Sociagility

The Social Media in the City report we launched this week looks at the comparative social media performance of the FTSE 100 companies. But we also looked at how FTSE 100 sectors with 3 or more companies perform: to see how average sector performances compare; and to highlight any major variations within sector.

There are some surprises.

The table below, ranked based on the average Social Performance Index (SPI) scores, shows that seven sectors score above average (100). They are not necessarily the most obvious, consumer-facing candidates. Shell’s and AstraZeneca’s individual strong performances helped their respective sector groups, with Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology and Oil & Gas Production sectors commanding the two highest average SPI scores. Unsurprisingly, General and Food & Drug Retailers take the 3rd and 4th positions and Media the 5th, but Aerospace & Defence in 6th place is a surprise above Banks, Food Producers and Gas, Water & Multiutilities.

The chart below maps two general factors that contribute towards this performance – the Awareness Quotient (a measure of status) and the Engagement Quotient (a measure of participation and interaction). A low EQ combined with a high AQ suggests the PRINT™ score is driven disproportionately by scale rather than social engagement.

Awareness Quotient (AQ) bundles the PRINT™ attributes Popularity and Network and tends to favour larger, more established companies with larger communications spends. Engagement Quotient (EQ) bundles the Receptiveness, Interaction and Trust attributes.

The full study data allow us to analyse each sector in much more detail, and we’ll be highlighting some of these over the coming days.

We had a feeling all was not well in corporate use of social media…

Our new Social Media in the City report, published today in association with the PRCA, shows that the majority of the FTSE100 are failing to engage effectively with social networks. As a result they may be at a competitive disadvantage by not connecting well with corporate stakeholders. Our research also suggests a link between social media performance and share price movement.

There are some creditably strong FTSE 100 performers, including companies from surprising sectors, but it seems that most still do not regard social media and networks as important for corporate communications. This is despite the fact that social media are used by a variety of stakeholders, by commentators and by mainstream media.

Research highlights and lowlights

• Our study has found statistically significant correlations between social media performance and subsequent daily share price movement; higher social media performance scores associated with positive changes in share price
• Two-thirds of FTSE 100 companies perform below average on main social media networks
• Shell, AstraZeneca and Sainsbury lead new ranking of best-performing companies
• Best performers come from some surprising sectors, e.g. mining firm Vedanta and computer chip maker ARM Holdings both appear in the top 10
• The highest performing FTSE sector is pharmaceuticals & biotechnology, followed by oil & gas producers and retailers
• Only 20% of FTSE 100 companies are actively using LinkedIn company pages to engage

The research was conducted in November this year. We used our quantitative PRINT™ performance measurement system to assess the corporate social media profiles of all FTSE 100 listed companies. Performance scores were derived for each social media network and combined to create an overall Social Performance Index (SPI).

The SPI leadership group is unexpectedly diverse. While the top 20 includes four of the FTSE 100’s six retail companies, this group also includes non-consumer facing brands like mining firm Vedanta, computer chip-manufacturer ARM Holdings and BAE Systems. Only one bank, Barclays, makes the top 20 group.

There are some surprising sector laggards. The Insurance sector as a whole, for example, scores well below the FTSE 100 average and only one company, Aviva, even makes the SPI top 30.

Most FTSE 100 companies (95%) have LinkedIn company pages, attracting a combined 2.6 million followers. However, less than a quarter of the FTSE 100 list any of their products or services on company pages, which are usually not actively managed – only 20% posted a status update in the 30 days prior to the study.

Is social media performance a lead indicator for share price movement?

Previous Sociagility studies have shown similarly close correlations between PRINT™ scores and measures of brand value and growth, as well as market share.

This study shows a statistically significant correlation between the SPI score and market capitalisation. It also shows statistically significant correlations between PRINT™ Receptiveness attribute scores at the beginning of November and share price movements during the rest of the month (r>0.207, N=100, p<0.05), indicating a 95% probability that this is not happening by chance. Higher social media performance scores were associated with positive changes in share price.

