge of engaging in a digital dialog to (re-)build reputation and gain trustin a highly volatile communication environment. However, financial communications in practice still focus oninvestor relations websites as previous studies have shown (Koehler 2011, Köhler 2010). A strategic approachtowards an IR 2.0 engagement is still missing for most companies worldwide, even so it offers the possibility ofgreater transparency, increased interaction with a broader public and the potential for new financial stakeholders(Koehler & Zerfass 2011).The study at hand closes the research gap within investor relations and social media by analyzing IRdepartments’ social media engagement. Research questions comprise the three areas of social media activity,online dialogue and mobile information, and concentrate on differences within the five major markets US,Germany, UK, France and Japan.* Due to the longitudinal design, developments within IR 2.0 can bedemonstrated and trends named which are especially seen within a dialogic approach towards shareholdersonline. A new framework implements dialogic features and the relationship-building potential of IR 2.0 andoffers the possibility for an international benchmark and a strategic approach for companies towards online IR.* Social media and equity culture obviously act as intervening variables (comScore 2011, DAI 2011). Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 5
  • 6. METHODOLOGY AND SAMPLEInvestor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 6
  • 7. METHODOLOGYMethod Content analysis of companies’ investor relations websites and external social media platforms within a sample of 190 global companies including the 150 largest companies listed on DJIA (USA), FTSE (UK), CAC (France), DAX (Germany), NIKKEI (Japan), the top 10 companies in regard to market cap, and the top 10 companies in regard to performance of the US mid- and small-cap indices Russell Midcap and Russell 2000. Analysis included platforms and tools, predominant functions, topics, ratio between obligatory information and published news via social media, possibility for feedback, dialogue and relationship building with stakeholders, mobile applications, number of users, links, and service features. Period of analysis: December 2011 – March 2012 (independent variables: January 31, 2012). Content analysis of IR websites covered three months, plus last annual general meeting (AGM), last two quarterly earnings announcements, one analyst conference (obligatory measures). Content analysis for external platforms covered one month (but not within quiet period) plus obligatory measures as for the IR websites. Independent variables: industrial sector, sales market, index membership, free float, percentage of retail shareholders, number of employees within the IR department or staff responsible for IR, analyst coverage, foreign investors, volatility, share performance, trading volume (domestic market, US market), shareholder activism. Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 7
  • 8. METHODOLOGYStatistical Analysis Statistical analyses based on the methods of social sciences (descriptive and analytical statistics), using SPSS software tools. Results have been statistically evaluated by Pearsons chi-square (x²), Monte Carlo, Kruskal Wallis or Wilcoxon tests and are classified as significant (p ≤ 0.05) where appropriate. Statistically significant group differences were tested with variance analyses, and dependencies were tested via correlations. For this purpose, the correlation coefficient was determined for each instance, either Pearsons or Spearmans Rho, depending on the data volume. The higher these values, the stronger the correlation – with a maximum value of 1 with an overall probability value of α = 0.05. Significant facts are listed in the footnotes. Development of Investor Relations 2.0 indices for ranking and benchmarking the companies included within the sample (see Koehler 2011, Köhler 2010 for the conceptual framework and indices in previous years). Investor Relations 2.0 indices 2012:  Social Media Activity Index (based on social media use and intensity of use, p. 37 of this report)  Social Media Dialogue Index (p. 67 of this report; see also Droller 2012, Koehler 2011, Linke & Mahnke 2012, Murtarelli & Invernizzi 2011, Köhler 2010, Habermas 1990 for theoretical background and applications in communication research)  Social Media Mobility Index (p. 87 of this report). Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 8
  • 9. SOCIAL MEDIA TOOLS INVESTIGATED IN THIS STUDYAnalysis includes online activities on corporate websites and external platforms Tools on companies‘ IR websites External social media platforms RSS feed Content sharing platforms Podcast Webcast SlideShare Flickr Video/Vodcast Weblog YouTube Scribd Social media newsroom Microblogs Chat Wiki Social bookmark Twitter StockTwits Tagcloud Facebook buttons / Like Social communities Twitter buttons / Tweet Google+ buttons / Plus one Facebook Google+ Share buttons (different platforms) Links to external platforms Business platforms Mobile website IR app Virtual and hybrid shareholder meeting XING LinkedIn Online voting of shares (before AGM takes place) Text message (SMS) service IR related platforms QR code Rating function Retail Investor Conferences StockTwits Feedback functionStockTwits can be used both as a micro blog and as IR related platform. Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 9
  • 10. SAMPLECorporations and stock indices within this study Listed companies in the US, Germany, UK, France, Japan Listed companies in the US (large-caps) (large-, mid- and small-caps) 30 30 20 30 30 30 20 30 DJIA DAX FTSE CAC NIKKEI DJIA Russell Midcap Russell 2000N = 190 (no. of top 30 listed companies in DAX, DJIA, FTSE, CAC, NIKKEI and top 10 market cap & top 10 performance of Russell Midcap and Russell 2000). Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 10
  • 11. SAMPLE IN DETAIL: INTERNATIONAL LARGE-CAPSStudy includes companies listed in DJIA, DAX, FTSE, CAC, and NIKKEI Independent variables Industrial sector (mean values) (no. of companies in %) Employees in IR department (no. of Automobile 5.3% Insurance 3.3% 8 employees) Banks 8.7% Media 2% Free float (in %) 78.7 Basic Resources 11.3% Pharma/Healthcare 7.3% No. of retail shareholders (in %) 15.2 Chemicals 4% Retail 3.3% Analyst coverage (no. of analysts) 21 Construction 2% Software 1.3% No. of foreign investors (in %) 45.6 Consumer 13.3% Technology 5.3% Trading volume – domestic market 13,579,442.3 Financial Services 2.7% Telecommunication 6% (no. of shares traded daily) Trading volume – US-market (no. of Food/Beverages 4.7% Transportation 3.3% 665,180.1 shares traded daily) Industrial 10% Utilities 6% Volatility (in %) 32.8 Sales market Share performance (in %) -3.9 (no. of companies in %) Shareholder activism (no. of B2B B2C Both resolutions supported by less than 90% 2.8 of shareholder votes during last AGM) 30.7% 16.7% 52%Free float: percentage of shareholders owning less than 5% of shares outstanding; retail shareholders (or small investors): no. of individual shareholders who purchase relatively small lots of stocks forown portfolio (in contrast to institutional investors); trading volume domestic market: no. of overall shares traded on a daily basis at domestic stock exchange (mean values for 52 weeks, Japan: 200days); trading volume US market: mean values for direct listings or American Depositary Receipt ADR (for 52 weeks, Japan: 200 days; without DJIA); volatility, share performance: mean values fordomestic market (stock exchange) within last 250 trading days; shareholder activism: see Hoffmann et al. 2011 for theoretical background. N=150 for sales market, industrial sector, free float(standard deviation SD = 78.7), trading volume domestic market (SD = 28,825,899.4); N = 149 for share performance (SD = 20.5), volatility (SD = 11.0); N = 144 for analyst coverage (SD =10.8); N = 129 for shareholder activism (SD = 3.2); N = 112 for trading volume US market (SD = 1,524,785.2); N = 74 for retail shareholders (SD = 10.7); N = 72 for foreign investors (SD =19.4); N = 52 for employees in IR (SD = 4.7). Rounding errors may occur within a permitted context. Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 11
  • 12. SAMPLE IN DETAIL: US SMALL- AND MID-CAP COMPANIESStudy includes companies listed in Russell Midcap and Russell 2000 Independent variables Industrial sector (mean values) (no. of companies in %) Employees in IR department (no. of (–) Basic Resources 12.5% Media 5% employees) Free float (in %) 76.5 Chemicals 10% Pharma/Healthcare 22.5% No. of retail shareholders (in %) (–) Analyst coverage (no. of analysts) 15 Consumer 17.5% Retail 2.5% No. of foreign investors (in %) (–) Financial Services 2.5% Software 7.5% Trading volume – domestic market 1,957,646.8 (no. of shares traded daily) Industrial 7.5% Technology 2.5% Trading volume – US-market (no. of (–) shares traded daily) Insurance 2.5% Utilities 7.5% Volatility (in %) 54.5 Sales market Share performance (in %) 9.3 (no. of companies in %) Shareholder activism (no. of B2B B2C Both resolutions supported by less than 90% 1.9 of shareholder votes during last AGM) 40% 22.5% 37.5%Free float: percentage of shareholders owning less than 5 % of shares outstanding; retail shareholders (or small investors): no. of individual shareholders who purchase relatively small lots of stocksfor own portfolio (in contrast to institutional investors); trading volume domestic market: no. of overall shares traded on a daily basis at domestic stock exchange (mean values for 52 weeks, Japan:200 days); trading volume US market: mean values for direct listings or American Depositary Receipt ADR (for 52 weeks, Japan: 200 days; without DJIA); volatility, share performance: mean valuesfor domestic market (exchange) within last 250 trading days; shareholder activism: see Hoffmann et al. 2011 for theoretical background. N = 40 for sales market, industrial sector; N = 39 for freefloat (SD = 17.6); N = 38 for volatility (SD = 28.86), share performance (SD = 52.0); N = 37 for shareholder activism (SD = 2.1); N = 32 for analyst coverage (SD = 7.4). N = 2 for employeesin IR department, retail shareholders (no mean values provided due to small data base); N = 0 for foreign investors, trading volume US market. Rounding errors may occur within a permittedcontext. For German small- and mid-caps see Koehler 2011. Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 12
  • 13. INVESTOR RELATIONS 2.0: SOCIAL MEDIA ACTIVITIESInvestor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 13
  • 14. SOCIAL MEDIA USE IN INVESTOR RELATIONSSocial media established on IR website / External platforms less targeted Companies using social media Companies using external on the IR website social media platforms 4.2% 13% 4% 42% 95.8% 41% no. of companies using social media on IR website (in %) no. of companies using external platforms (in %) no. of companies not using social media on IR website (in %) no. of companies using external platforms with IR topics (in %) no. of companies using external platforms with IR channels (in %) no. of companies not using external platforms at all (in %)N = 190 (no. of top 30 listed companies in DAX, DJIA, FTSE, CAC, NIKKEI, top 10 market cap & top 10 performance of Russell Midcap and Russell 2000). All companies with at least one socialmedia tool on IR website or being present with IR topics/specific IR channel on at least one external platform analyzed within this study (see p. 10 for an overview). Presence on IR channels refers tospecific accounts on which only IR topics are published. Presence on platforms with IR topics includes corporate accounts on which other topics are published as well. Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 14
  • 15. SOCIAL MEDIA TOOLS ON CORPORATE INVESTOR RELATIONS WEBSITESNumber of companies using social media nearly unchanged from 2011 - 2012 100% 97% 100% 100% 80% 77% 95% 100% 100% (30) (30) (30) (30) (30) (30) (20) (29) (29) (19) 80% (24) (23) 60% 40% 20% 0% DJIA DAX FTSE CAC NIKKEI Russell Russell Midcap 2000N = 190 (no. of top 30 listed companies in DAX, DJIA, FTSE, CAC, NIKKEI and top 10 market cap & top 10 performance of Russell Midcap and Russell 2000).Number in brackets shows absolute number of companies with at least one social media tool on IR website. Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 15
  • 16. ONLINE TOOLS ON IR WEBSITES: INTERNATIONAL LARGE-CAPSRSS feed and webcast used by most corporations / Variety of tools increased in 2012 2012 RSS feed Other 30 Podcast 25 2011 Blog Video 20 RSS feed Wiki 15 Webcast Other 30 Podcast 10 Blog 20 Video Mobile 5 External links website 0 10 Wiki Webcast IR app Tagcloud 0 Mobile External website links SMS service Like button Like IR app QR code Tweet button button Plus One Share Tweet Share button button button button DJIA DAX FTSE CAC NIKKEIN = 143 (2012); 142 (2011) (no. of companies listed in DAX, DJIA, FTSE, CAC, NIKKEI using the mentioned applications on their IR website). Other: e.g. social media survey, virtual shareholdermagazines, interactive annual reports, personalized websites. Share button within the 2011 study included like and tweet button. New tools within the survey compared to last year: tagcloud, plus onebutton, QR code and SMS service. Monte Carlo significance test showed significant differences between groups (here: indices) for the following tools: podcast, webcast, external links, tagcloud, sharebutton, text message (SMS) service, mobile website and blog. Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 16
  • 17. ONLINE TOOLS ON IR WEBSITES: US AND GERMAN MID-/SMALL-CAPS Top Russell companies already turn quite actively to specific tools on the IR website USA 2012 RSS feed Other 100% Podcast Germany 2011 80% Blog Video RSS feed 60% 100% Mobile Other Podcast 40% Webcast 80% website 20% 60% Blog Video External 40% IR app 0% links 20% Mobile 0% Webcast websiteSMS service Tagcloud External IR app QR code Like button links Plus One Tweet Share Like button button button button Share Tweet button button DJIA Russell Midcap Russell 2000 DAX MDAX SDAX N = 30 for DJIA (2012); N = 20 for Russell Midcap (2012); N = 20 for Russell 2000 (2012); N = 30 for DAX (2011); N = 50 for MDAX (2011); N = 50 for SDAX (2011) (no. of companies within sample using the mentioned tools on IR website in percent). New tools within the survey in comparison to last year: tagcloud, plus one button, QR code and text message (SMS) service. Pearson chi- square and Monte Carlo significance test found significant differences between groups (here: US indices) according to the following tools: video, podcast, external links, tagcloud, like button (Facebook application), tweet button (Twitter application) and IR blog. Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 17
  • 18. ONLINE TOOLS ON IR WEBSITES: GLOBAL COMPARISON 2011/2012Larger range of social media tools applied on IR websites in 2012 2012 DAX 30 25 2011 DAX 20 30 15 10 20NIKKEI DJIA 5 10 0 NIKKEI DJIA 0 CAC FTSE CAC FTSE 1-5 6-10 11-20 more than 20 different applicationsN = 143 (2012); 142 (2011) (no. of companies listed in DAX, DJIA, FTSE, CAC, NIKKEI using the mentioned applications on IR website). Other: e.g. social media survey, virtual shareholdermagazines, interactive annual reports, personalized websites. Share button 2011 included like and tweet button. SAP AG with 22, BASF SE with 21 social media tools. Pearson chi square and MonteCarlo significance test showed no significant differences between groups (here: indices). Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 18
