What Makes for Effective Investor Relations Sites? Part 4: Share Price Charts
October 20, 2009
Last week we focused on immediate share price information and today we will be looking at stock charts. At its very basic, a stock chart should clearly convey the price history of a stock over a defined period of time. So at a minimum, a line chart over the past year with a clearly defined axis showing the price is what investors can expect. Most companies also include a volume chart below the share price. Scottish and Southern Energy has a nice example of this simple approach and I’ve reproduced it below.
You will note that the charting page for Scottish and Southern Energy also includes a selection tool that allows investors to select the time period that they wish to view, ranging from intraday to five years in length.
This is the next iteration of choice for price charts and very helpful for someone thinking about purchasing the stock.
Taking it one step further, some companies also allow user selected dates to define the beginning and end of the chart. This makes sense for people who already own the stock as chances are most investors did not buy the stock on the one, two or five year anniversary of their looking at the chart.
A good example of this capability is the chart of Friends Provident Group, reproduced below, where I’ve arbitrarily chosen to look at the share price performance since the beginning of the year 2000.
A close inspection of the chart will also show that investors have the capability to chart against other companies (in this case, up to eight pre-selected companies), indexes and sectors.
As an investor, this is useful, because you always want to know “Compared to what?” however, it probably comes under the “Nice to have“ category as opposed to essential information.
Finally, a feature I really like, but which I don’t see that often, is illustrated on the chart from ENI. (If you really want to see a well-executed investor site, visit ENI’s site www.eni.it.)
Click image to enlarge
They have overlain their interactive chart with indicators of the release of corporate information. For example, by scrolling over April 24, 2009, you are able to see that the rise in their stock price coincided with the release of ENI’s first quarter 2009 results.
I find this particularly helpful when I look at a large rise or fall on a stock price chart as it often helps me understand what may have been causing the movement.
In this series:
Previous post: Share price information
Next post: Historical share price data
Talent Acquisition 2009: No Surprises
October 19, 2009
Looking over Talent Acquisition Strategies 2009: Cutting through the Clutter and Proactively Managing Quality Candidates, a new report from the Aberdeen Group, there’s a definite sense of familiarity. Almost every finding and every recommendation is related to strategies and tactics that have been covered here on Corporate Eye and widely discussed among recruiting professionals. So the value of the report is not so much in big news as in validation of the conventional wisdom–and some ideas for strategic fine-tuning.
As mentioned in the introductory post for this series, the report covers a lot of territory. So I will focus on highlighting the information that pertains to corporate websites, social media, and employer branding. By way of introduction:
- The report defines three “maturity classes”—Best in Class (20% of respondents), Industry Average (50%), and Laggards (30%)
- Class placement is assessed on four measures—percentage of new hires that were top choice; year-over-year increase in candidate quality; year-over-year increase in retention; percentage of new hires meeting or exceeding requirements on first review
- Differences between Best in Class and Laggards were fairly dramatic in some cases—with BiCs getting 90% of their first choice hires, Laggards only 27%, but . . .
- Laggards were not as far off in employee success measured by first reviews, with the BiCs showing 90%, the Laggards 71%
So what do we learn about Best in Class practices? Among other things:
- BICs are much more likely than Laggards to have a well-defined candidate relationship management process in place
- As a preferred response to economic stress, expanding the candidate pipeline proactively was the top choice for BiCs (39%) and scaling back on recruiting efforts was the bottom choice (14%)
- BiCs are significantly more likely than Averages and Laggards to use a variety of pre-hire assessments
In terms of how to build/expand the pipeline of quality candidates, the top two BiC choices were:
- Cultivating employee referrals (which entails the need to increase employee engagement)
- Maintaining “an engaging and informative company career portal”
As for other aspect of technology–large percentages (70% to 90%) of all three maturity classes have adopted:
- Applicant tracking systems
- Hiring management systems
- Background screening solutions, and
- Online career portals (both external- and internal-facing)
The gap between BiCs and all others is also relatively small when it comes to the use of “Web 2.0 and social networking,” but in this case the percentages are all low rather than high. Less than 30% of companies in each maturity class utilize these capabilities now, with another 30% “planning to use.”