Health warning: correlation is NOT the same as causation… However, we think these results are interesting and at least give in-house corporate comms teams a strong argument to get the resources they need to up their game.

Different strategies … or none?

This study suggests that under-performing companies are incurring a reputational disadvantage internationally compared with competitor companies that engage with social media successfully. Yet social media performance really matters for corporate brands: it is a competitive issue and this should be of concern to the whole C-suite, and to investors.

Specific company plans to improve social media performance must of course depend on an individual approach, taking into account a host of factors we cannot know about. We have made no attempt to investigate or understand individual company strategies. But major differences in performance do emerge purely from the data. In some cases these are clearly driven by a deliberate strategy – in others, apparently, by the absence of one.

We understand that, for many corporate communicators in more traditional companies, the #1 priority is brand defence and that social media may seem risky but as Francis Ingham, Director-General of the PRCA says: “It is a far greater risk to let social media policy simply stagnate.”

We’ll be focussing on different aspects of our findings in the coming days. Meanwhile, if you’d like to download a copy of the full report, you can find it at http://www.sociagility.com/ftse.

We’re just starting our study of how well the UK’s largest public companies, the FTSE 100, perform on social media platforms. But does a good social media performance actually matter for corporate audiences?

We wouldn’t be in business if we didn’t think so, and it’s reassuring that a majority FTSE 100 companies apparently do too… or at least they think it matters enough to have a social media presence of some kind. But not everyone’s equally keen.

Who’s on what?

First, by ‘corporate’, I mean the overall business, rather than its constituent companies or brands – although for some ‘company brands’, this is the same brandname. Specifically, for the purposes of this study we are looking at the entity actually listed on the London Stock Exchange, the plc.

Others may have done more complete breakdowns of which companies are on which platforms but these often look at the consumer-facing brand(s), not the corporate entity. For our study, the percentage breakdown for the four common platforms that PRINT™ assesses is as follows:

• Website: 100% of the FTSE 100 have something aimed at corporate audiences.
• Twitter: 72% have created some kind of corporate Twitter account
• YouTube: 65% have a corporate YouTube channel
• Facebook: Only 56% have a corporate Facebook page, perhaps indicative of a platform perceived as being more consumer-focused

It’s hardly surprising that all the companies have a corporate website – even if some are pretty basic. But the numbers drop off after that. So which audiences are the companies that do have a corporate social media presence trying to reach and why is that relevant for the others?

Corporate & financial audiences

Of course there are a whole host of potential ‘corporate’ audiences: employees, trades unions, suppliers, local communities as well as regulators, legislators; not to mention commentators and a broad spectrum of ‘traditional’ media. All these groups include many important individuals who are active users of social media. For them, it’s just another way to have a relationship with a brand or company – or simply keep track of what they are doing.

But what about investors? Do they really care about tweets and Facebook likes… they are just interested in facts and figures, right?  And in any case, surely better for listed companies to avoid the risk of engaging via these informal forums and channels and stick with the safe formalities of the annual report, face-to-face presentations, earnings statements and the traditional mediated route of the financial press.

This view is short-sighted for a variety of reasons. For a start, shareholders and potential investors are people too – and likely to be participating in social media, especially in the UK and USA.

Second, both private investors and the ‘wholesale’ City institutions like insurance companies, banks and brokers, routinely use social media analysis to help in their buy/sell/hold decisions on individual shares. Furthermore, City commentators, not least the financial press, use social media to track news and opinion – and themselves engage in creating social media content.

Fragmented control = fragmented corporate messaging

Ever since the advent of the web 20+ years ago, the Internet in all its forms has become a public mirror (sometimes distorted) for brands and companies, showing the good and the bad, highlighting successful strategies and exposing corporate fault-lines. Yet some FTSE 100 companies still seem to be adopting an old-school, pre-Internet (let alone pre Web 2.0) approach to managing the social media aspect of their online presence. Specific audiences are assigned specific platforms leading to a dangerous potential for gaps, contradictions and confused or incoherent messaging.