  • 19. DJIA (USA): SOCIAL MEDIA USE ON IR WEBSITES 2009–2012Among US large-caps, use of social media buttons and links increased significantly 30 2930 28 28 26 2525 2420 18 18 18 17 17 14 14 14 1315 12 12 10 1010 9 8 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 DJIA (no. of companies 2012) DJIA (no. of companies 2011) DJIA (no. of companies 2009)N = 30 (no. of DJIA listed companies using different tools on IR website). Index composition has remained unchanged since 2009. New tools in this year´s study: plus one button, social medianewsroom, QR code, virtual and hybrid shareholder meeting (no virtual shareholder meeting held by analyzed DJIA companies). Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 19
  • 20. DAX (GERMANY): SOCIAL MEDIA USE ON IR WEBSITES 2009–2012Notable rise in the number of mobile applications and IR apps, but still on a low level 2930 28 27 2625 22 2120 16 15 14 15 1415 13 13 12 11 11 1110 9 88 8 8 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 3 3 2 3 3 2 1 0 0 0 DAX (no. of companies 2012) DAX (no. of companies 2011) DAX (no. of companies 2009)N = 30 (no. of DAX listed companies using different tools on IR website). Index composition changed between 2009 and 2011 (Salzgitter AG replaced by HeidelbergCement AG), but remainedunchanged since 2011 study. New tools in this year´s study: plus one button, social media newsroom, QR code, virtual and hybrid shareholder meeting (no virtual shareholder meeting held byanalyzed DAX companies). Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 20
  • 21. NUMBER OF PUCLICATIONS ON THE IR WEBSITE: INTERNATIONAL LARGE-CAPS DJIA corporations most intensely release information via social media on IR website 321350300250 202 202200 141 125 122 118150 68 97 95 91 90 86 81100 75 73 99 60 60 56 55 55 50 49 47 45 45 45 44 41 41 37 34 2950 26 24 23 21 19 19 16 16 14 11 9 8 7 7 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 0 DJIA DAX FTSE CAC NIKKEI N = 143 (no. of companies with social media on IR website listed in DAX, DJIA, FTSE, CAC, NIKKEI). Number of publications via the mentioned social media tool on IR website. Other: e.g. social media survey, virtual shareholder magazines, interactive annual reports, personalized websites. Tools within the study not shown above: Wiki (SAP AG as the only company with wiki on IR website), IR app, mobile website, QR code, AGM online voting, virtual shareholders meeting and text message (SMS) service (understood as mobile applications within study, for an overview and specific results see pp. 82 –94). Monte Carlo significance test found significant differences between groups (here: indices) for the following variables: publications via podcast, publications via webcast and external links. Kruskal Wallis H-Test found significant differences between groups (here: indices) for the following variables: publications via podcast, publications via webcast , publications via share button, publications via IR blog and external links. Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 21
  • 22. NUMBER OF PUBLICATIONS ON IR WEBSITES: CORRELATION WITH TOOLS Most corporations use webcasts, but less intensely than share buttons or blogs 900 Share button 800(no. of publications via social media tool 700 Webcast USE / PUBLICATIONS 600 on the IR website) 500 Tweet button Like button 400 300 Plus One button Blog Video 200 Podcast 100 Social media 0 newsroom 0 50 100 150 200 USE / COMPANIES (no. of companies using social media tool on the IR website) N = 182 (no. of companies with social media on IR website). Bubble size represents the overall usage for each tool on the IR website by displaying the number of publications via the mentioned social media tool in relation to the number of companies using the mentioned social media tool. Correlation analysis (Spearman`s rho) confirms significant dependencies between no. of publications and videos (r = 0.539), share button (r = 0.516), Like button (r = 0.497), IR blog (r = 0.492), Tweet button (r = 0.477), podcast (r = 0.435), Plus One button (r = 0.403), webcast (r = 0.317) and social media newsroom (r = 0.170). Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 22
  • 23. TOPICS OF SOCIAL MEDIA PUBLICATIONS ON THE IR WEBSITEFinancials most common topic overall, followed by CSR, AGM & other IR related issues Financial figures 814 433 Other 465 315 CSR 324 76 Annual general meeting 317 30 243 F&E, new products, inventions, patents 192 Cooperation, joint ventures, strategic partnerships 205 162 Strategic company decisions 169 186 107 M&A´s 143Change in board of management, important personal decisions 78 152 44 Dividend 74 21 Corporate actions 183 19 Litigations 116 Corporate governance 13 4 Liquity problems, debt overload 5 2 Director´s dealings 0 100 0 200 400 600 800 1000 no. of social media publications on IR website no. of IR releases traditionally published on IR websiteN = 182 (no. of companies with social media on IR website). Topics refer to mandatory information to be published by the issuer (the listed company). Traditionally published releases means all ad hocor other IR releases on IR website. Topic “Other” refers to non-mandatory IR related topics and includes e.g.: appearance of the company on external conferences, important awards/achievements forthe company, general introduction of the company, its products, employees etc. Pearson chi square and Monte Carlo significance test found significant differences between groups (here: social mediapublications and IR releases traditionally published) according to the topics “Mergers & Acquisitions”, “Cooperation”, “Strategic company decisions”, “Corporate governance” and “F&E”. Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 23
  • 24. CORRELATIONS BETWEEN TOPICS AND TOOLS ON THE IR WEBSITEBlogs seem to be most suitable for CSR topics / Financials connected with diverse tools IR blog Like button  Strongest significant correlation between IR blog and  Strong correlations exist with the topics sustainability topic (r = 0.676) sustainability (r = 0.528) and F&E (r = 0.465)  Correlations also found with the following topics: cooperation (r = 0.532), litigations (r = 0.473) and Tweet button changes in board of management (r = 0.473)  F&E (r = 0.487) correlates highest with tweet button Video  Sustainability (r = 0.474) follows on second rank  Various correlations found; financial figures (r = 0.497) and cooperation (r = 0.437) on top Plus One button Podcast  Strongest correlation with sustainability (r = 0.463)  Highest results for financial figures (r = 0.494) and  F&E (r = 0.406) correlates as well dividends (r = 0.345) Webcast Share button  Correlations only exist for financial figures  Sustainability (r = 0.450) and financial figures (r = 0.446) correlate strongest with share (r = 0.318) and AGM (r = 0.242) buttonsN = 182 (no. of companies with social media on IR website). Correlation analysis with Spearman`s Rho confirms significant correlations between tools on IR website and topics as indicated withintable. Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 24
  • 25. USE OF EXTERNAL SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS: GLOBAL LARGE-CAPSPresence with IR topics increased among all indices / Specific IR online channels still rare 35 30 29 30 30 29 30 30 30 30 30 30 24 25 22 22 20 17 18 14 15 15 11 10 10 7 6 4 5 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 DJIA 2012 DAX 2012 FTSE 2012 CAC 2012 NIKKEI 2012 DJIA 2011 DAX 2011 FTSE 2011 CAC 2011 NIKKEI 2011N = 131 (2012);118 (2011) (no. of companies within sample on external platforms, here: SlideShare, Twitter, YouTube, Facebook (2011); XING, LinkedIn, RIC, SlideShare, YouTube, Facebook,Twitter, Flickr, Scribd, Stocktwits or Google+ (2012). Comparison of presence with corporate topics, presence with IR topics, presence with specific IR channel on external platforms. Monte Carlo testshows significant differences between the indices for XING and Facebook (p ≤ 0.05). Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 25
  • 26. USE OF EXTERNAL PLATFORMS: US AND GERMAN MID-/SMALL-CAPSUS mid- and small-caps active with corporate topics / IR issues less targeted 35 30 29 30 30 24 25 20 17 15 15 15 13 12 10 10 7 3 5 2 2 1 0 DJIA 2012 Russell Midcap 2012 Russell 2000 2012 MDAX 2011 SDAX 2011N = 30 for DJIA (2012); N = 20 for Russell Midcap (2012); N = 20 for Russell 2000 (2012); N = 50 for MDAX (2011); N = 50 for SDAX (2011) (no. of companies within sample on externalplatforms with IR topics, here: SlideShare, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter (2011); RIC, SlideShare, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, Scribd, Stocktwits or Google+, XING, LinkedIn (2012)).Comparison of presence with corporate topics, presence with IR topics, presence with specific IR channel on external platforms. Monte Carlo test shows significant differences between the indices (forYouTube, Twitter, Facebook, p ≤ 0.05). Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 26
  • 27. USE OF EXTERNAL PLATFORMS: CORPORATE CHANNELS AT A GLANCELinkedIn and Twitter with the highest adoption rates among international large-caps 2012 Flickr 30 XING 25 SlideShare 2011 20 SlideShare 15 25 LinkedIn YouTube 10 20 15 5 10 0 5 RIC Scribd Facebook 0 YouTube StockTwits Facebook Twitter Google+ Twitter DJIA DAX FTSE CAC NIKKEIN = 130 (2012); 77 (2011) (no. of companies with IR 2.0 engagement on external platforms, here: SlideShare, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook (2011); RIC, XING, LinkedIn, SlideShare, YouTube,Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, Scribd, StockTwits or Google+ (2012)). Monte Carlo test shows significant differences between the indices (for XING and Facebook, p ≤ 0.05). Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 27
  • 28. USE OF EXTERNAL PLATFORMS: SPECIFIC IR CHANNELS AT A GLANCE Corporate use of micro blog StockTwits slightly exceeds other platforms 2012 7 6 IR StockTwits 2011 5 7no. of companies 6 4 no. of companies 5 3 IR Twitter IR StockTwits 4 3 2 RIC IR StockTwits 2 IR Twitter 1 IR SlideShare RIC IR Slide 1 IR Scribd IR StockTwits Share 0 0 DJIA DAX FTSE CAC NIKKEI Russell Midcap Russell 2000 N = 12 (2012) / 3 (2011) (no. of companies with specific IR channels on external platforms, here: SlideShare, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook (2011) / RIC, XING, LinkedIn SlideShare, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, Scribd, StockTwits or Google+ (2012)). Due to sample size (N=12) no statistical tests were conducted. Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 28
  • 29. NUMBER OF PUBLICATIONS ON EXTERNAL PLATFORMS: GLOBAL LARGE-CAPSUS and German corporations release most IR topics via external social media platforms 600 527 478 469 500 400 314 268 300 200 98 98 90 66 62 100 58 52 46 44 43 30 24 14 12 11 10 10 9 8 7 6 6 6 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DJIA DAX FTSE CAC NIKKEIN =131 (no. of companies within sample on external platforms with IR topics, here: RIC, SlideShare, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, Scribd, Stocktwits or Google+, XING, LinkedIn (2012)).Number of publications via the mentioned tool. Monte Carlo test shows no significant differences between the indices according to number of publications (p ≤ 0.05). Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 29
  • 30. NUMBER OF PUBLICATIONS ON EXTERNAL PLATFORMS: CORRELATIONSTwitter and StockTwits most intensely used / Flickr related to Wal-Mart’s publications 1,800 Twitter (no. of publications via external platforms) 1,600 1,400 USE / PUBLICATIONS 1,200 1,000 800 Flickr 600 StockTwits 400 Facebook 200 Google+ Scribd YouTube 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SlideShare USE / COMPANIES (no. of companies using external platforms for IR purposes)N = 97 (no. of companies with IR 2.0 engagement on external platforms, here: SlideShare, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, Scribd, StockTwits or Google+). Bubble size represents the intensity ofusage by displaying the number of publications via the mentioned external platform in relation to the number of companies using the mentioned social media platform. Wal-Mart (DJIA) on Flickr with527 published photos (Standard deviation SD for number of publications via Flickr: 46.4). Companies present on Scribd with IR topics: Chevron Corp., AT&T Inc., Hewlett-Packard Inc. and CiscoSystems Inc. (IR channel). Kruskal Wallis test showed no significant differences between groups (here: indices). Correlation analysis (Spearman`s rho) confirms significant dependencies between no. ofpublications and SlideShare (r = 0.205), YouTube (r = 0.248), Flickr (r = 0.337), StockTwits (r = 0.218) and Google+ (r = 0.193). Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 30
  • 31. TOPICS OF SOCIAL MEDIA PUBLICATIONS ON EXTERNAL PLATFORMSFinancials no. 1 topic as on IR website / AGM more convenient for external platforms Financial figures 1184 433 Annual general meeting 815 30 Other 247 315 CSR 160 76 Translations 0 123 Cooperation, joint ventures, strategic partnerships 91 162 F&E, new products, inventions, patents 71 192 Strategic company decisions 66 186Change in board of management, important personal decisions 58 152 M&A´s 26 143 Dividend 19 74 Litigations 7 116 Corporate actions 6 183 Liquity problems, debt overload 1 2 Director´s dealings 1 100 Corporate governance 04 0 500 1000 1500 no. of social media publications via external platforms no. of IR releases traditionally published on IR websiteN = 97 (2012); 77 (2011) (no. of companies with IR presence on external platforms, here: SlideShare, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook (2011); SlideShare, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, Scribd,StockTwits or Google+ (2012)). “Translations”: publications with the same content translated e.g. from French or German in English. Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 31
  • 32. CORRELATIONS BETWEEN TOPICS AND EXTERNAL PLATFORMSCSR best communicated via SlideShare and YouTube, Financials via StockTwits and Twitter SlideShare Flickr  Strongest correlation with sustainability (r = 0.469),  Dependencies between Flickr and financial figures followed by financial figures (r = 0.453) (r = 0.339)  F&E (r = 0.260) is also correlated to Flickr YouTube  Again, strongest correlation with sustainability Scribd (r = 0.336), but weaker as with SlideShare  Strongest correlation with F&E (r = 0.441)  Significant, but medium correlations with other IR  Litigations (r = 0.310) correlated as well related topics (r = 0.311) and financials (r = 0.308) StockTwits Twitter  Strongest correlation with financial figures  Financials as strongest correlated topic (r = 0.407) (r = 0.540)  Others (r = 0.393) and strategic decisions are also  Cooperation (r = 0.474) and other IR related topics picked out as central themes on Twitter (r = 0.333) (r = 0.452) are also strongly related Facebook Google+  Sustainability on top (r = 0.325), followed by  Significant correlation with other IR related topics financials (r = 0.312) (r = 0.337), change in board of management  Surprisingly, other IR related topics with relatively (r = 0.299) and strategic decisions (r = 0.252) weak correlation (r = 0.276)N = 97 (no. of companies with IR presence on external platforms, here: SlideShare, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, Scribd, StockTwits or Google+). Correlation analysis with Spearman`s Rhoconfirms significant correlations as indicated within table . For Flickr, the high standard deviation due to Wal Mart’s (DJIA) individual performance have to be taken into account when interpreting theresults; for Scribd, the low presence of companies (only four DJIA companies use Scribd, AT&T Inc and Chevron Corp. as well as Cisco Systems Inc., influence results as well. Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 32
