Corporate Eye

...compare, compete, excel

Archives for June 2013

Two-Way Tweeting: Interaction Online

conversation
It’s tempting and surprisingly common to see big companies who think of social media as something of a noticeboard; a place to pin adverts and interesting news and leave it there for anyone who chooses to take a look at it. Pinterest excluded, this sort of passivity really doesn’t make the most of the corporate web capital you’ve developed and it certainly won’t impress the active talent out there who are used to tweeting, posting and liking tens if not hundreds of times a day.

Turning your social media presence into something active isn’t just about responding to comments and retweeting the odd bit of brilliance, it’s about developing a relationship between you and your followers that instills trust in your brand and keeps them interested and when the time comes to apply for that job, they’ll know exactly where to go first

Keep an Eye on the Date
Nothing is more disheartening to a potential applicant than seeing a page that hasn’t been updated in six months or a twitter feed that’s weeks behind. Half of the work of job applications for graduates is finding out which positions are current, which are filled and which are just out of date. This is both dependent on what you post, but on what those who interact with you post. It’s not necessary to be overloading your feeds, but you shouldn’t let your web capital go stale for more than a few days or it might just be discarded by graduates!

Visible Replies and Active Retweets
There are times to use the personal message and times when you shouldn’t; anything confidential or, perhaps, negative should be done via the inbox, but if you restrict all your Twitter activity to personal messages it will just appear unused! Reply to as many mentions (when someone tweets ‘@yourcompany’) with public replies as you can, and don’t be afraid to hit retweet liberally; just remember you will be seen to be endorsing everything you do retweet.

Playing the Numbers Game
In the social media world it’s quite common to measure someone’s success in terms of likes, followers or connections and, as such, plenty of your followers – potential candidates – will keep tabs on how active you are in establishing new links. Providing they’re not spam, it’s good policy to follow those who follow you in return and it’s good to seek out connections yourself. This can seem menial sometimes, but quality and high profile connections do bolster your presence as well as actively increasing your own network.

In the world of social media, it’s really a case of if you’re not moving forward you must be offline. Two-way interaction is essential to making the most of your social media presence and there’s certainly an image penalty if you’re not keeping things ticking over. Always keep it professional but don’t be afraid to be sociable just for the sake of it – it’s evidence to any potential applicant you’re not only online but you’re active and on the ball.

3 out of 4 Brands Could Disappear and Most People Wouldn’t Care

businessman holding globeIs your brand meaningful? Marketing and communications company Havas Media Group has been indexing brands based on a framework that connects human well-being with brands at a business level for years, and in 2013, most brands add little meaning to people’s lives.

The Meaningful Brand Index is used to measure the benefit brands bring to people’s lives and ranks over 700 brands among 134,000 consumers in 23 countries using 12 “areas of well-being.” Those areas include health, financial, relationships, community, happiness, and more. After intensive analysis, each brand is ranked based on the effect it has on quality of life for consumers.

The 2013 list is topped by the following 12 brands:

  1. Google
  2. Samsung
  3. Microsoft
  4. Nestle
  5. Sony
  6. IKEA
  7. Dove
  8. Nike
  9. Walmart
  10. DANONE
  11. Philips
  12. P&G

Interestingly, the majority of brands in the top 10 are technology brands. The top 10 sectors ranked overall are: retail, food and beverage, IT and consumer electronics, travel and tourism, consumer goods, media, public transport, auto, oil and energy/utilities, telecom, and finance and insurance.

The rankings only tell a small part of the story though. Havas Media Group shared a number of key learnings from its analysis in a press release:

  • Brands in the Meaningful Brands Index beat the stock market by 120%.
  • People believe that just 20% of worldwide brands meaningfully affect their lives in positive ways.
  • Most people around the world would not care if 73% of brands disappeared tomorrow. In Europe and the United States, the percentage is higher at 92% of brands, but it’s 58% in Latin America and just 49% in Asia.
  • People are attached six times more to brands in Latin America and Asia than in western markets.
  • Globally, 32% of people believe that brands communicate honestly. The number drops to 21% in Western Europe and 26% in the United States but rises to 36% in Latin America and 56% in Asia.
  • Only 36% of Americans believe that brands work hard to improve quality of life for consumers. The number is even lower (29%) in Western Europe.