A typical example is Twitter. Many companies just use Twitter corporately as a broadcast channel devoted to journalists with content consisting almost entirely of references to news releases. Why is this happening? Well, it could be a well thought out strategy but my guess it’s probably because someone in the Press Office was seen to ‘get’ Twitter, so he/she got it forever.

There’s similar issue with Facebook. The perception – aided and abetted by Facebook and digital agencies – is that it’s purely a consumer platform and the only role for companies is advertising. Yet many organisations use it successfully to reach out to local communities, job seekers and even business partners – all traditionally within the remit of the corporate communicator.

A competitive issue

Unsurprisingly, our own point of view is that social media undeniably have a large and increasing important part to play in corporate communications – including the daily struggle for investors’ confidence and money. Furthermore, how well a company engages corporately through social media is a competitive issue – both as a risk to be managed properly and an opportunity to gain advantage.

It’s therefore an important issue not just for corporate communicators and marketing directors but for company Chairmen, CEOs, Finance Directors and their Boards.

And because of that, we’re really looking forward to seeing how the FTSE 100 stack up!

Has ‘the City’, that bastion of British financial institutions, heard about social media yet? Well some parts certainly have. The Bank of England, the Financial Services Authority and the City of London Corporation itself have all embraced social media to at least some degree.

But what of the big companies listed on London’s Stock Exchange?

Anecdotal evidence is that participation is patchy so we thought we would carry out a comparative study of the FTSE-100, the largest UK-listed companies.

Many of these companies own famous and well-promoted consumer and B2B brands but we’re keen to focus on the City/corporate social media profiles (i.e. the owned social media) that serve the entity which is actually listed on the London Stock Exchange.

So, this week we’re contacting all the FTSE-100 companies we can (unfortunately some don’t list any contacts at all on their websites!) to help validate the online profiles we’ll be assessing as part of our biggest comparative analysis of social media performance yet (here are some of the others).

Then next week we’ll start our research and, by the end of November we hope, we’ll publish the results.

If you want to register now for the report, just send an email to [email protected].

In between crunching the numbers for our epic ‘Socialympics’ report, in the last couple of weeks we took a look at how effective the leading US retailers’ social media activity was during the critical ‘Back to School’ period.

MaryLee Sachs, CEO and CMO of our US partner Changing MO LLC, summarised the findings last week. Here’s our take.

Yet again, we find that the most powerful brands (i.e. those with a high combined Popularity and Network Reach score on our PRINT scales) are not performing the best when it comes to engagement (calculated by combining our Receptiveness, Interaction and Trust scores). This seems to be a common trend in almost every analysis we undertake, whether benchmarking clients or conducting our own studies. The chart below shows the delta between the two for each brand.

Digging a bit deeper into the individual PRINT attribute scores, we can see that Receptiveness is where the most powerful brands really fall down. In this case, both Walmart and Target demonstrate a typical profile for brands that isn’t actively listening and participating in line with it’s size or status.

We’ve seen a few reasons for this in previous studies:

• The more powerful the brand, the less it feels it needs to engage
• The bigger a brand’s audience, the more likely it will be on the receiving end of negative conversation that it can’t or won’t engage with
• Smaller, challenger brands see engagement in social media as the equalizer or leveller and thus prioritise these behaviours
• Larger brands = bigger above the line media spend, which engenders a one-way, broadcast mindset

Now I don’t know the US retail market (or these individual retailers) well enough to comment on which – if indeed any – of these might apply here, but it’s an interesting theme and one we’ll be keeping a close eye on in the future.

In recent weeks, I’ve been asked by a number of mainstream media reporters whether an Olympics ambush marketing strategy can pay off and allow a non-sponsor to outperform a sponsor, especially in social media? The obvious answer is, in principle, yes – despite ever-tighter IOC and LOCOG rules.

But it’s all in the execution – as a recent comparison between adidas and Nike shows.