Note that (a) this assessment leaves about 40% with neither implementation nor plan, and (b) BiCs are no further along than Laggards. (Though of the BiCs that do use social networking tools, three-quarters say their recruiters are trained on use of the tools, while just under half of Laggard users have training in place.)
In a related Aberdeen report (HR Executive’s Guide to Web 2.0: Cracking the Code for Talent Management), a survey of more than 500 companies found that less than half were using Web 2.0 and social networking tools for talent acquisition, but noted a 105% rate of growth in use over the the previous year’s figures. Respondents in that study identified the greatest value of Web 2.0 tools in recruitment as “[giving] the candidate a sense of the company’s culture.”
I hope anyone who gleans further insights from the Aberdeen report will share—and in the meantime, I’ll offer an additional line of thought in the next post.
(Thanks to gthomasbower for the visual mash-up of Number 2.)
Talent Acquisition 2009: Considering the Aberdeen Group Report
October 16, 2009
A new report from the Aberdeen Group researchers–Talent Acquisition Strategies 2009: Cutting through the Clutter and Proactively Managing Quality Candidates—offers much to think about. In fact, there’s so much thought provocation that I’m going to walk through the topics in three posts, looking at some aspects of the Aberdeen findings and exploring some contrary/complementary ideas.
First, the background. The Aberdeen study, conducted between June and August, 2009, examines “the use, the experiences, and the intentions of more than 420 enterprises regarding their talent acquisition initiatives.” The largest percentage of respondents (36%) were HR managers, with directors coming in next (23%), and CEOs/VPs totaling 17%. Industries were represented fairly evenly, but a whopping 73% of responding companies were from North America, with Asia and Europe dividing 23%, and everywhere else providing just a sprinkle. About a third of responding companies were “small,” with annual revenues of $50 million or less, and fewer than 500 employees, with roughly another third mid-sized, and 27% humongous (billion-dollar plus, more than 5,000 employees).
Second, fair warning. If you want to view the whole report, you have until October 31 to access it via free registration. After that it becomes content for sale. (You can’t save or copy it, by the way, but you can print all or selected pages.) Quick note: Research reports have become quite expensive, which increases the value of the Aberdeen approach. In their model, sponsors underwrite access to reports for a limited time—and that means you have to pay attention to what’s available when–so you have to pay attention to Aberdeen. Rather clever . . .
Third, a strategy. The report is rather complex in its organization, and it uses a sort of proprietary framework for analysis. So it is not what I would call an “easy read.” If you do read it, try going through first with a focus on the raw data and second with an eye on the interpretations and advice. Make notes, use a highlighter, etc.—in short, treat it like a school assignment. This could be a worthwhile effort if the report is used to: (a) organize thinking about issues/opportunities in the identification and management of candidates, and (b) review gaps and accomplishments in your own organization.
Fourth (and finally), a preview. For the next post, I’ll get out my decoder ring and highlight some important points in the report. After that, I’ll offer a mildly contrarian response to some aspects of the report.
(Thanks to the bbp for opening the door with Number 1.)
How to be a Useful Expert
October 16, 2009
I recently invited Josh Hanagarne, World’s Strongest Librarian, to write a guest post for us. Josh is the twitchy giant behind World’s Strongest Librarian, a blog about living with Tourette’s Syndrome, book recommendations, buying pants when you’re 6’8”, old-time strongman training, kettlebells, and much more. Please subscribe to Josh’s RSS Updates to stay in touch.
Over to you, Josh…
How To Be A Useful Expert
Ancient Japanese Proverb
Too many boatmen will run the boat up to the top of the mountain
Nothing is more useful than an expert. Nothing is more useless than an expert that nobody can benefit from.
We turn to experts for answers because they’ve paid their dues to acquire bodies of knowledge that most people don’t have. Their talents and vision are often needed to Get Things Done. But I’ve seen groups of experts that have no idea how to work with other people. When projects need collaborators to be successful, this can be a disaster. If nobody else can benefit from your talents, what is your expertise really worth?
