PRINT™ Correlation Analysis

Aim

The aim of this analysis was to ascertain the presence and strength of the relationship between brand value, growth and reputation, and the PRINT™ social media performance metric. The null hypothesis to be tested was that there was no link between any of the variables.

Method

A list of the top global brands was drawn up by combining the top 25 brands from each of the 2011 BrandZ and Interbrand studies and the Fortune Most Admired Companies list. Due to duplication between these lists, an aggregate list of 52 brands was used for the analysis.

PRINT™ Index scores were calculated for each brand using Sociagility’s PRINT™ methodology. These scores were then compared with brand value and growth figures, and the PRINT™ rankings compared with the BrandZ, Interbrand and Fortune rankings, in order to ascertain the presence and strength of any correlation.

In a further exercise, PRINT™ Index scores and rankings were calculated for each of the BrandZ, Interbrand and Fortune top 25 lists separately (PRINT™ Index scores vary depending on the sample). These scores were also compared with their respective brand value and growth figures, and the PRINT™ top 25 rankings compared with the respective rankings.

PRINT™ Index score and brand value/growth correlations were analysed using Pearson’s Product Moment Coefficient, and ranking correlations were analysed using Spearman’s Rank Coefficient to see if a positive correlation was present. Finally, each correlation coefficient was compared to the respective critical value for two-tailed tests at 0.01 and 0.05 probability levels, to see whether a significant correlation between the two variables was present. 

Summary results

For both types of test statistically significant correlations (i.e. sufficient to reject the null hypothesis that there was no link between any of the variables with at least a 90% degree of probability) were found between brand value (BrandZ) and PRINT™ Index scores, brand growth (Interbrand) and PRINT™ Index scores and brand reputation (Fortune) rankings and PRINT™ Index rankings.

Positive correlations were found between social media performance (measured by the PRINT™ Index) and the majority of the other brand growth, brand value and brand reputation variables included in the test.

Detailed results

Test A: Combined Brand Lists (n=52)

Correlation coefficients were calculated as follows:

  • BrandZ brand value and PRINT™ Index scores, r (45) = .39
  • BrandZ brand growth and PRINT™ Index scores, r (45) = .13
  • BrandZ ranking and PRINT™ Index ranking, r (45) = 0 (no correlation)
  • Interbrand brand value and PRINT™ Index scores, r (34) = .28
  • Interbrand brand growth and PRINT™ Index scores, r (34) = .37
  • Interbrand ranking and PRINT™ Index ranking, r (34) = .17
  • Fortune Most Admired Companies ranking and PRINT™ Index ranking, r (34) = .33

Using the critical values for each type of correlation to see if the null hypothesis could be rejected, statistically significant correlations were reported between the following:

  • BrandZ brand value and PRINT™ Index scores, r (45) = .39, p < .01
  • Interbrand brand growth and PRINT™ Index scores, r (34) = .37, p < .05
  • Fortune Most Admired Companies ranking and PRINT™ ranking, r (34) = .33, p < .1

The scatterplots below show the data for all the brands in these samples.

Figure 1: Relationship between BrandZ brand value (x-axis) and PRINT™ Index score (y-axis) shows statistically significant correlation

 

Figure 2: Relationship between percentage change in Interbrand brand value (x-axis) and PRINT™ Index score (y-axis) shows statistically significant correlation

 

Figure 3: Relationship between Fortune Most Admired Companies ranking (x-axis) and PRINT™ Index ranking (y-axis) shows statistically significant correlation

 

Test B: Individual Brand Lists

Correlation coefficients were calculated as follows:

  • BrandZ brand value and PRINT™ Index scores, r (25) = .5
  • BrandZ brand growth and PRINT™ Index scores, r (25) = -.01
  • BrandZ ranking and PRINT™ Index ranking, r (25) = .27
  • Interbrand brand value and PRINT™ Index scores, r (25) = .29
  • Interbrand brand growth and PRINT™ Index scores, r (25) = .33
  • Interbrand ranking and PRINT™ Index ranking, r (25) = .28
  • Fortune Most Admired Companies ranking and PRINT™ Index ranking, r (25) = .4

Using the critical values for each type of correlation to see if the null hypothesis could be rejected, statistically significant correlations were reported between the following:

  • BrandZ brand value and PRINT™ Index scores, r (25) = .5, p < .02
  • Interbrand brand growth and PRINT™ Index scores, r (25) = .33, p < .1
  • Fortune Most Admired Companies ranking and PRINT™ Index ranking, r (25) = .4, p < .05

The scatterplots below show the data for all the brands in these samples.

Figure 4: Relationship between BrandZ brand value (x-axis) and PRINT™ Index score (y-axis) shows statistically significant correlation

 

Figure 5: Relationship between percentage change in Interbrand brand value (x-axis) and PRINT™ Index score (y-axis) shows statistically significant correlation

 

Figure 6: Relationship between Fortune Most Admired Companies ranking (x-axis) and PRINT™ Index ranking (y-axis) shows statistically significant correlation

 

Conclusions

In both tests, a significant positive correlation was found between:

  • brand value and social media performance;
  • brand growth and social media performance;
  • and brand reputation and social media performance;

when social media performance is measured using the PRINT™ Index score.

 

Get started with PRINT™

Current Sociagility clients can contact us to learn more. If you’re new to Sociagility, click here to get started with PRINT™.