Sportswear firm and major Olympics sponsor adidas has already consolidated its position in the top three on our London 2012 Social Scoreboard, a website devoted to ranking the social media performance of 25 Olympic sponsors. Powered by our PRINT™ measurement methodology, the site shows how well each sponsor is performing against the others.

adidas is one of the clear leaders among the sponsors, driven primarily by its Take The Stage campaign – but it also seems to be outperforming its key global rival, Nike – at least on the engagement front. Although Nike is not an official sponsor, it launched an aggressive new London ambush marketing campaign this week.

The head to head comparison below shows that adidas scores relatively better overall on those PRINT™ attributes that contribute towards strong levels of engagement, namely Receptiveness (Rec) and Interaction (Int). The only attribute where Nike scores higher is Network Reach (Net), which perhaps reflects the aggressiveness of its strategy, attempting – and it appears succeeding – to simply reach as many consumers as possible.

If nothing else, this quick comparison shows that – if social media is to be effective in any aspect of brand marketing, including sponsorship activation – engagement is just as important as raw publicity for success, whatever the campaign and whatever the social network.

PR agencies sell their clients advice on how to ‘manage’ social media. But how good are they at doing it for themselves?

Our view is that big agency networks offering social media advice must walk the talk. Those that cannot show they know what they are doing for their own brands will lose out in the battle to advise others.

The result is the Global PR Network Social Scorecard, which ranks agencies based on their social media effectiveness, power and engagement.

The Sociagility Global PR Agencies 2012 Social Scorecard

To come up with the rankings, we applied our PRINT™ methodology – the same as currently being used to track the performance of Olympic sponsors on the London 2012 Social Scoreboard – to 25 of the leading PR networks in the Holmes Report Global PR Agency Rankings 2012. This proprietary system underpins our range of social media planning and measurement services, which – as we announced yesterday – can now be licensed by agencies to inform and demonstrate the value of social media campaigns for clients.

The 10 PR networks using social media most effectively, based on the PRINT Index™, are (last year’s ranking in parentheses):

The full list and detailed scores can be found at http://pr.sociagility.com.

Comparative Reality

Unlike social media measures based on some theoretical ‘perfect’ score, the PRINT™ methodology is completely quantitative and provides relative rather than absolute indicators of performance. In real life there are no absolute social media performance scores for brands – it’s just a matter of whether one brand is better than its competitors. This is the key to determining whether social media activity is actually delivering a real return on investment.

Status versus Potential

As an addition to the overall PRINT Index™ ranking, we also looked at measures of Status and Potential. These combine the attributes that contribute to each agency’s PRINT Index™ score into two dimensions which reflect overall strength (Status) and the degree of engagement by and with the brand (Potential).

The Status rankings show the advantages of the big battalions: well-known, lots of touch-points, marketing effort/spend and legacy. But Potential tells a different story and suggests areas in which smaller networks can compete, through direct, authentic and transparent engagement. Thus smaller agencies like The Hoffman Agency can score well overall while lacking the mass of the big global networks.

An example PRINT™ Scorecard

Ever since we launched our PRINT™ methodology about eight months ago, we’ve had requests from agencies – PR, advertising and digital, amongst others – to license our algorithm to them so they could have an easy, low cost way to help plan their social media campaigns for clients – and an objective measure of their success. So today we’re announcing a new set of licensing options to address the specific needs of agencies.

Having made and been on the receiving end of many pitches whilst agency-side, we know some of the challenges only too well: a desire for independent validation; an approach that clients can trust; easy access and fast turnaround; and all at the lowest cost possible!

By licensing the PRINT™ methodology, agencies get access to a simple, comprehensive system to benchmark prospects’ and clients’ social media performance, providing the independent, objective evidence they need to:

We’ve put together a trio of simple licensing levels – Gold, Silver and Bronze – each with different features and price points, that will allow any agency to start benefitting from the PRINT™ methodology quickly and cost-effectively.

There’s more information here. To enquire about trial access, email us at [email protected] and we’ll be in touch.

As the athletes start arriving for the London 2012 Olympics, sponsors’ activity has become more prevalent. To reflect that we’ve changed the basis for our London 2012 Social Scoreboard, starting today. The result has been some apparently dramatic changes at the top.