  • 33. INTENSITY OF USE: IR WEBSITES VS. EXTERNAL PLATFORMS 2011-2012CAC tops FTSE with number of publications via social media in relation to IR releases 2.79 3 2.54 2.49 2.21 no. of IR releases traditionally published 2.5 (no. of social media publications / 1.69 2 INTENSITY OF USE 1.45 1.41 1.18 1.5 on average) 1.03 1.03 0.85 0.85 0.79 0.69 0.67 1 0.63 0.63 0.58 0.57 0.54 0.56 0.43 0.12 0.19 0.5 0 All indices DJIA DAX FTSE CAC NIKKEIN = 143 (IR website 2012); 142 (IR website 2011); 97 (external platforms, here: SlideShare, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, Scribd, StockTwits, Google+, 2012), 77 (external platforms, here:SlideShare, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, 2011) (no. of companies). Intensity of use = number of social media publications on IR website or on external platforms / number of IR releases traditionallypublished (ad hoc releases, IR news) on average. Kruskal Wallis test confirms significant differences between the indices for intensity of use between IR website 2012 and external platforms 2012, (p ≤0.05). Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 33
  • 34. TOPICS ON THE IR WEBSITE RANKED BY INTENSITY OF USE 2011-2012AGM, sustainability and corporate governance with highest growth 12 10 no. of social media publications on 8 the IR website / no. of IR releases traditionally published 2012 6 no. of social media publications on 4 the IR website / no. of IR releases 2 traditionally published 2011 0N = 143 (2012); 142 (2011) (no. of companies listed in DAX, DJIA, FTSE, CAC, NIKKEI). Index composition for DJIA and DAX has remained unchanged since 2011. Changes regarding indexcomposition for FTSE, CAC and NIKKEI have been applied (see appendix for more details). Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 34
  • 35. TOPICS EXTERNALLY RANKED BY INTENSITY OF USE 2011-2012Annual shareholders‘ meeting as no. 1 social media topic in relation to ad hoc and IR releases 30 no. of social media publications 25 via external platforms / no. of IR 20 releases traditionally published 2012 15 no. of social media publications 10 via external platforms / no. of IR releases traditionally published 5 2011 0N = 97 (2012); 77 (2011) (no. of companies with IR presence on external platforms, here: SlideShare, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook (2011); SlideShare, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, Scribd,StockTwits or Google+ (2012)). Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 35
  • 36. TOPICS IN SOCIAL MEDIA: GLOBAL COMPARISON AMONG LARGE-CAPSNo significant differences among indices in reference to topics released in social media DJIA DAX FTSE CAC NIKKEI IR website External IR website External IR website External IR website External IR website External Rank (internal) platforms (internal) platforms (internal) platforms (internal) platforms (internal) platforms Financial Financial Financial Financial Financial Financial Financial Financial Financial 1 AGM figures figures figures figures figures figures figures figures figures Other Financial Sustain- Sustain- Other Trans- Inventions, Inventions, 2 AGM AGM topics figures ability ability topics lations F&E F&E Sustain- Other Other Other Other Coopera- 3 AGM AGM AGM AGM ability topics topics topics topics tionInternal: N = 143 (no of companies with social media on IR website listed in DJIA, DAX, FTSE, CAC and NIKKEI). Kruskal Wallis test confirms significant differences between the indices according tothe topics “financial figures”, “annual general meeting”, “dividends”, “change in board of management”, “cooperation”, “strategic company decisions” and other IR related topics (p ≤ 0.05).Correlations analysis with Eta confirms significant dependencies between the indices according to the topics “financial figures” (η = 0.368, p < 0.001), “annual general meeting” (η = 0.381, p <0.001), “dividends” (η = 0.393, p < 0.001), “change in board of management” (η = 0.341, p < 0.001), “M&A`s” (η = 0.262, p = 0.040), “cooperation” (η = 0.350, p < 0.001), “strategicdecisions” (η =0.305, p = 0.006), “CSR” (η = 0.306, p = 0.006) and other IR related topics (η = 0.374, p < 0.001).External: N = 97 (no. of companies with IR engagement on external platforms, here: SlideShare, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, Scribd, StockTwits or Google+). Kruskal Wallis test confirmssignificant differences between the indices according to the topics “annual general meeting”, “cooperation”, “F&E”, “others” and “translations” (p ≤ 0.05). Correlations analysis with Eta confirmssignificant dependencies between index and “financial figures” (η = 0.306, p = 0.006), “dividends” (η = 0.283, p = 0.016), “cooperation” (η = 0.251, p = 0.05), other IR related topics (η =0.381, p < 0.001), “translations” (publications with the same content translated e.g. from French or German in English) (η = 0.340, p = 0.001). Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 36
  • 37. SOCIAL MEDIA ACTIVITY INDEX: USE AND INTENSITY OF USEUS and German large-caps with same level of activity 63.2 63.4 DJIA DAX FTSE CAC NIKKEI Russell Midcap Russell 2000 43.9 41.6 35.1 31.5 31.7 28.3 24.3 25.4 21.8 19.8 19.5 18.9 15.3 14.1 12.2 9.6 10.1 6.7 4.5 Internal Social Media Activity Index (average) External Social Media Activity Index (average) Social Media Activity Index (average) Internal Use of Social Media Index + External Use of Social Media Index + Internal Social Media Activity Index + Internal Intensity of Use Index External Intensity of Use Index External Social Media Activity Index Usage of social media on the IR Usage of social media on external website (no. of different tools) + platforms (no. of different tools) + intensity of use (no. of publications via intensity of use (no. of publications via social media / no. of IR ad hoc and social media / no. of IR ad hoc and news releases) on the IR website news releases) on external platformsN = 190 (no. of companies). Indices based on mean values. Kruskal Wallis test confirms significant differences between the indices for Internal Social Media Activity Index, External Social MediaActivity Index and Social Media Activity Index (p ≤ 0.05). Correlation analysis (Spearman`s rho) confirms significant dependencies between Internal Social Media Activity Index and External SocialMedia Activity (r = 0.659), Internal Social Media Activity Index and Social Media Activity Index (r = 0.874), External Social Media Activity Index and Social Media Activity Index (r = 0.932). Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 37
  • 38. ACTIVITY ON CORPORATE IR WEBSITES: INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONUS large-caps most active, other indices vary among use and intensity of use 3no. of IR releases traditionally published (average) no. of social media publications on IR website / DJIA DAX 2.5 INTENSITY OF USE 2 CAC 1.5 1 FTSE Russell Midcap 0.5 NIKKEI Russell 2000 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 USE no. of social media tools on IR website per company (average)N = 182 (no. of companies with social media on IR website). Bubble size displays the intensity of use (number of social media publications on IR website per company on average divided by thenumber of IR releases traditionally published per company on average) in relations to the number of social media tools on IR website per company on average. One-way ANOVA test foundsignificant differences between groups (here: indices) according to the number of social media tools on IR website and intensity of use on the IR website (activity on IR website =no. of social mediapublications / no. of IR releases traditionally published). Kruskal Wallis one-way analysis of variance found significant differences between groups (here: indices) according to usage and intensity ofuse of social media tools on IR website. Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 38
  • 39. ACTIVITY ON EXTERNAL PLATFORMS: INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONGerman large-caps run more platforms / DJIA corporations with more intense use 6no. of social media publications on external platforms / no. of IR releases traditionally published (average) DAX 5 DJIA 4 INTENSITY OF USE CAC 3 Russell FTSE 2 Midcap 1 Russell 2000 NIKKEI 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 USE no. of external platforms used per company (average)N = 158 (no. of companies with IR 2.0 engagement on external platforms, here: SlideShare, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, Scribd, StockTwits and Google+). Bubble size displays the intensityof use (number of social media publications on external platforms per company on average divided by the number of IR releases traditionally published per company on average) in relations to thenumber of external platforms used per company on average. Kruskal Wallis one-way analysis of variance found no significant differences between groups (here: indices) according to usage andintensity of use of external social media platforms. Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 39
  • 40. SOCIAL MEDIA ACTIVITY INDEX: INTERNATIONAL BENCHMARK (TOP 10)Internal and external activities strongly related to each other within top positions Social Media Activity Index Internal Social Media Activity Index External Social Media Activity IndexRank Company Index Company Index Company Index 1 Deutsche Telekom DAX SAP AG DAX BASF SE DAX 2 SAP AG DAX Johnson & Johnson Services Inc. DJIA Deutsche Telekom AG DAX 3 BASF SE DAX Deutsche Telekom AG DAX SAP AG DAX 4 Cisco Systems Inc. DJIA Cisco Systems Inc. DJIA Alcoa Inc. DJIA 5 Wal-Mart Stores Inc. DJIA Intel Corp. DJIA Royal Dutch Shell plc FTSE 6 Alcoa Inc. DJIA Microsoft Corp. DJIA E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. DJIA 7 Intel Corp. DJIA Wal-Mart Stores Inc. DJIA Wal-Mart Stores Inc. DJIA 8 Johnson & Johnson Services Inc. DJIA Schneider Electric SA CAC Deutsche Bank AG DAX 9 Royal Dutch Shell plc FTSE Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. NIKKEI Cisco Systems Inc. DJIA 10 Münchener Rück AG DAX BASF SE / Intuit Inc. DAX / Russell Midcap Münchener Rück AG / Henkel AG DAX (both)N = 190 (no. of companies). Indices based on mean values. Activity Index: Alcoa Inc. and Intel Corp. with same score. Internal Activity Index: Deutsche Telekom AG and Johnson & Johnson ServicesInc. as well as BASF SE and Intuit Inc. with the same score. External Activity Index: Alcoa Inc. and Royal Dutch Shell plc as well as Münchener Rück AG and Henkel AG with same score. Kruskal Wallistest confirms significant differences between the indices for Internal Social Media Activity Index, External Social Media Activity Index and Social Media Activity Index. (p ≤ 0.05). Correlation analysiswith Spearman`s rho confirms significant dependencies between Internal Social Media Activity Index and External Social Media Activity (r = 0.659), Internal Social Media Activity Index and SocialMedia Activity Index (r = 0.874), External Social Media Activity Index and Social Media Activity Index (r = 0.932). Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 40
  • 41. SUMMARY: SOCIAL MEDIA ACTIVITY IN INVESTOR RELATIONSMore tools on the IR website / Intense use of external platforms in comparison to 2011 Nearly all companies within the sample employ social media on the corporate IR website; less than 50 percent are present with IR topics or even IR specific accounts on external social media platforms. Only slight differences between major markets according to applications applied on the IR website: RSS feeds and webcasts remain on top; use of share buttons and external links rises significantly. Growing number of different tools offered on the IR website; increased external engagement as one reason (share buttons, links etc. directly refer to IR presence on external platforms). Among the external platforms, Twitter and LinkedIn experience most popularity among corporations; specific IR channels are still rarely used; slight country-specific differences in reference to preferred platforms. Higher adoption rate of external social media platforms among European large-caps in comparison to 2011, Japanese blue chips lag behind their international competitors. On average, DJIA and DAX companies perform on the highest level according to social media activities; DAX corporations more active on external social media platforms, DJIA corporations on the IR website. Only slight differences between top companies of US mid- and small-caps listed in Russell Midcap and Russell 2000, but they lag behind US large-caps, especially in regard to activity on external platforms. US small- and mid-caps even outperform Japanese blue chips listed in NIKKEI index. Financials, sustainability, AGM and other IR related topics most commonly published via social media: Sustainability best communicated via SlideShare and YouTube, financials via StockTwits and Twitter; blogs most suitable for CSR topics, financials should be communicated on diverse tools on the IR website. Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 41
  • 42. BEST PRACTICES FOR IR 2.0 ACTIVITYInvestor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 42
  • 43. SAP (DAX) WITH VARIOUS IR SERVICES ON THE CORPORATE WEBSITE Investor presentations at a glance: podcasts, webcasts, live streaming Text message (SMS) service, SAP`s corporate news room is RSS feed, prominently linked from the IR links to external website, includes IR relevant topics platforms: with comment function and link to Youtube, accompanying webcast SlideShare, Twitter, Facebook, StockTwits Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 43
  • 44. CISCO`S (DJIA) SOCIAL MEDIA NEWSROOM ON THE IR WEBSITEOne interface for all corporate news Twitter feed Social buttons Facebook activity News releases Podcasts Blog posts Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 44
  • 45. IMPRESSIVE ACTIVITY: WAL-MART`S (DJIA) ANNUAL SHAREHOLDERS‘MEETING ONLINE (IR WEBSITE, TWITTER, FLICKR) 527 photos about “AGM“ which show  retail shareholders  presentations of the management  Event is updated every minute  live acts by the company for its shareholders  Shareholders participate within conversations as well  Hashtags structure conversations Twitpics provide impressions from the event Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 45
  • 46. BASF (DAX) WITH SPECIFIC IR CHANNELS ON TWITTER & STOCKTWITSPersonalized 727 Tweetsaccount with 628 Followingphoto and 1,794 Followername of IR (overall)manager StockTwits: More than 150,000 investors, market professionals and public companies shareDisclaimer information and ideas about the market and individual stocks, producing streams that are viewed by an audience of over 40 million across the financial web. Links and Stickertags Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 46