I’ve seen this over and over in two worlds: Academics and Business
Academics
The world of academics is full of insecure, brilliant people with multiple PhDs. Some of them have very big egos and very short fuses. I’ve seen some very nasty arguments between geniuses about whose realm is more important and should receive more of the money.
But I get it. I really do. If you have paid your dues and reached the top of your niche, it can sting when someone refuses to acknowledge your greatness and majesty.
Not to be too obvious, but have noticed that not everyone shares the same passion? You’ve never seen a sadder argument than a botanist trying to convince a literary theorist that botany is the Ultimate Academic Discipline. Once things are nearing the point of blows being exchanged, the likelihood of productive partnering in the future becomes unlikely.
Whether either one of those fields is important, I’ll leave to you.
The Private Sector
The Private Sector is no different. Various CEOs, department heads, and top dogs from all walks of the business can develop a tendency to believe their own specialty is the most important. Everyone has vanity, ego, and insecurities somewhere inside of them. That’s one of the costs of being alive.
But what happens when there is a project to work on and everyone wants to be in charge? Sometimes you can’t afford to say, “Well, we’re all just fallible humans. Of course we’re fighting and howling about this! Please pass me the boxing gloves.”
How A Cliche becomes A Cliche
I’m not a big fan of acronyms and I like superficial “Rah Rah” corporate-speak even less. But hidden inside every cliche is something true. Have you ever heard of TEAM, aka “Together everyone achieves more?”
Don’t roll your eyes just yet if you can help it. It’s not the fault of the phrase that it’s been spouted around for so long that nobody can hear it without retching. It is true that the right team can get more done than any of the single players can do alone.
A Simple But Not Simplistic Example
Suppose a corporation wants to start a website. After the website is built, someone up high hears that these blog things are pretty sweet and now they want a blog for the corporate website. The person at the top selects the eight department heads and says, “Get a blog going and fill it with content. Make it work and make it work for us.”
Now let’s go out on a limb and assume that those eight department heads don’t agree on everything 100% of the time. How will they figure out what will go on the blog? Whose department gets the most exposure? How often? Who is the best writer? Who is the worst writer? Does everyone believe that a blog is actually a good idea? Does everyone agree on the reasons for why the blog exists?
There are questions that need to be asked at the beginning of any collaborative effort.
They don’t always get asked and then–sometimes the best you can do is try to get your mouth guard in before the punching starts.
So What’s The Answer?
People like to feel good about what they know and what they can do. I’ve never met anyone who does not enjoy the chance to display their own skills and talents. In this example, the useful expert is the one who has something to offer to the project–not the expert who feels the need to constantly remind everyone of how many degrees they have and how much money their talents have made them.
Maybe that’s the question to ask when a group of competent, smart, but potentially-at-odds people get together to collaborate:
What is everyone good at? How can each person’s talent be included? Of course, if you’re putting together a corporate blog for a media conglomerate and someone raises their hand and says, “I’m an elite botanist, give me the reins and I can totally do this!”…
Cooler heads do have their place and should also be given the chance to prevail at times.
Thanks, Josh!
Climate Change: Clunk-Click and the Corporate Website
October 15, 2009
“UK companies are lagging on targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions”
“Emissions are falling at 0.5% per year, whereas 2-3% is needed to meet targets”
“UK scientists say the global average temperature could rise by 4C as early as 2060″
“Less than half of the British think that climate change will affect them during their lifetime – and less than 20% believe their children will be affected by global warming”
Department of Energy and Climate Change
It’s not all bad but there’s more to do
The good news is that some of our top companies are showing a year on year improvement in the data they disclose. And, although the highest ever levels of emissions have been disclosed, this seems to be because more companies are able to measure and report their emissions accurately. And most of the FTSE100 do identify their responsibility KPIs and report progress against their responsibility targets.
However, there is more to do. Only 35% of the FTSE 350 disclosed reduction targets; this is lower than the 51% disclosure rate of the Global 500. Sadly, this means that the actual levels of emissions are likely to be a lot higher than disclosed this year.