In the press release, Amy du Pon, Global Head of Data Insights for Havas Media Group, explained why it’s so important to develop meaningful brands in 2013, saying, “Relying on incremental marketing dollars alone is not sustainable. The opportunity today is for us to reinvigorate our brands, the role they play, and the human value they realize.”

Consumer trust in brands has been falling steadily, and the Havas Media Group study confirmed that loss of trust, born of unmet expectations, is leading to brand indifference in the West. Every company should prioritize building brand trust by delivering on expectations consistently. That’s a basic rule of branding, but it’s also a rule that is easily forgotten.

Do consumers trust your brand? Is it meaningful? Leave a comment below and share your thoughts.

Image: Jakub Krechowicz via stock.xchng

Investor Relations, Communications and Greek Mythology

investor relations - sisyphean taskWhen I teach or give a public talk, I like to bring in a variety of sources in order to keep the audience engaged (and also to prove the worth of my liberal arts education earned many years ago). I find that introducing something interesting, which, at first blush has no connection to the topic, helps to get people thinking about what you’re saying. Of course, sometimes it’s the only thing they remember from your talk, but I’m happy if they remember anything.

For example, a number of years ago I was given the task of explaining executive benefits at a 7:00 AM meeting. Talk about deathly dull topics at a time of day when most people are struggling to wake up. The strategy I hit upon to liven things up enough to keep people awake was to use song lyrics to illustrate my points. I had to work at it – not many songs mention stock options or long term disability insurance – and eventually references ranged from Gershwin to 1960s Motown to Pink Floyd, but I kept the audience interested in what I was saying.

I bring this up because one of the obscure references I like to mention when I discuss the role of communications in investor relations is Sisyphus. Those of you that were blessed with a proper grounding in Greek mythology will recall that Sisyphus was the Greek King who incurred the displeasure of Zeus and was sentenced to roll a huge boulder up a steep hill, only to have the boulder roll back down to the bottom of the hill before he arrived at the summit, forcing Sisyphus to begin all over again. This ceaseless effort very concisely describes the process of communications in investor relations.

When you are communicating with investors, as they used to say in an old Nike ad, “There is no finish line”. The company is constantly moving towards its next reporting date. You are either just reporting results or getting ready to report results. The company and its strategy are continually evolving, requiring you to refresh your message. The composition of your investor base is also routinely changing as the stock is bought and sold, causing you to have to regularly educate an entirely new set of investors. In short, it never stops.

Nor should it. Good investor relations requires continual communication with investors and potential investors. The more you communicate in a transparent manner, the fewer surprises will confront investors and the less volatile your stock will be. When more information that is routinely transmitted to the Street it also means that there is less opportunity for insider trading. In short, as in economics, more is generally better until you arrive at the point of disutility. What constitutes disutility of information is a discussion for another day. For now, I will leave you to roll the rock up the hill.

Brand Trust and Integrity Starts with the CEO

leader teamSince 2009, I’ve been writing about the importance of building brand trust here at Corporate Eye. I’ve given reasons why internal brand building should be a strategic priority and provided questions to ask employees in order to build your brand from within. I’ve called upon CEOs to hire Chief Brand Officers to focus on brand building, and I’ve made it clear that building brand trust must happen from the top down in order to be successful. That means it starts with the CEO.

Ben W. Heineman Jr. of the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation recently dove into the topic of building a corporate culture of integrity (which supports developing a trusted brand) and asked, “Why and how do the CEO and top business and staff leadership govern the company itself in order to create high performance with a high-integrity culture?”

Heineman suggests that building brand integrity is a core part of any CEO’s job and begins with a consistency and commitment by the CEO and leadership team to develop a company of high integrity. He calls for systems and processes to monitor integrity and ethical practices beyond what formal government regulations require. He also advises companies to offer integrity education and training to employees and to offer ways for employees to report on and give feedback related to compliance and ethical practices that are anonymous and without retribution. In fact, Ben suggests that companies develop a pay-for-performance-with-integrity bonus compensation program.

Heineman warns that the CEO must lead the charge to run a company with integrity, but the finance, human resources, legal, marketing, and other business leaders must commit to working together to, “Integrate these principles into business activities as both partners of those leaders and guardians of the company. We should never underestimate that our success in this core task depends mightily on having the right CEO with the right values, energy, and commitment truly to lead the company.”