  • 47. TRANSLATIONS ON TWITTER BY GERMAN AND FRENCH LARGE-CAPS,BUT NOT BY JAPANESE COMPANIES Air Liquide (CAC) translates its earning announcements into English Fresenius (DAX) translates changes in management into EnglishNTT (NIKKEI) provides its information only in Japanese Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 47
  • 48. INTEGRATED COMMUNICATIONS ON SLIDESHARE CHANNELS Pfizer (DJIA) implement SAP (DAX) tweets and Links to links on several SlideShare platforms: channel Facebook, Twitter, ... 607 views and14 downloads of preliminary results release / English versions in general more popular than German ones As the only company within FTSE, Royal Dutch Shell offers SlideShare presentations Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 48
  • 49. CONTENT SHARING PLATFORM SCRIBD RARELY USED FOR IR PURPOSESFour DJIA companies use Scribd for IR topics: AT&T, Chevron, Cisco & HP Cisco`s IR channel: Possibility for download and print HP`s account with IR topics: 32,396 total reads Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 49
  • 50. FLICKR PROVIDES IMPRESSIONS FROM IR EVENTSDeutsche Bank, Daimler (DAX) and Cisco (DJIA) use Flickr channels for IR Daimler (DAX) provides pictures about annual Deutsche Bank (DAX) press conference uploaded photos about its AGM 2011 and sustainability approach Cisco (DJIA) with impressions from analyst conferences Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 50
  • 51. INVESTOR RELATIONS 2.0: DIALOGUE AND RELATIONSHIP BUILDINGInvestor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 51
  • 52. DIALOGUE AND RELATIONSHIP BUILDING THROUGH ONLINE IR Theoretical Structuration Social Media Dialogue background Index Automatic dissemination Constant actualization Dialogue-oriented Internal Investor Relations Personalization (interactive) communication (website) Dialogue Index Trustworthiness of source Dialogic communication Possibility for feedback External Investor Relations (platforms) Dialogue Index User comments User rating Company‘s reaction to commentsSource: Own display in reference to Droller 2012, Koehler 2011, Kent & Taylor 2002, 1998. Dialogic features and relationship-building potential of computer-mediated communication: IR website,extension through social media (see Murtarelli & Invernizzi 2011 for a research overview). Dialogue-oriented communication vs. dialogue: Dialogues are characterized by the exchange of speakers’roles, dynamics and openness of the process, and a certain lack of control (Zerfaß 2010). Different intentions of dialogic communication: information, persuasion, argumentation – onlyargumentation as precondition for relationship building (Habermas 1990): Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 52
  • 53. DIALOGUE AND RELATIONSHIP BUILDING ANALYSED WITHIN THIS STUDY IR website External platforms Links, tagclouds, social bookmark, IR wiki, Links (all platforms), Hashtags (Twitter, social media newsroom, mobile website, Structuration StockTwits), Stickertags (StockTwits) QR code RSS feeds e.g. for IR blog, IR app, SMS Automatic dissemination (text message) service Number of publications via external Number of publications via social media Constant actualization platforms (all platforms) on IR website Photos, videos (Facebook, Google+), Personalization Twitpics (Twitter), contact information Websites with personalized contents, IR blog, videos, personal contact information Disclaimer, IR contact information (all platforms) Videos, webcasts, podcasts with feedback Trustworthiness of source function, Activation of comments (all platforms), Like, Tweet, Plus One and share buttons, activation of channel comments rating function Possibility for feedback (YouTube), possibility for downloads (SlideShare, Scribd) Comments and ratings by users, e.g. blog Comments by users (all platforms), posts, live chat, hybrid/virtual AGM or User comments Retweets (Twitter) ratings on IR releases, blog posts etc. User rating Like button (Facebook), Plus One button Reactions by the company to users’ actions (Google+) (comments, ratings) Reactions by the company to users’ Company‘s reaction to comments actions (comments, ratings) (all platforms), and ratings mentions (Twitter) Implementation of structuration and networking functionSource: Own display in reference to Droller 2012, Koehler 2011. On XING, LinkedIn and RIC, only IR presence on channel comprised. No reactions and comments collected on StockTwits. Tweet:Message on Twitter/ StockTwits (maximum of 140 signs). Stickertag: Tweet is assigned to specific ticker symbols via $. Hashtag: Tweet is assigned to specific topic via #. Retweet (RT): Forwarding ofsomebody other`s tweet via @. Direct message: Answering another Twitter user directly (cannot be displayed due to private conversation). Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 53
  • 54. DIALOGIC APPROACH ON IR WEBSITES: GLOBAL OVERVIEW 2009-2011DJIA expands leading position / France, UK and Japan catch up to German blue chips No. of companies No. of social media tools with social media tools on the IR website offering with feedback possibilities feedback possibilities on the IR website16 45 15 45 5014 40 4512 35 43 40 35 10 3010 9 30 9 25 8 25 7 20 6 20 16 5 15 14 15 14 13 4 4 11 12 10 12 10 3 11 7 2 2 7 5 5 7 1 1 3 3 3 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 2009 2009 2011 2012 2011 2011 2012 2012 DJIA DAX FTSE CAC NIKKEI Russel Midcap Russel 2000N = 182 (2012); 142 (2011) (no. of companies with social media on IR website). No significant differences between indices found. Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 54
  • 55. DIALOGIC APPROACH ON IR WEBSITES: TOOLS AND COMMENTS/RATINGSMost comments and ratings by users on US corporate IR websites / DAX on second rank no. of IR publications with 151 feedback possibility DJIA no. of comments/ratings 1,906 by users no. of IR publications with 53 DAX feedback possibility no. of comments/ratings 232 by users no. of IR publications with 17 feedback possibility FTSE no. of comments/ratings 9 by users no. of IR publications with 34 feedback possibility CAC no. of comments/ratings 32 by users no. of IR publications with feedback possibility 33NIKKEI no. of comments/ratings 6 by users 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 All indices DJIA DAX FTSE CAC NIKKEIN = 143 (no. of companies with social media on IR website listed in DAX, DJIA, FTSE, CAC, NIKKEI). Number of publications with possibility of feedback or comments and number of comments orratings e.g. blog comments, recommendations via likes, tweets , plus ones or shares. No significant differences between indices found. Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 55
  • 56. DIALOGIC APPROACH ON IR WEBSITES: USE OF BUTTONS WITH COUNTERSUS blue chips on top again / DAX companies completely without counters5,000 500 4,522 4724,500 450 3,9294,000 4003,500 3503,000 300 2222,500 2502,000 200 1481,500 1501,000 100 498 55 43 43 500 133 133 50 15 20 57 67 1 10 9 1 4 9 2 8 9 0 0 0 0 8 3 12 8 0 0 Tweet Like Share Plus one Tweet button with Like button with Share button with Plus one button button button button button counter counter counter with counter with with with with counter counter counter counter FTSE (no. of publications via mentioned tool) FTSE (no. of reactions by users) DJIA (no. of publications via mentioned tool) CAC (no. of publications via mentioned tool) CAC (no. of reactions by users) DJIA (no. of reactions by users) NIKKEI (no. of publications via mentioned tool) NIKKEI (no. of reactions by users)N = 143 (no. of companies with social media on IR website listed in DAX, DJIA, FTSE, CAC, NIKKEI). Number of social buttons with counters and number of reactions. Each counter displays thenumber of times that a post/news release has been recommended on social networks such as Facebook, Twitter, Google+ or other social media services. Adding counter s may increase interactionby users as they can see how other readers are participating. No significant differences between indices found. Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 56
  • 57. DIALOGIC APPROACH ON THE IR WEBSITE: BASIC ONLINE FUNCTIONSNetworking via social media gains importance among listed corporations worldwide 2012 2011 5 2 networking 83 networking 37 55 103 8 4 interpretation 127 interpretation 124 8 14 1 1 structuring 75 structuring 56 67 85 2 7 information 123 information 124 18 11 0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150 fully applicable partly applicable not applicableN: 143 (2012); 142 (2011) (category analyzed for companies using social media on the IR website). Basic functions of social software, see Zerfaß & Sandhu 2008): information (e.g., RSS feeds),structuring (e.g., social bookmarks, wikis), interpretation (e.g., podcasts, video casts, and blogs) and networking (e.g., social communities). Category in content analysis: Degree to which each functionis fulfilled: 3 = fully applies (to 100 per cent appropriate), 2 = partly applies (implements ”largely applies“, ”partly applies“ and ”does rather not apply“), 1 = does not apply at all (to 0 per centappropriate). Each function is not exclusively linked to a specific tool but there are predominant functions of specific tools but other functions are fulfilled to a minor degree as well. The examples indicatethe function which is fulfilled to a major degree. External platforms are not part of the differentiation of functions due to platform inherent functions by definition, e.g. the social network Facebook, themicroblog Twitter (see p. 9). However, all different functions can be fulfilled to a certain degree by social media (both by tools on a website or external platforms). Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 57
  • 58. BASIC SOCIAL MEDIA FUNCTIONS: INTERNATIONAL DIFFERENCESDJIA networks, DAX informs and structures, FTSE and CAC with balanced engagement No. of Statistical parameter Social media function Index Average companies SD F p DJIA 30 1.73 0.583 6.303 ≤ 0.001 DAX 30 1.83 1.020 Information FTSE 30 1.37 0.928 CAC 30 1.30 0.651 NIKKEI 30 0.90 0.803 DJIA 30 0.87 0.937 6.759 ≤ 0.001 DAX 30 1.00 0.743 Structuring FTSE 30 0.70 0.794 CAC 30 0.90 0.845 NIKKEI 30 0.10 0.305 DJIA 30 1.90 0.995 6.593 ≤ 0.001 DAX 30 1.73 1.015 Interpretation FTSE 30 1.43 0.817 CAC 30 1.47 0.937 NIKKEI 30 0.80 0.664 DJIA 30 1.60 1.248 10.711 ≤ 0.001 DAX 30 1.13 1.167 Networking FTSE 30 0.73 0.740 CAC 30 0.93 0.691 NIKKEI 30 0.13 0.346Basic functions of social software according to Zerfaß & Sandhu (2008): information (e.g., RSS feeds), structuring (e.g., social bookmarks, wikis), interpretation (e.g., podcasts, video casts, and blogs)and networking (e.g., social communities). Category in content analysis: Degree to which each function is fulfilled: 4 = fully applies, 3 = largely applies, 2 = partly applies, 1 = does rather not apply,0 = does not apply at all. Each function is not exclusively linked to a specific tool but there are predominant functions of specific tools but other functions are fulfilled to a minor degree as well. Externalplatforms are not part of the differentiation of functions due to platform inherent functions by definition, e.g. the social network Facebook, the micro blog Twitter (see p. 9). However, all differentfunctions can be fulfilled to a certain degree by social media (both by tools on a website or external platforms). N = 150 (category analyzed for companies using social media on the IR website).Average = mean score; SD = standard deviation; F = F-ratio for one-way ANOVA F-test statistic. Results significant for p < 0.05. Rounded figures. Significant differences between groups (here: indices)according to social media functions found. Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 58
  • 59. DIALOGIC APPROACH EXTERNALLY: SLIDESHARE, YOUTUBE AND SCRIBDIR videos on YouTube highly viewed, but comment function not offered or not used 14,500 nearly half of the companies (47 out Downloads on of 97) on YouTube deactivate the SlideShare: possibility for users’ channel comments DJIA: ø 25 downloads (per company) DAX: 7,056 ø 9 downloads (per company) FTSE: 3,631 ø 25 downloads 2,848 (per company) 1,873 1,337 1,018 1,186 637 DJIA DAX FTSE CAC NIKKEI Views on SlideShare Views on YouTube Reads on Scribd (average per company) (average per company) (average per company)N = 65 (no. of companies with IR 2.0 engagement on YouTube, SlideShare and Scribd). Views on SlideShare, YouTube and Scribd in mean values. No companies within NIKKEI and CAC presentwith IR topics on SlideShare. For Scribd, the low presence of companies (only four DJIA companies use Scribd – AT&T Inc, Chevron Corp., Cisco Systems Inc., Hewlett-Packard Inc. – influence resultsas well. Standard deviation SD for Views on SlideShare: 2,826.58 (DJIA), 442.53 (DAX), 6,219.64 (FTSE). Standard Deviation SD for Views on YouTube: 46,990.82 (DJIA), 2,141.29 (DAX),3,650.93 (FTSE), 7,519.52 (CAC), 645.81 (NIKKEI). Standard Deviation SD for Reads on Scribd: 2,036.5 (DJIA). Kruskal Wallis test showed no significant differences between groups (here: indices). Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 59
  • 60. DIALOGIC APPROACH EXTERNALLY: RATINGS, COMMENTS, REACTIONSMost comments made by investors of DJIA companies / Japanese corp. react actively 0.128 No. of ratings / no. of publications via social media on 0.118 0.069 external platforms (average per company) 0.071 0.040 4.091No. of comments / no. of publications via social media on 0.617 0.872 external platforms (average per company) 0.916 0.108 0.072 No. of reactions / no. of comments on external social 0.101 0.079 media platforms (average per company) 0.129 0.375 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 DJIA DAX FTSE CAC NIKKEIN = 97 (no. of companies with IR engagement on external platforms, here: RIC, SlideShare, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, Scribd, StockTwits or Google+). Rating elements only on Facebook(Like Button) and Google+ (Plus One Button). Comments involve retweets on Twitter, reactions involve mentions on Twitter. No comments and reactions on StockTwits collected. On YouTube,possibility for comment according to channel and single videos is given. Standard deviation SD for no. of ratings/ no. of publications: 0.2133 (DJIA), 0.2373 (DAX), 0.1915 )FTSE), 0.1411 (CAC),0.185 (NIKKEI). Standard Deviation SD for no. of comments/no. of publications: 5.1022 (DJIA), 1.1696 (DAX), 1.1097 (FTSE), 1.2350 (CAC), 0.4078 (NIKKEI). Standard deviation SD for no. ofreactions/ no. of comments: 0.0866 (DJIA), 0.1682 (DAX), 0.0512 (FTSE), 0.2329 (CAC), NIKKEI (0.4787). Kruskal Wallis test shows significant differences between the indices according to no. ofratings / no. of publications via social media and no. of comments/ no. of publications via social media (p ≤ 0.05). Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 60