What more could you do?
Some companies have signed up to the Copenhagen Communique (many from the FTSE 100); others (including many smaller businesses and individuals) have committed to the 10:10 project. This kind of public commitment, along with measurable targets and disclosure of progress towards those targets makes it more likely that you’ll reach those targets.
This is all highly commendable: indeed, vital. But we need more, and I think this is about mindset, both corporate and individual.
Corporate Mindset: Opportunity or Risk?
24% of companies identify the introduction of the Carbon Reduction Commitment in April 2010 as an opportunity (though more see it as a risk).
A quick survey just through the A’s in the FTSE 100 reveals that several are promoting their response to climate change as a business advantage:
“AMEC is at the forefront of many new innovations from low-carbon energy production, carbon capture and storage to assisting customers in carbon-proofing their management systems.”
“While recognising our role as a major producer of coal, we’re also working to meet the operational, environmental and social challenges of doing business in a carbon-constrained future… We have succeeded in capturing … methane at several of our collieries and converting it into saleable energy. Instead of venting this gas, we are using it to generate electricity or supplying it to industrial users in the form of natural gas. These enterprises also improve mine safety and our bottom line.” (AngloAmerican)
“We were the first insurance company to be carbon neutral across our worldwide operations. 77% of our people think we act responsibly towards the environment.” (Aviva)
Is there an opportunity for your business?
I’m not saying that climate change doesn’t present a risk (because it does, obviously); just that it may be possible to find the positive, and work for an approach that benefits the business as well as the environment, without greenwashing.
Individual Mindset
Businesses of all sizes and all industries clearly have an impact on emissions and therefore on climate change, though the problem isn’t due to business alone; over 40% of UK’s CO2 emissions are a result of personal choices.
Why is there this wide disconnect between what scientists are predicting, and what people believe?
The New Scientist recently published a very interesting article about climate change as a cultural and psychological phenomenon, and outlines four different ‘stories’ we tell ourselves about climate change:
- Edenic myth: describes our climate as part of a fragile natural world we need to protect
- Apocalyptic myth: uses the language of fear and disaster to promote a call for action to prevent climate change
- Promethean myth: describes climate as something we need to control, but can’t
- Themisian myth: talks about climate change using the language of justice and equity, calling for environmental justice.
This is like marketing to different niche groups. Your audience might reject the idea of climate change if presented in the Themisian myth, with the response that “it doesn’t matter what I do as an individual when country X doesn’t do anything”, while if the audience had been presented with the Edenic myth, they might be more responsive.
Like the seatbelt campaign to change people’s mindsets, persuading people to take action to deal with climate change might take years, but it needs to be done. Society is still working on changing the attitude of drivers to drink-driving; but change is coming. Nowadays it is the norm to clunk-click every trip; it must become the norm to consider climate change as readily as one would consider personal safety.
What has climate change – and perspective change – to do with corporate websites?
Your corporate website visitors are there for a variety of reasons: some business, some personal. Your corporate statement on climate change and responsibility will be read by many of them:
- Investors and analysts – who want to understand the risks to your business but also the potential opportunities
- Journalists – looking for the story about your business and its impact on climate change (so make it a good one!)
- CSR analysts and activists – who want to understand your impact on climate change and your actions to mitigate those
- Job seekers and customers – who are increasingly interested in green issues and your corporate responsibility strategy
All those visitors may be professionally interested in your climate change story, but it will also have a personal impact on them and – even if only subliminally – strengthen their awareness of the breadth and significance of the climate change issues and of the responsible actions that so many organisations are undertaking across society.
So what mindset does your website appeal to?
Do you see climate change as an opportunity as well as a risk?
Are you helping to shift the perspective of society?
Are you changing people’s minds about your business as well as about climate change?
This post is part of Blog Action Day, which this year is discussing climate change.
Previous contributions to Blog Action Day were:
2008: Celebrating the FTSE 100: action on the breadline
2007: Enticing the green investor
Get our updates
 |