For brand marketers, building brand trust is a top priority, but getting the CEO and leadership team to lead the charge in building a culture of business integrity that promotes brand trust can be challenging. Heineman makes a great case for creating this culture from the top down. How many CEOs will listen?

What do you think? Leave a comment below and share your thoughts on building a corporate culture of integrity that starts with the CEO and leads to increased brand trust among internal and external stakeholders.

Image: Barun Patro

Research Reveals Senior Business Leaders Do Not Understand Social Media

broken chainThe results of a recent survey by Stanford University’s Rock Center for Corporate Governance and The Conference Board should come as no surprise to brand marketers who have to fight executives every day for budget dollars to invest in social media marketing activities.

According to the survey of 180 senior executives and corporate directors from public and private companies in all major industries in Canada and the United States, senior business leaders do not understand the importance of social media to their companies. The report authors explain that there is “a disconnect between companies’ understanding of social media and the actions they are taking to apply it to their businesses.

Some of the most unsettling statistics found in the “What Do Corporate Directors and Senior Managers Know about Social Media?” include:

  • 90% of respondents report that they understand the effects social media can have on their companies but only 32% monitor social media to identify risks to their companies and only 14% use social media metrics to measure company performance.
  • Only 8% of directors and 24% of senior managers receive social media reports.
  • 50% of companies do not collect social media information and metrics.
  • 65% of respondents use social media for personal purposes.
  • The majority of respondents do not have formal social media policies at their companies.
  • The majority of respondents have never had a social media expert consult with their companies.

Lead author of the study, Professor David F. Larcker of the Stanford Graduate School of Business, explains that senior business leaders’ lack of understanding of the importance of social media to their companies poses a high level of risk. The study authors recommend that companies identify key performance metrics and risk indicators and monitor those metrics and threats using a listening system. Furthermore, the study authors recommend that companies develop formal social media policies and guidelines for all employees in order to minimize risks.

The challenge for brand marketers has always been trying to convince senior executives that social media should be a priority for both increasing brand awareness and sales as well as protecting the brand and company. The report found that more than two out of three business leaders use social media for personal reasons (primarily LinkedIn), so it’s clear that the majority understand social media and are not averse to it. However, the importance of social media in their personal lives doesn’t transition to the importance of social media for their companies.

Twenty years ago, those business leaders would have done anything to have such open access to consumers, competitors, and their conversations and actions. They have it today, but for some reason, it’s not a priority, and it’s given few budget dollars. It’s time for the disconnect to end, don’t you think?

Image: Sigurd Decroos

100 Companies that Matter Most in Data 2013

top 100 data companiesOne of the hottest topics in branding and marketing in 2013 is big data, and companies around the world are collecting and storing massive amounts of data. For brand marketers, the challenge is finding ways to effectively analyze and use that data to increase sales. While we’re still a long way to crossing that bridge, there are some companies that are rising to the top of the data industry.

Database Trends and Applications put together the DBTA 100 list of the companies that matter most in data in 2013, and it highlights many of the companies that are learning how to harness the power of big data and make that data not just accessible but also usable for businesses and marketers.

The DBTA 100 is made up of companies that provide services or products related to data management. Joyce Wells of Database Trends and Applications explains that it has been the rapid growth of data and the need for solutions to handle that data that has led the way for information technology companies like the DBTA 100 to stand out from the rest. She writes:

Data integration is becoming more important than ever along with business intelligence solutions that can handle both structured and unstructured data,” writes Wells. “What value would any of this information hold without solutions to cleanse and deduplicate it, and the ability to keep it secure from outside hackers and internal privileged users?

The DBTA 100 includes both large and small companies offering innovative data-related technology products and services. You’ll find newer companies on the list in addition to well-known company and brand names like Amazon.com, Dell, Inc., EMC Corp., Google Inc., HP, IBM, LexisNexis, Microsoft Corp, Oracle Corp., Rackspace, SAP AP, and Teradata Corp.

Follow the link above to view the full list and read more about how Database Trends and Applications put together the list.

Are your go-to data companies for marketing-related data included on the DBTA 100 list? Which companies are missing that you think should be on the list? Leave a comment below and share your thoughts.

Image: Gerard79 at www.digital-delight.ch