  • 61. DIALOGIC APPROACH ON EXTERNAL PLATFORMS: FOLLOWERSNIKKEI beats other indices concerning followers / IR channels less popular Fans on Facebook and Google+ 303,981 Facebook followers (average per company) (average per company) Ø 94,570 (2011: 10,874) 261,697 Google+ followers (average per company) Ø 41,201 192,245 Twitter followers (average per company) Ø 20,507 (2011: 4,369) YouTube followers (average per company) Ø 3,640 97,452 StockTwits followers (average per company) 78,265 75,196 Ø 30 Followers on platforms Followers on IR 5,369 with IR topics channels 640 180 137 (average per (average per DJIA DAX FTSE CAC NIKKEI company) company) Ø 23,049 Ø 361 Facebook Google+N = 97 (no. of companies with IR engagement on external platforms, here: SlideShare, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, Scribd, StockTwits or Google+). No. of followers based on mean values.Presence on IR channels refers to specific accounts on which only IR topics are published. Standard deviation SD for fans on Facebook: 475,386.42 (DJIA), 248,837.25 (DAX), 127,039.28 (FTSE),5,190.58 (CAC), 18,568.56 (NIKKEI). Standard deviation SD for fans in Google+: 165,359.1 (DJIA), 913.57 (DAX), 24.8 (FTSE), 134.35 (CAC). Only one NIKKEI company present with IR topics onGoogle+. Standard deviation for YouTube: 15,400.84 (DJIA), 952.15 (DAX), 603.32 (FTSE), 1,111.83 (CAC), 10,013.49 (NIKKEI). Standard deviation SD for Twitter: 83,442.85 (DJIA), 10,704.27(DAX), 13,023.31 (FTSE), 4,152.00 (CAC), 4,404.42 (NIKKEI). Standard deviation SD for StockTwits: 16.27 (DJIA), 18.93 (DAX). Kruskal Wallis test shows significant differences between indices (forYouTube, Twitter, Facebook, p ≤ 0.05). Wilcoxon test shows significant differences between fans on Facebook 2011 and 2012 (p ≤ 0.05). Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 61
  • 62. DIALOGIC APPROACH ON EXTERNAL PLATFORMS: LINKS & DISCLAIMERStructuring via links accounts most for Twitter / Disclaimer highly important for IR No. of links on external Disclaimer on external platforms platforms (all companies)900 807 Facebook 17800 StockTwits 15700600 YouTube 6500 Twitter 5400 Flickr 2300 Google+ 1200 146 128 Scribd 0100 85 76 97 32 46 16 4 14 12 15 0 5 5 SlideShare 0 0 Links to IR website Links to external platforms No. of companies with disclaimerN = 97 (no. of companies with IR engagement on external platforms, here: RIC, SlideShare, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, Scribd, StockTwits or Google+). Number of links to IR website.Number of companies with disclaimer on their accounts. Kruskal Wallis test shows significant differences between indices regarding no. of links (p ≤ 0.05). Monte Carlo significance test showed nosignificant differences between groups according to no. of companies with disclaimer (here: indices). Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 62
  • 63. DIALOGIC APPROACH EXTERNALLY: TWITTER VS. STOCKTWITSTwitter seems more relevant than StockTwits for IR purposes / StockTwits more specific Twitter StockTwits 6 123 6 40Mentions 39 Mentions 0 37 0 2 0 275 202Hashtags 116 92 198 96 22 Stickertags 62 11 0 11 0 Twitpics 6 Twitter follower StockTwits follower 6 (average per company) (average per company) 0 13 Ø 20,507 Ø 30 (2011: 4,369) 13 41 9 Hashtags 0Retweets 30 0 26 0 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 DJIA DAX FTSE CAC NIKKEIN = 83 (no. of companies with IR engagement on external platforms (here: Twitter or StockTwits). No. of dialogue oriented elements on Twitter and StockTwits refer to IIR topics. Kruskal Wallis testconfirms significant differences between the indices regarding to mentions and retweets on Twitter (p ≤ 0.05). Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 63
  • 64. DIALOGIC APPROACH ON TWITTER & STOCKTWITS: LIVE TWEETING Live tweeting starts to experience popularity, especially for earnings releases and AGM No. of companies using Twitter: ø 21 Tweets within each live live tweeting tweeting session 9 8 8 StockTwits: ø 18 Tweets within each live tweeting session 7 30 27 6 5 5 25 5 4 20 3 3 15 2 2 9 9 2 10 1 1 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 Live tweeting on Twitter Live tweeting on StockTwits Financial figures Annual general meeting DJIA DAX FTSE CAC NIKKEI Topics on Twitter (all indices)N = 83 (no. of companies with IR engagement on external platforms (here: Twitter or StockTwits). Number of companies with live tweeting on Twitter and StockTwits. Topics within live tweeting (only“Annual general meeting” and “Financials”). Live tweeting: More than one tweet during conferences (live or via telephone), AGM, presentations etc. Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 64
  • 65. DIALOGIC APPROACH ON BUSINESS NETWORKS: XING AND LINKEDINGerman IROs use country-specific network XING / LinkedIn with general popularity No. of companies with IROs on business networks 30 26 25 24 21 20 20 19 15 10 8 8 7 7 7 6 5 5 4 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 one IR employee on LinkedIn more than one IR employee one IR employee on XING more than one IR employee on LinkedIn on XING DJIA DAX FTSE CAC NIKKEI Russell Midcap Russell 2000N = 141 (LinkedIn), 33 (XING) (no. of companies with IR employees on LinkedIn and XING). No differentiation between private and business related use possible (private profile of IRO). Figures arebased on mean values. Monte Carlo test shows significant differences between the indices and presence on LinkedIn and XING( p ≤ 0.05). Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 65
  • 66. DIALOGIC APPROACH ON XING & LINKEDIN: NUMBER OF CONTACTSUS mid-cap IROs well connected on LinkedIn compared to international large-caps LinkedIn contacts XING contacts (average per IRO) (average per IRO) Russell Midcap 265 DAX 231 DJIA 239 FTSE 14 CAC 216 CAC 9 Russell 2000 179 DJIA 0 FTSE 175 NIKKEI 0 DAX 150 Russell Midcap 0 NIKKEI 73 Russell 2000 0N = 141 (LinkedIn); 33 (XING) (no. of companies with IR employees on LinkedIn and XING). Figures are based on mean values. Only contacts of IRO with highest no. of contacts collected. KruskalWallis test shows significant differences between the indices on XING and LinkedIn (p ≤ 0.05). Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 66
  • 67. SOCIAL MEDIA DIALOGUE INDEX 55.3DJIA with most dialogic and dialogue-oriented elements DJIA DAX FTSE CAC NIKKEI Russell Midcap Russell 2000 32.5 30.1 26.4 22.8 24.3 19.9 16.8 17.3 10.2 9.1 10.4 11.1 7.4 6.6 6.3 5.4 4.5 5.0 4.8 1.5 Internal Social Media Dialogue Index (average) External Social Media Dialogue Index (average) Social Media Dialogue Index (average) Internal Social Media Dialogue Index External Social Media Dialogue Index Internal Social Media Dialogue Index Use of dialogical tools on the IR website (no. of Use of social media on external platforms with + External Social Media Dialogue different tools with feedback function) + intensity feedback possibility (no. of different tools) + Index of use (no. of publications with feedback function intensity of use on external platforms (no. of / no. of IR ad hoc and news releases + no. of publications via social media / no. of IR ad hoc and publications with feedback function / no. of news releases )+ dialogue oriented elements (e.g. publications via social media) + intensity of links, disclaimer, hashtags) + intensity of dialogue feedback (no. of comments and ratings / no. of (no. of comments and ratings / no. of publications publications with feedback function) + degree of with feedback function + number of company implementation of networking function reactions / no. of comments)N = 190 (no. of companies). Indices based on mean values. Kruskal Wallis test confirms significant differences between the indices for Internal Social Media Dialogue Index, External Social MediaDialogue Index and Social Media Dialogue Index (p ≤ 0.05). Correlation analysis (Spearman`s rho) confirms significant dependencies between Internal Social Media Dialogue Index and ExternalSocial Media Dialogue Index (r = 0.607), Internal Social Media Dialogue Index and Social Media Dialogue Index (r = 0.845), External Social Media Dialogue Index and Social Media DialogueIndex (r = 0.917). Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 67
  • 68. SOCIAL MEDIA DIALOGUE INDEX: GLOBAL BENCHMARK (TOP 10)US blue chips dominate international dialogue ranking Social Media Dialogue Index Internal Social Media Dialogue Index External Social Media Dialogue IndexRank Company Index Company Index Company Index 1 Microsoft Corp. DJIA Intel Corp. DJIA Hewlett-Packard Co. DJIA 2 Cisco Systems Inc. DJIA Cisco Systems Inc. DJIA AT&T Inc. DJIA 3 Intel Corp. DJIA Microsoft Corp. DJIA Microsoft Corp. DJIA 4 General Electric Co. DJIA General Electric Co. DJIA 3M Co. DJIA 5 AT&T Inc. DJIA Wal-Mart Stores Inc. DJIA IBM Corp. DJIA 6 Hewlett-Packard Co. DJIA Schneider Electric SA CAC American Express Co. DJIA 7 Wal-Mart Stores Inc. DJIA Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. NIKKEI Bank of America Corp. DJIA 8 BASF SE DAX SAP AG DAX Cisco Systems Inc. DJIA 9 Deutsche Telekom AG DAX AT&T Inc. DJIA BMW AG DAX SAP AG DAX DJIA/ 10 Alcoa Inc./Intuit Inc. Russell Midcap Chevron Corp. DJIAN = 190 (no. of companies). Internal Dialogue Index: Schneider Electric SA and Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. as well as Alcoa Inc. and Intuit Inc. with the same score. External Dialogue Index: AT&T Inc.and Microsoft Corp. as well as IBM Corp. and American Express Co. with the same score. Dialogue Index: BASF SE, Deutsche Telekom AG and SAP AG with the same score. Kruskal Wallis testconfirms significant differences between the indices for Internal Social Media Dialogue Index, External Social Media Dialogue Index and Social Media Dialogue Index (p ≤ 0.05). Correlation analysis(Spearman`s rho) confirms significant dependencies between Internal Social Media Dialogue Index and External Social Media Dialogue Index (r = 0.607), Internal Social Media Dialogue Index andSocial Media Dialogue Index (r = 0.845), External Social Media Dialogue Index and Social Media Dialogue Index (r = 0.917). Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 68
  • 69. SUMMARY: DIALOGUE AND RELATIONSHIP BUILDING IN ONLINE IRDialogue as the next level in online investor relations  Dialogue and relationship building are increasingly recognized as next level in online financial communications. Dialogues are characterized by the exchange of speakers’ roles, dynamics and openness of the process, and a certain lack of control (Zerfaß 2010). This can be challenging for a department which has to obey disclosure policies.  Just a few companies already use a dialogic approach and provide tools with feedback possibilities on the IR website or comment functions on external social media platforms, answer users’ comments, handle critics openly and do not delete unpleasant topic-related contributions.  US large-caps as most dialogic on both, IR website and external platforms. Users within the US highly participate in online conversations referring to IR related topics.  Whereas dialogue is still best practice, a dialogue-oriented or interactive approach is already employed:* Disclaimers, personalization, links, download options, share buttons, rating and other platform-specific functions offer preconditions for online conversations. Disclaimers are important for IR due to a legally sensitive area in which trust in source is important for relationship building. Yet, the use of disclaimers and personal profiles (contact information, photos, etc.) is not established on external social media platforms.  In reference to views, Facebook seems more relevant than Google+ for reaching investors and getting in conversations with shareholders; Twitter more used than StockTwits, however StockTwits appears better for targeting investors; IR related videos highly requested on YouTube; SlideShare with country-specific demand.  Business networks established within financial community: LinkedIn with high popularity among IROs worldwide (despite Japan); US mid-cap corporations are well connected.* The possibility for feedback is given, but communication remains monologic. Monologues are characterized by a clear distinction between speaker and receiver, no change of roles occurs,communication is planned and controlled (Zerfaß 2010). Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 69
  • 70. BEST PRACTICES FOR IR 2.0 DIALOGUEInvestor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 70
  • 71. DIALOGIC APPROACH ON IR WEBSITE: GE (DJIA) WITH SPECIFIC IR BLOGBlog ”GE Reports“ as established IR blog / Now also frequently commented by users Comment function actively used: Nearly no comments made by users in previous years / changed in 2012 Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 71
  • 72. CORPORATE BLOG WITH IR TOPICS BY EXXON MOBIL (DJIA)Several debates on ”Perspectives“ Blog by ExxonMobil, also including controversial issues e.g. debates about financial issues, sustainability, oil prices, political decisions, energy policy Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 72
  • 73. INTEL’S (DJIA) NEWSROOM INTEGRATES SOCIAL MEDIA ACTVITIESReaders recommend IR topics via social media counter buttons Log-in option (newsroom similar to online community) Additionally: Intel Investor Community for stockholders (on IR website) Various topics shared by readers on Twitter, Facebook, Google+ and other platforms, e.g. M&As, financial figures, cooperation and strategic company decisions Possibility for comments within news room (here: 58,825 views, but no comments) Tags and tagcloud structure information Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 73
  • 74. DIGITAL HUB FOR WAL-MART‘S (DJIA) SHAREHOLDERS´ MEETINGDigital hub on the IR website combines Twitter and Facebookcomments, YouTube videos, Flickr photos, live streams via webcast,downloadable content, press releases and extensive information about theevent Conversations both on the IR website and external social media platforms Facebook and Twitter Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 74
  • 75. J&J (DJIA) FIRST PUBLIC COMPANY ON ACTIVIST SITE MOXYVOTEMoxyVote supports communication with retail shareholders and vote of J&J proxiesJohnson & Johnsoncorporate blog with IR Shareholder activist site dedicated to retail investors whotopics / Tagcloud can join for free and vote their proxies electronically.structures blog posts  165,000 users by April 2012; growing by 15,000 to 20,000 users per month.  Can be linked to individuals’ brokerage accounts to vote proxies online.  Shows users how different advocacy organizations voted their shares / Users can choose to automatically align their votes.  Corporations can engage on MoxyVote as part of the proxy process.  URL: www.moxyvote.com Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 75
  • 76. ONLINE SURVEYS TO GET TO KNOW FEEDBACK FROM SHAREHOLDERSListening to shareholders: Prudential (FTSE), Bayer and BASF (both DAX)Prudential (FTSE): Shareholders‘feedback on financial reportsrequested Bayer (DAX): Shareholders‘ opinion about the IR website BASF (DAX): IR online survey 2012 – shareholders‘ satisfaction with online performance Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 76
  • 77. DIALOGIC APPROACH EXTERNALLY: RETAIL INVESTOR CONFERENCES RICSAP Deutsche Telekom (DAX) and National Retail Properties (Russell 2000) on RIC , Retail Investor Conferences (RIC) is a platform for hosting virtual conferences which addresses both institutional and individual investors (83 % individuals, April 2012; approx. 10,000 registered investors). Each month, 10 companies give IR presentations to a virtual audience and offer the possibility for discussions online (streams cannot be recorded / other examples chosen here than SAP and Deutsche Telekom). URL: www.retailinvestorconferences.com Exhibit Hall chat with IR employees, download IR material, investor kits (here: Provecturs Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) Live Auditorium IROs give live presentations for registered users; Q&A sessions with audience afterwards (here: NAPTP) Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 77