From 18 April, 100 days out from the Games, we started tracking the effectiveness of this activity using our PRINT™ algorithm, later creating the London 2012 Social Scoreboard to allow deeper interaction with our scores.

Up to now, the ways in which the main London 2012 Olympics partners activated their sponsorships digitally – especially via social media channels – have been patchy to say the least. Very few had online platforms dedicated to their participation in the Games. The majority had little Olympics-related content on their existing platforms. The remainder were doing nothing.

As the opening ceremony on 27 July has drawn nearer, activity amongst the sponsors has, as expected, increased. So much so that in the last few weeks almost every brand either beefed up its dedicated digital Olympics presence or turned its existing Twitter accounts, Facebook pages and YouTube channels over to the Games. The fact that this has happened should come as no surprise, and it was always our intention to switch the focus of our scoreboard once the sponsors changed gear.

So, as we announced last week, from today our scoreboard has entered a second phase, now including those branded Twitter accounts, Facebook pages and YouTube channels from each brand that feature some Olympic-related content (previously the criteria was for the channel to be predominantly Olympics-focused).

We expected some changes in position, but I’m not sure even we anticipated them to be so acute. The leaders in the preparatory phase – like P&G and Cadbury’s – are now replaced by Coca-Cola, British Airways and adidas.

In some ways, this is simply a reflection of a broader brand presence. It’s also interesting to note that the new top three on our scoreboard are the same three cited as having the most positive ‘fit’ with the Olympics in a recent Marketing/Interbrand study. This is also apparent from their positions in our ‘Highest Status’ ranking, which reflects their popularity and reach through social media, driven in part by large traditional media budgets.

However, the ‘Greatest Potential’ ranking – reflecting levels of participation and interaction – tells a slightly different story. Here British Airways and adidas retain high places, but sponsors like EDF, GE and VISA enter the positions – and both P&G and Cadbury’s re-appear, suggesting that it’s not necessarily how popular a brand is but how it engages that matters.

Let the Games commence!

There’s so much hype around data and ROI in social, it’s easy to forget why measurement is actually necessary. Here are five reasons to measure social media.

1. To establish a starting point

Desire is the starting point of all achievement, not a hope, not a wish, but a keen pulsating desire which transcends everything.

Every organisation started out with social from nothing, but all at different times and at different speeds. So by now everyone is at different places. Measurement – and benchmarking in particular – can tell you where you are starting from in relation to your competitors.

2. To set direction

Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?”
“That depends a good deal on where you want to get to,” said the Cat.
“I don’t much care where–” said Alice.
“Then it doesn’t matter which way you go,” said the Cat.
“–so long as I get SOMEWHERE,” Alice added as an explanation.
“Oh you’re sure to do that,” said the Cat, “if only you walk long enough.”

If you’re the marketing equivalent of Alice in social media Wonderland, not caring where you want to get to just as long as you get somewhere, then good measurement ensures you’re not walking aimlessly in no particular direction.

3. To track progress

If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man.”

That C.S. Lewis bloke must have known a bit about social media. Measurement not only helps you understand if you’re getting closer to your goal, but also tells you when you might need to turn back and try another approach.

4. To demonstrate success

By prevailing over all obstacles and distractions, one may unfailingly arrive at his chosen goal or destination.”

Invariably with social activity, achievement is not a binary “we did it/we didn’t do it” state of affairs but rather has varying shades of grey. Measurement is therefore critical to understanding what has actually been achieved, and to putting that success in terms that demonstrate the value to others (who don’t always share the same levels of enthusiasm).

5. To justify further investment

This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”

This is kind of how it often feels with social. Just when you think you’ve got to where you want to be, something changes and you’re off again, often requiring more resources and investment than before. By using measurement smartly throughout the planning cycle, you shouldn’t even need to ask.

(With apologies to Napoleon Hill, C.S. Lewis twice, Christopher Columbus and Winston Churchill)