  • 78. VIRTUAL CONFERENCES: CONVENIENT FOR INDIVIDUAL INVESTORS Q&A: “Could someone tell me why the maximum number of members in an investment club is twenty?“ (Claude Hawkins) Investor LoungeSocial networking with other individualinvestors contact other individual investors via chat or private messages Q&A`s discussions Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 78
  • 79. WIDE RANGE OF COMMENTS AND COMPANY REACTIONS ON FACEBOOKNegative comments on financial figures at Deutsche Affirmative comments on Caterpillar`s (DJIA)Bank`s (DAX) Facebook wall, however Deutsche Bank Facebook wallreplied / no deletion of comments Toyota Motor (NIKKEI) rejects reactions to comments inCisco Systems (DJIA) invites its shareholders to general: ”In general, we do not reply to comments.“ask questions about acquisitions Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 79
  • 80. STOCKTWITS ENABLES INVESTORS TO GET SPECIFIC FINANCIALLYRELEVANT INFORMATION SAP (DAX) on StockTwits (other companies are e.g. BASF, Deutsche Telekom, Royal Dutch Shell, Cisco, Chevron, Intel)Company profile Link to webcastsStickertag (tickersymbol: $SAP) IR contact: name, email, (phone number) Links to website & other external platforms Safe Harbor Statement Embedded SlideShare presentations Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 80
  • 81. SHARING KEY FACTS FROM IR EVENTS TO INVESTORS VIA LIVE TWEETINGRoyal Dutch Shell (only FTSE company on StockTwits) Daimler (DAX) shared key facts from the annuallive tweeted earning announcements on StockTwits general meeting with hashtag ”#HV“ (German for AGM) Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 81
  • 82. INVESTOR RELATIONS 2.0: MOBILE APPLICATIONSInvestor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 82
  • 83. MOBILE APPLICATIONS IN INVESTOR RELATIONSOverview of mobile tools on IR websites analyzed within this study Software application designed to run on mobile Mobile website device like smart phones orQuick response (QR) codes tablets. After download, IR link to the internet by apps automatically and scanning the codes with a directly offer up-to-datesmart phone. They are used QR code IR app investor relations informationto give access to additional provided by the company, content e.g. in printed e.g. share price, IR publications. presentations, IR calendar. Mobile applicationsThe possibility to vote shares online before the annual Virtual / hybrid Shareholders’ meetings heldgeneral meeting takes place AGM online on a virtual basis or as virtual shareholders and without the need of voting and physical get together in meetingpersonal appearance at the combination with the event. possibility to vote in real-time Text message via the internet. (SMS) service Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 83
  • 84. USE OF MOBILE APPLICATIONS FOR IR: INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONIncreased provision in comparison to 2011 / Especially IR apps gain importance 2012 3 11 7 5 1 4 Mobile website 2011 3 3 8 3 IR app 2012 3 9 8 2 1 2011 1 1 QR code 2012 2 3 3 1 Text message (SMS) service 2012 6 1 Virtual/hybrid shareholders meeting 2012 2 2 2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 DJIA 2012 DAX 2012 FTSE 2012 CAC 2012 NIKKEI 2012 Russell Midcap Russell 2000 DJIA 2011 DAX 2011 FTSE 2011 CAC 2011 NIKKEI 2011N: 143 (2012); 142 (2011) (no. of companies listed in DAX, DJIA, FTSE, CAC, NIKKEI using different tools on IR website). Four companies provide two IR apps, including Allianz SE (DAX), Royal Bank ofScotland (FTSE), BAYER AG (DAX) and Siemens AG (DAX). No annual comparison could be conducted for Russell Midcap and Russell 2000 companies as well as for the tools QR code, SMS service andvirtual/hybrid shareholders meeting. Russell 2000 companies offer none of the mobile applications mentioned above. Pearson chi-square and Monte Carlo significance test found significant differencesbetween groups (here: indices) for the tools mobile website and SMS service. Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 84
  • 85. USE OF MOBILE APPLICATIONS FOR IR: AGM ONLINE SERVICESPossibility to exercise voting rights online – widely used / Virtual or hybrid AGM not established 132 companies within the sample offer their shareholders the possibility to vote their shares online before the AGM takes place 5 companies within the sample hold hybrid shareholder meetings (possibility to follow live by webcast and to vote in real-time) 1 company within the sample holds a virtual-only shareholder meeting: Illumina Inc. (Russell Midcap)N = 190 (all companies). Five companies offer hybrid shareholder meetings – Intel Corp. (DJIA), Microsoft Corp. (DJIA), Allianz SE (DAX), Münchner Rück AG (DAX) and Terex Corp. (Russell Midcap).Pearson chi-square showed no significant differences between groups (here: indices) according to the possibility of voting shares online before the AGM takes place. Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 85
  • 86. MOBILITY FUNCTION ON IR WEBSITES: INTERNATIONAL OVERVIEWDAX and FTSE are leading the field / DJIA and NIKKEI less advanced25 2020 16 1515 14 14 12 12 1110 8 7 7 6 4 5 4 4 5 5 5 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DJIA DAX FTSE CAC NIKKEI Russel Midcap Russel 2000 fully applies largely applies partially applies does rather not apply does not apply at allN = 182 (no. of companies with social media on IR website). Assessment of mobility function by companies‘ IR department. Category in content analysis: Degree to which the company intends tomeet the needs of mobile internet users by offering different tools on the IR website, e.g. mobile website, IR apps, QR codes, SMS service, online proxy voting: 4 = fully applies, 3 = largely applies,2 = partly applies, 1 = does rather not apply, 0 = does not apply at all. Pearson chi square and Monte Carlo significance test found significant differences between groups (here: indices) accordingto the function mobility on IR website. Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 86
  • 87. SOCIAL MEDIA MOBILITY INDEX: GLOBAL BENCHMARK (TOP 10)German and UK corporations outperform US large-caps / NIKKEI least mobile at all 14.7 Mobility Index 12.4 Rank Company Index DJIA 1 Allianz SE DAX 9.6 9.7 DAX 2 Royal Bank of Scotland FTSE 7.6 FTSE BAYER AG DAX 5.9 CAC 3 4.8 Siemens AG NIKKEI DAX Russell Midcap 5 BASF SE DAX Russell 2000 6 Royal Dutch Shell plc FTSE Social Media Mobility Index (average) Daimler AG DAX 7 Unilever plc FTSE Social Media Mobility Index Use of mobile applications on the IR website (no. of different SAP AG DAX mobile tools) + degree of 8 Rolls Royce Group plc FTSE implementation of mobility function Volkswagen AG DAXN = 190 (all companies). BASF SE and Siemens AG as well as Daimler AG and Unilever plc with the same score. F-ratio for one-way ANOVA F-test statistic = 4.784. Results significant for p ≤ 0.05.Rounded figures. Significant differences between indices according to mobility index found. Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 87
  • 88. SUMMARY: MOBILE APPLICATIONS FOR INVESTOR RELATIONSMobility as important service feature within online IR / Utilization still at low level High usage rates of mobile applications (mobile websites, apps) as well as social networking sites or blogs on mobile devices among online users in general (comScore 2012); growing number for investors, analysts, financial journalists (DES & DVFA 2011, Forrester 2011). Corporations should account for the demand of their shareholders and other members of the financial community, and offer mobile IR services on their corporate websites.* In comparison to 2011, mobile applications are increasingly offered by corporate investor relations. Yet, provision by international large-caps is still on a low level. IR apps experienced highest growth rate among mobile applications; mobile website implemented most by international corporations. Possibility to exercise voting rights online is widely used; virtual or hybrid annual shareholders’ meeting is not established at all. German and British large-caps score highest in social media mobility index. US, French and Japanese large- caps offer their shareholders less mobile services. Within the US, mid-caps listed in Russell Midcap catch up with large-caps listed in DJIA in regard to mobile applications. Two of the Russell Midcap corporations within in the sample offer virtual and hybrid shareholders’ meetings. Best practices already show the possibilities for corporate mobile services. However mobility as an important service feature and growing demand among (financial) users is not yet accounted for by most international large-caps.* Mobile use of external social media platforms does not depend on companies’ mobile activities in particular. However, corporate engagement on external social media platforms serves thegrowing number of mobile users. Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 88
  • 89. BEST PRACTICES FOR MOBILE APPLICATIONSInvestor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 89
  • 90. ALLIANZ (DAX) OFFERS WIDE SPECTRUM OF MOBILE SERVICES Allianz IR apps for iPhone & iPad Diverse mobile services Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 90
  • 91. ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND (FTSE) SCORES HIGH IN MOBILE IR Investor app and document library for iPad “This app is a great way for analysts, investors and journalists to stay informed and access key documents and webcasts wherever they are, it allows us to provide our comprehensive disclosures in a very clear and accessible way“, Richard O´Connor, Head of Investor Relations. Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 91
  • 92. SAMPLE INVESTOR RELATIONS APPS BY BAYER, SIEMENS, WAL-MARTAnnual report apps, e.g. by Bayer and Siemens (both DAX) IR apps, e.g. by Wal-Mart (DJIA), Unilever (FTSE), and SAP (DAX) Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 92
  • 93. BASF (DAX) WITH MOBILE WEBSITE, QR CODE AND TEXT MESSAGES Mobile website including stock chart, details about BASF share, dividend and corporate actions, investor releases, calendar and events QR code allows direct access to mobile IR website SMS service offers information about BASF share price Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 93
  • 94. FRANCE TELECOM (CAC): PERSONALISED MOBILE ANNUAL REPORTDifferent download options for mobile usage on various platforms Mobile versions available for iPad, iPhone, tablets, smart phones, blackberries and eBook readers Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 94
  • 95. INVESTOR RELATIONS 2.0: MANAGEMENT SUMMARYInvestor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 95
  • 96. SOCIAL MEDIA ACTIVITY, DIALOGUE AND MOBILITY INDEXDifferences reveal country-specific usage patterns in online investor relations 63.2 63.4 DJIA DAX FTSE CAC NIKKEI Russell Midcap Russell 2000 55.3 43.9 41.6 30.1 25.4 26.4 24.3 18.9 14.1 14.2 10.4 11.1 11.9 8.7 7.7 8.7 6.3 4.8 5.9 Social Media Activity Index (average) Social Media Dialogue Index (average) Social Media Mobility Index (average) Internal Social Media Internal Social Media Social Media Mobility Index Activity Index + External Dialogue Index + External (only investor relations Social Media Activity Index Social Media Dialogue website) IndexN = 190 (no. of companies). Indices based on mean values. Kruskal Wallis test confirms significant differences between the indices for Social Media Mobility Index, Social Media Activity Indexand Social Media Dialogue Index (p ≤ 0.05). Correlation analysis with Spearman`s rho confirms significant dependencies between Social Media Mobility Index and Social Media Activity Index(r = 0.428) as well as Social Media Dialogue Index (r = 0.298) and between Social Media Activity Index and Social Media Dialogue Index (r = 0.905). Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 96
  • 97. GLOBAL BENCHMARK OF INVESTOR RELATIONS 2.0 ENGAGEMENTTop 10 corporations ranked by social media activity, dialogue and mobility Social Media Activity Index Social Media Dialogue Index Social Media Mobility IndexRank Company Index Company Index Company Index 1 Deutsche Telekom DAX Microsoft Corp. DJIA Allianz SE DAX 2 SAP AG DAX Cisco Systems Inc. DJIA Royal Bank of Scotland FTSE 3 BASF SE DAX Intel Corp. DJIA BAYER AG DAX 4 Cisco Systems Inc. DJIA General Electric Co. DJIA Siemens AG DAX 5 Wal-Mart Stores Inc. DJIA AT&T Inc. DJIA BASF SE DAX 6 Alcoa Inc. DJIA Hewlett-Packard Co. DJIA Royal Dutch Shell plc. FTSE 7 Intel Corp. DJIA Wal-Mart Stores Inc. DJIA Daimler AG DAX Unilever plc. FTSE 8 Johnson & Johnson Services Inc. DJIA BASF SE DAX 9 Royal Dutch Shell plc FTSE Deutsche Telekom AG DAX SAP AG / Volkswagen AG DAX 10 Münchener Rück AG DAX SAP AG DAX Rolls Royce Group plc FTSEN = 190 (no. of companies). Indices based on mean values. Kruskal Wallis test confirms significant differences between the indices for Social Media Mobility Index, Social Media Activity Indexand Social Media Dialogue Index (p ≤ 0.05). Correlation analysis with Spearman`s rho confirms significant dependencies between Social Media Mobility Index and Social Media Activity Index(r = 0.428) as well as Social Media Dialogue Index (r = 0.298) and between Social Media Activity Index and Social Media Dialogue Index (r = 0.905). Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 97
  • 98. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: GLOBAL INVESTOR RELATIONS 2.0Corporations intensely engage in social media / Online dialogue still a challenge The Investor Relations 2.0 Global Benchmark Study 2012 provides insights into how companies in France, Germany, Japan, the UK and the USA master financial communications using the social web. International differences in usage patterns show culture-specific relationships with shareholders and other financial market participants as well as in social media adoption. The longitudinal design reveals recent developments in the field, for example a more active use of social media and integration of new tools, the emergence of a dialogue and relationship building approach, and the use of mobile applications among international large-cap companies. Companies listed in all stock market indices implement social media on their IR websites. External social media platforms remain less employed, but are on the rise compared to previous years. In 2011, US companies were on the forefront of IR 2.0 engagement. This research reveals that German large-caps have caught up and perform on the same level as US large-caps in regard to social media activities or even outperform in the field of mobile applications. UK and French corporations improved their engagement, Japanese large-caps still least active within the sample. However, US large-caps as early-adopters and frontrunners are leading in the field of dialogic approaches to online investor relations. Dialogue and relationship building can be seen as the next level and challenge within online IR. Online and social media activities of corporations listed in the US indices Russell Midcap and Russell 2000 outperform Japanese large-caps, but are still below those of US large-caps. Yet, in some dimensions like mobile service and business networks US mid-caps even outperform their blue chip competitors. Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 98
  • 99. SOCIAL MEDIA ACTIVITY INDEX AND INDEPENDENT VARIABLESIndex membership accounts most for differences among companies’ online activities Index: explains 56.1 % of companies‘ social media Trading no significant No. of foreign activities volume – investors: dependencies between (η=0.749) domestic Social Media Activity medium market: correlation Index and weak correlation (r = 0.446) (r = 0.244) Social • Industrial sector Media • Sales market Activity • Free float Volatility: Analyst coverage: • No. of retail weak negative shareholders correlation No. of medium correlation • Share performance (r = -0.177) employees in • Trading volume – US- IR (r = 0.375) department: market • Shareholder activism medium correlation (r = 0.329)N=190 (no. of companies). Correlations analysis with Eta confirms significant dependencies between index in which company is listed and Internal Social Media Activity Index (η = 0.569, p < 0.001),External Social Media Activity Index (η = 0.699, p < 0.001). Correlation analysis with Eta found significant dependencies between sales market and External Social Media Activity Index (η = 0.2862, p= 0.033) as well as between industrial sector and Internal Social Media Activity Index (η = 0.2362, p = 0.05). Correlation analysis with Spearman`s Rho confirms significant correlations as indicatedwithin table. Besides, correlation analysis with Spearman`s Rho shows significant dependencies between Internal Social Media Activity Index and volatility (r = -0.176), trading volume (domestic market)(r = 0.204), no. of foreign investors (r = 0.321), analyst coverage (r = 0.397) and no. of employees in IR department (r = 0.273). Correlation analysis with Spearman`s Rho found also significantdependencies between External Social Media Activity Index and no. of employees in IR department (r = 0.324), analyst coverage (r = 0.303), no. of foreign investors (r = 0.436), trading volume(domestic market) (r = 0.230) and volatility (r = -0.151). Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 99
  • 100. SOCIAL MEDIA DIALOGUE INDEX AND INDEPENDENT VARIABLESIndustrial sector influences dialogic approach of online investor relations Index: explains 43,7 % of companies dialogic Industrial Shareholder approach in social sector: activism: media explains 33.5 % of (η = 0.661) companies dialogic weak correlation no significant approach in social (r = 0.169) media dependencies between (η = 0.579) Social Media Dialogue No. of foreign Trading volume Index and investors: Social – domestic weak correlation Media market • Sales market Dialogue medium correlation • Free float (r = 0.270) (r = 0.335) • No. of retail No. of shareholders Volatility: • Share performance employees in IR weak negative department: • Trading volume – correlation Analyst US-market medium correlation (r = -0.200) coverage: (r = 0.301) weak correlation (r = 0.293)N=190 (no. of companies). Correlations analysis with Eta confirms significant dependencies between index in which company is listed and Internal Social Media Dialogue Index (η = 0.434, p < 0.001)as well as External Social Media Dialogue Index (η = 0.541, p < 0.001). Correlation analysis with Eta found significant dependencies between industrial sector and Internal Social Media DialogueIndex (η = 0.419, p = 0.003). Correlation analysis with Spearman`s Rho confirms significant correlations as indicated within table. Besides, correlation analysis with Spearman`s Rho shows significantdependencies between Internal Social Media Dialogue Index and volatility (r = -0.190), trading volume (domestic market) (r = 0.275), analyst coverage (r = 0.275) and shareholder activism (r =0.153). Correlation analysis with Spearman`s Rho found also significant dependencies between External Social Media Dialogue Index and no. of employees in IR department (r = 0.280), analystcoverage (r = 0.233), no. of foreign investors (r = 0.288), trading volume (domestic market) (r = 0.330) and volatility (r = -0.177). Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 100
  • 101. SOCIAL MEDIA DIALOGUE INDEX AND INDUSTRIAL SECTORSoftware, technology and telecommunication corp. with most dialogic online IR 60 56.2 49.11 50 38.56 38.2 40 33 32.6 30.94 30 26.29 25.68 21 19.33 19.15 18.35 20 16.92 16.17 15.96 13.2 11.67 10 0 Social Media Dialogue Index (average)N=190 (no. of companies). Kruskal Wallis test shows no significant differences between the groups (here: industrial sectors). Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 101
  • 102. SOCIAL MEDIA MOBILITY INDEX AND INDEPENDENT VARIABLESMobility corresponds with trading volume, analyst coverage and foreign investment Index: explains 11,2% of companies‘ no significant mobile IR dependencies between activities Social Media Mobility (η=0.335) Index and No. of Trading • Industrial sector volume – • Sales market foreign Social domestic investors: Media market: • No. of employees in IR weak correlation Mobility department weak correlation (r = 0.249) • Free float (r = 0.206) • No. of retail shareholders • Share performance Analyst • Trading volume – US- coverage: market weak correlation • Shareholder Activism (r = 0.264)N=190 (no. of companies). Correlation analysis with Spearman`s Rho confirms significant correlations as indicated within table. Correlation analysis with Spearman`s Rho shows significantdependencies between Social Media Mobility Index and index (r = -0.259), number of foreign investors (r = 0.249), number of employees in IR department (r = 0.226), analyst coverage (r = 0.264),trading volume (domestic market) (r = 0.206). Correlations analysis with Eta confirms significant dependencies between index in which company is listed and Social Media Mobility Index (η = 0.335,p < 0.001). Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 102
  • 103. SOCIAL MEDIA ENGAGEMENT AND INDEPENDENT VARIABLES: SUMMARYIndex membership accounts most for differences between corporations Corporations’ activities and dialogic approaches are most influenced by the indices companies are listed in. However, the industrial sector accounts for online dialogues as well: Software, technology and telecommunication corporations employ most dialogic online IR. Social media activities can positively influence the number of foreign investors, analyst coverage and trading volume within the domestic market; volatility is negatively influenced. A dialogic or dialogue-oriented approach within online and social media investor relations as well as the employment of mobile services positively influence trading volume (domestic market), analyst coverage and number of foreign investors. Volatility is negatively influenced by online dialogues. This research also shows that social media activities as well as dialogic approaches depend on the number of employees within the IR department. Obviously, engaging online requires personal resources and is not made “on the run”. Mobile services are not related to the number of staff. Surprisingly, no dependencies between IR social media engagement and trading volume within the US market (direct listing or ADR), free float, number of retail shareholders, shareholder activism or share performance can be found within this study. However, some IROs who are very engaged in social media report on increased trading volumes in comparison to their peers; shareholders increasingly use activist sites (e.g. MoxyVote) and financial communities (e.g. SeekingAlpha); new platforms are evolving (e.g. StockR). Future studies should continue to focus on the potential influence of corporate social media engagement on variables like trading volume or shareholder activism, especially for mid- and small-cap companies as well. There are no differences within social media engagement between B2B or B2C companies within this study. Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 103
  • 104. IMPLICATIONS FOR INVESTOR RELATIONS PRACTICEFuture trends within online investor relations: Social media activities Corporations worldwide increasingly implement social media within their online investor relations activities. Whereas social media is largely employed on the IR website; external platforms are less worked with. Social media on the IR websites will further establish as a standard approach. RSS feeds, webcasts, videos etc. will become mainstream and are increasingly in demand by shareholders and other users. Links to all external platforms have to be implemented as well to make the IR website the companies “home base” when it comes to shareholders’ information and conversations within the WWW. External platforms as distinctive feature: Corporations’ engagement on external social media platforms will improve to the extent that shareholders can look for information online and on specific platforms. Significant correlations between external engagement and number of foreign investors, analyst coverage, trading volume and (negatively) volatility can already be found. As best practices will further evolve and experiences are created by corporations, external platforms will become an integral part of online IR as well. At the moment, there is not the one “right” external platform. The micro blog Twitter and the business network LinkedIn are most actively used by corporations globally. IR related content on the social network Facebook and content sharing platforms YouTube or SlideShare experience interest by online users, too. As strategic approaches towards online and social media IR further evolve, specific IR channels or financial social media platforms will become more established. Users could be better identified and targeted with relevant information. Corporate channels imply the downside that topics are too diverse to attract investors’ and analysts’ interest as a valuable information and communication platform. As seen with the emergence of MoxyVote or other activist sites, communicating with (retail) shareholders online as well as integrating social media within the proxy process will gain further importance.* See Macnamara & Zerfass 2012, Macnamara 2012. Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 104
  • 105. IMPLICATIONS FOR INVESTOR RELATIONS PRACTICEFuture trends within online investor relations: Social media dialogue and mobility Dialogue and relationship building as the next level of online investor relations: Really getting in a virtual dialogue with shareholders and other members of the financial community is demanding and does not only require new technical platforms, but resources, structures, a strategic online approach and especially the company’s willingness and ability to listen and participate in these conversations*. US large-caps clearly lead the field within dialogic online investor relations at the moment. As seen with social media activities, they will prospectively be challenged by other countries and indices (large-caps, but also mid- and small-caps) in regard to online conversations. Communication style will also be of importance: an argumentative rather than informative or even persuasive communication style serves as a precondition for relationship building.** Shareholder conversations online can be challenging for a department that has to obey regulatory provisions and disclosure policies. However, it is established practice to deal with institutional investors and analysts offline in one-on-ones or other personal meetings. IR has the expertise in such conversations in which non-disclosed information is not intended to be communicated. The experiences are to be transferred to online communications. Even today, there are best practices of how to engage with shareholders online. Mobile applications and mobile use of social media platforms will gain importance within investor relations. This study shows that mobility is currently not focused on by international large-caps. This will probably change as mobile usage further grows and IR apps, mobile websites etc. are demanded by shareholders. The virtual-only AGM is not likely to establish broadly within the next few years, whereas the hybrid AGM offers an additional service to shareholders who are not able or do not want to physically attend.* See Macnamara & Zerfass 2012, Macnamara 2012. ** See Habermas 1990. Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 105
  • 106. IMPLICATIONS FOR INVESTOR RELATIONS PRACTICEChallenges for online and social media investor relations Social media governance: Next to platforms and relevant content, corporations are challenged to implement governance structures for social media*: These regulatory frameworks for the strategic management of social media activities in organizations are an indispensable requirement for a successful establishment. Obviously, the IR department is not a single player within the company. Frameworks include support from the C-Suite, financial and personal resources, technical infrastructure, social media strategy for the whole corporation and IR in particular, interdisciplinary workforce or exchange with other departments involved in social media strategy and operations (communications, legal, HR, IT etc.), guidelines, trainings for employees (not just for communicating in social media, bur for planning, strategy and evaluation as well). Architecture of listening: A strategic approach towards social media involves, in the first place, to identify relevant stakeholders, conversations and platforms through “listening”. Monitoring the social web is already compulsory for every communication department in order to identify chances and risks, regardless of whether an organization is active on the social web or not.** Regulatory compliance: As for financial communications in general, online and social media IR has to fully comply with legal restrictions and regulatory demands. Web disclosure will certainly remain an issue for regulators and corporations likewise. Individual approach: Corporations are challenged to develop an individual approach to social media which fits into their specific corporate cultures and is related to equity culture and social media adoption within financial markets. Especially for small- and mid-cap corporations it will be important to have an online and social media strategy that does not only rely on best practices of large-cap peers and currently hyped platforms, but accounts for overall IR strategy (shareholder targeting, equity structure) and aims.* See Zerfass & Linke 2011; Zerfass, Fink, & Linke 2011. ** See Macnamara 2012. Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 106
  • 107. ABOUT THE AUTHORSInvestor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 107
  • 108. ABOUT THE AUTHORSProf. Dr. Ansgar Zerfass, University of LeipzigAnsgar Zerfass is a professor of communication management at the University of Leipzig, Germany. He serves asexecutive director of the European Public Relations Education and Research Association, Brussels, and editor ofthe International Journal of Strategic Communication, Routledge Publishers, USA. He has published 28 booksand more than 140 journal articles and book chapters on corporate communications. Ansgar Zerfass holdsmanagement and leadership responsibilities in several organizations and has been member of the managementboard of a state-owned company during his previous career in the business world. Since several years, he hasbeen engaged in cross-national research projects in the field of online communications and social media,measurement and evaluation, communication trends and competency building for communication managers.www.communicationmanagement.de | zerfass@uni-leipzig.de Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 108
  • 109. ABOUT THE AUTHORSKristin Koehler M.A., University of LeipzigKristin Koehler, M.A., is a researcher and doctoral candidate with the University of Leipzigs Department ofCommunication Management, Germany. Her research covers investor relations, social media and onlinecommunication, as well as communication management. Additionally, Ms. Koehler is a project manager for theAcademic Society for Corporate Management and Communication, a non-profit initiative by blue-chipcompanies and several universities in Germany. Kristin Koehler holds a degree in Communication Management,Political Science and Business Administration from the University of Leipzig (Germany) and University ofManchester (UK). She has held internships and freelance positions in the field of investor relations, public affairs,and corporate communications.www.communicationmanagement.de | kristin.koehler@uni-leipzig.de Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 109
  • 110. ABOUT THE UNIVERSITY OF LEIPZIGUniversity of Leipzig, Department of Communication Management and Public RelationsThe University of Leipzig is considered to be one of the leading research institutions and think tanks for StrategicCommunication and Public Relations in Europe. Its Communication Management Masters Program (rankednumber one among German PR university programs) is the first of its kind to consistently integrate corporatemanagement and communications. The research activities of the department are documented in more than 70German and English books and in more than 300 journal articles and book chapters.>> www.communicationmanagement.de>> www.slideshare.net/communicationmanagement Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 110
  • 111. REFERENCESInvestor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 111
  • 112. REFERENCEScomScore (2012). 2012 Mobile Future in Focus. Whitepaper available at: http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Presentations_Whitepapers/2012/ 2012_Mobile_Future_in_Focus.comScore. (2011). It’s a social world: Top 10 Need-to-Knows About Social Networking and Where It’s Headed. Whitepaper available at: http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Presentations_Whitepapers/2011/it_is_a_social_world_top_10_need-to-knows_about_social_networking.DAI Factbook (2011). Statistiken, Analysen und Grafiken zu Aktionären, Aktiengesellschaften und Börsen [Factbook of the German Institute for Equities - Data on the German and international equities markets]. Frankfurt: Deutsches Aktieninstitut.DES Deutsche EuroShop & DVFA Deutsche Vereinigung für Finanzanalyse und Asset Management (2011). Social Media Survey 2011. The Use of Social Media by European Investment Professionals (Chart Version). Hamburg, Frankfurt: DES/DVFA. Available at: http://www.dvfa.de/files/ finanzkommunikation/application/pdf/DVFA_DES_Social_Media_Survey_2011.pdf.Droller, M. (2012). Nonprofit-Organisationen im Social Web [NPOs in the social web]. Unpublished master’s thesis. Leipzig: University of Leipzig.Forrester Research (2011). The State Of Mobile Investing. Whitepaper available at: http://www.forrester.com/The+State+Of+Mobile+Investing/fulltext/-/ E-RES56454.Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.Hoffmann, A. O., Tutic, A., & Wies, S. (2011). The role of educational diversity in investor relations. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 16(4), 311–327.Fink, S., Zerfass, A., & Linke, A. (2011). Social Media Governance 2011 – Expertise Levels, Structures and Strategies of Companies, Governmental Institutions and Non-Profit Organizations communicating on the Social Web. Results of an empirical study of communications professionals. Leipzig, Wiesbaden: University of Leipzig/Fink & Fuchs. Available at: http://www.slideshare.net/communicationmanagement.Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (1998). Building a dialogic relationship through the WorldWideWeb. Public Relations Review, 24(3), 321–340.Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 28(1), 21–37.Koehler, K. (2011). Investor relations 2.0 – Status quo of online financial communications. Paper presented at the EUPRERA annual conference, Leeds, UK, September 2011.Koehler, K. (2011): Investor relations 2.0. An international benchmark study (Chart Version). Leipzig: University of Leipzig. Available at: http://www.slideshare. net/communicationmanagement). Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 112
  • 113. REFERENCESKoehler, K., & Zerfass, A. (2011). Investor Relations 2.0. Communication Director, 7(4), 28-31.Köhler, K. (2010). Investor Relations und Social Media. Benchmarkstudie zur Praxis der Finanzkommunikation im Web 2.0 bei börsennotierten Unternehmen in Deutschland [Investor relations and social media]. München: Going Public Media.Linke, A., & Mahnke, M. (2012). Learning from Habermas. Theory based reflection on Social Media as a dialogue tool. Presentation at the GOR General Online Research Annual Conference, Mannheim, Germany.Macnamara, J. (2012, in print). Beyond voice: Audience-making and the work and architecture of listening. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies.Macnamara, J., & Zerfass, A. (2012, May). Social media communication in organizations: The challenges of balancing openness, strategy and management. Paper presented to the 62nd Annual International Communication Association Annual Conference, Phoenix, AZ.Murtarelli, G., & Invernizzi, E. (2011, September).´Theoretical foundations of Web 2.0: State of the art and future research. Paper presented at the Euprera Annual Congress 2011, Leeds, UK.SEC (2012). Investment Adviser Use of Social Media. Available at http://www.sec.gov/about/offices/ocie/riskalert-socialmedia.pdf .Zerfaß, A. (2010). Unternehmensführung und Öffentlichkeitsarbeit. Grundlegung einer Theorie der Unternehmenskommunikation und Public Relations, 3rd rev. ed. [Corporate management and public relations. A theory of corporate communication and public relations]. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozial- wissenschaften.Zerfaß, A., & Köhler, K. (2012). Investor Relations: Online-Kommunikation mit Analysten und Anlegern [Investor relations: Online communications with investors and analysts]. In A. Zerfaß & T. Pleil (Hrsg.), Handbuch Online-PR. Strategische Kommunikation in Internet und Social Web [Handbook online public relations. Strategic communication in Internet and social web] (pp. 147-160). Konstanz: UVK.Zerfass, A., Fink, S., & Linke, A. (2011). Social Media Governance: Regulatory frameworks as drivers of success in online communications. In L. R. Men & M. D. Dodd (Eds.), Pushing the Envelope in Public Relations Theory and Research and Advancing Practice. 14th Annual International Public Relations Research Conference Proceedings (pp. 1026-1047). Gainesville (FL): Institute for Public Relations.Zerfaß, A., & Sandhu, S. (2008). Interaktive Kommunikation, Social Web und Open Innovation. Herausforderungen und Wirkungen im Unternehmenskontext [Interactive communication, social web and open innovation. Challenges and effects for organizations]. In A. Zerfaß, M. Welker & J. Schmidt (Eds.) Kommunikation, Partizipation und Wirkungen im Social Web. Band 2: Strategien und Anwendungen: Perspektiven für Wirtschaft, Politik, Publizistik [Communication, participation and effects of the social web. Volume 2: Perspectives for business, politics and the media] (pp. 283-310). Köln: Herbert von Halem Verlag. Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 113
  • 114. APPENDIXInvestor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 114
  • 115. SAMPLE IN DETAILEach index represents the top listed companies in the respective country/at the respective stock exchange.From each index, the top 30 constituent companies according to weight within size indices were chosen toenable a comparative design: The German DAX and the US DJIA both consist of 30 values. The JapaneseNikkei comprises 225, the French CAC 40 and the UK based FTSE 100 the 100 most highly capitalized listedcompanies. DJIA and NIKKEI are price-weighted stock market indices; DAX, CAC and FTSE are market-value-weighted indices.Index composition according to March 2, 2012.DJIA: 3M Co., Alcoa Inc., American Express Co., AT&T Inc., Bank of America Corp., Boeing Co., CaterpillarInc., Chevron Corp., Cisco Systems Inc., Coca-Cola Co., E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Exxon Mobil Corp.,General Electric Co., Hewlett-Packard Co., Home Depot Inc., Intel Corp., International Business MachinesCorp., Johnson & Johnson Services In., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Kraft Foods Inc., McDonalds Corp., Merck &Co. Inc., Microsoft Corp., Pfizer Inc., Procter & Gamble Co., Travelers Cos. Inc., United Technologies Corp.,Verizon Communications Inc., Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Walt Disney Co.DAX: adidas AG, Allianz SE, BASF SE, Bayer AG, Beiersdorf AG, BMW AG, Commerzbank AG, Daimler AG,Deutsche Bank AG, Deutsche Börse AG, Deutsche Lufthansa AG, Deutsche Post AG, Deutsche Telekom AG,E.ON AG, Fresenius Medical Care AG & Co. KGaA, Fresenius SE, HeidelbergCement AG, Henkel AG & Co.KGaA, Infineon Technologies AG, K+S AG, Linde AG, MAN SE, Merck KGaA, Metro AG, Münchener Rück AG,RWE AG, SAP AG, Siemens AG, ThyssenKrupp AG, Volkswagen AG Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 115
  • 116. SAMPLE IN DETAIL CONTINUEDFTSE: Anglo American plc, AstraZeneca plc, Barclays plc, BG Group plc, BHP Billiton plc, BP plc, BritishAmerican Tobacco plc, BT Group plc, Centrica plc, Diageo plc, GlaxoSmithKline plc, Glencore International plc,HSBC Holdings plc, Imperial Tobacco Group plc, International Power plc, Lloyds Banking Group plc, NationalGrid plc, Prudential plc, Reckitt Benckiser Group plc, Rio Tinto Group plc, Royal Bank of Scotland plc, Rolls-Royce Holdings plc, Royal Dutch Shell plc, SABMiller plc, Standard Chartered plc, Tesco plc, Tullow Oil plc,Unilever plc, Vodafone Group plc, Xstrata plc(Changes according to the composition of the sample in comparison to 2011`s study: Glencore International plc, International Power plc and Royal Bank ofScotland plc replaced Aviva plc, BAE Systems plc Scottish and Southern Energy plc.)CAC: Air Liquide SA, Alstom SA, Arcelormittal SA, AXA SA, BNP Paribas SA, Carrefour SA, Danone SA, EADS,Essilor Intl. SA, France Telecom SA, GDF Suez SA, LOréal SA, Lafarge SA, Legrand SA, LVMH SA, Michelin SCA,Pernod Ricard SA, PPR SA, Publicis Groupe SA, Renault SA, Safran SA, Saint Gobain SA, Sanofi-Aventis SA,Schneider Electric SA, Societe Generale SA, Technip SA, Total SA, Unibail-Rodamco SA, Vinci SA, Vivendi SA(Changes according to the composition of the sample in comparison to 2011`s study: Legrand SA, Publicis Groupe SA, Safran SA and Technip SA replacedAlcatel-Lucent SA, Vallourec SA, Veolia Environ. SA and Credit Agricole SA)NIKKEI: Canon Inc., Denso Corp., East Japan Railway Co., Fanuc Corp., Fast Retailing Co. Ltd., Hitachi Ltd.,Honda Motor Co. Ltd., Inpex Corp., Japan Tobacco Inc., KDDI Corp., Komatsu Ltd., Mitsubishi Corp.,Mitsubishi Estate Co. Ltd., Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc., Mitsui & Co. Ltd., Mizuho Financial Group Inc.,Nintendo Co. Ltd., Nippon Steel Corp., Nissan Motor Co. Ltd., NTT Corp., NTT Docomo, Inc. Panasonic Corp.,Seven & I Holdings Co. Ltd., Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd., Softbank Corp., Sony Corp., Sumitomo Corp., TakedaPharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Tokyo Marine Holdings Inc., Toyota Motor Corp.(Changes according to the composition of the sample in comparison to 2011`s study: Fast Retailing Co. Ltd., NTT Docomo and Nintendo Co. Ltd. replacedToshiba Corp., Kyocera Corp. and Mitsubishi Electric Corp.) Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 116
  • 117. SAMPLE IN DETAIL CONTINUEDThe Russell Midcap Index measures the performance of the mid-cap segment of the US equity universe. As asubset of the Russell 1000 it includes approximately 800 of the smallest securities based on a combination oftheir market cap and current index membership. The Russell 2000 Index measures the performance of the small-cap segment of the US equity universe. It includes approximately 2000 of the smallest securities based on acombination of their market cap and current index membership.Index composition according to January 31, 2012.Russell Midcap top 10 holdings: Consolidated Edison Inc., Ecolab Inc., El Paso Corp., Equity Residential, HCPInc., Intuit, Intuitive Surgical Inc., Marsh and McLennan Cos., Noble Energy Inc., Spectra Energy Corp.Russell Midcap top 10 performers: Dendreon Corp., Illumina Inc., IPG Photonics Corp., Manitowoc Co. Inc.,Netflix Inc., Orchard Supply Hardware, Regeneron Pharmaceutical, Terex Corp., Solutia Inc., Westlake ChemicalCorp.Russell 2000 top 10 holdings: American Campus Communities Inc., Biomed Realty Trust Inc., Clean HarborsInc., Henry Jack & Associates Inc., Home Properties Inc., Kilroy Realty Corp., National Retail Properties Inc.,Parametric Technology Corp., Salix Pharmaceuticals Ltd., World Fuel Services Corp.Russell 2000 top 10 performers: Amicus Therapeutics Inc., Bon Ton Stores Inc., Celldex Therapeutics Inc.,Friendfinder Networks Inc., Georgia Gulf Corp., Gtx Inc., Idenix Pharmaceuticals Inc., McEwen Mining Inc.,Orexigen Therapeutics Inc., Usec Inc.(Due to acquisitions that took place during the study period Succesfactors Inc., Inhibitex Inc. and Netlogic Microsystems have been replaced by Bon TonStores Inc., Kilroy Realty Corp. and Salix Pharmaceuticals Ltd. according to the index composition of February 28, 2012.) Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 117
  • 118. SAMPLE IN DETAIL CONTINUEDGerman indices MDAX and SDAX are market-value-weighted indices.Index composition according to January 6, 2011.All companies within each German index were part of analysis in the 2011 study (see Koehler 2011).MDAX: Aareal Bank AG, Aurubis AG, Axel Springer AG, BayWa AG, Bilfinger Berger SE, Brenntag AG, Celesio AG, Continental AG, Demag Cranes AG,Deutsche EuroShop AG, Deutsche Wohnen AG, Douglas Holding AG, ElringKlinger AG, EADS, Fielmann AG, Fraport AG, Fuchs Petrolub AG, GAGFAHS.A., GEA Group Aktiengesellschaft, Gerresheimer AG, Gildemeister AG, Hamburger Hafen und Logistik AG, Hannover Rückversicherung AG, HeidelbergerDruckmaschinen AG, Hochtief AG, Hugo Boss AG, IVG Immobilien AG, Kabel Deutschland Holding AG, Klöckner & Co. SE, Krones AG, LANXESS AG,Leoni AG, MTU Aero Engines Holding AG, Praktiker Bau- und Heimwerkermärkte Holding AG, ProSiebenSat.1 Media AG, Puma AG, Rational AG,Rheinmetall AG, RHÖN-KLINIKUM AG, Salzgitter AG, SGL Carbon SE, Sky Deutschland AG, STADA Arzneimittel AG, Südzucker AG, Symrise AG, TognumAG, TUI AG, Vossloh AG, Wacker Chemie AG, WINCOR NIXDORF AktiengesellschaftSDAX: Air Berlin PLC, alstria office REIT AG, Amadeus Fire AG, Balda AG, Bauer AG, Bertrandt AG, Biotest AG, C.A.T. oil AG, CENTROTEC Sustainable AG,CeWe Color Holding AG, Colonia Real Estate AG, comdirect bank AG, Constantin Medien AG, CTS Eventim AG, Delticom AG, Deutsche Beteiligungs AG,DEUTZ AG, DIC Asset AG, Dürr AG, elexis AG, Gerry Weber International AG, Gesco AG, GfK SE, Grammer AG, GRENKELEASING AG, H&R WASAG AG,Hawesko Holding AG, Highlight Communications AG, Homag Group AG, Hornbach Holding AG, Indus Holding AG, Jungheinrich AG, Koenig & Bauer AG,KUKA AG, KWS SAAT AG, Medion AG, MLP AG, MVV Energie AG, PATRIZIA Immobilien AG, Pfleiderer AG, SAF Holland S.A., Sixt AG, SKW Stahl-Metallurgie Holding AG, Ströer Out-of-home Media AG, TAG Immobilien AG, TAKKT AG, Tipp24 SE, TOM TAILOR Holding AG, VTG AG, Wacker NeusonSE Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 118
  • 119. @ Universität Leipzig 2012Investor Relations 2.0 – Global Benchmark Study 2012 119