Advertisment

India & China have more positive perception of companies than the West

MSLGroup's Reputation Impact Indicator study shows that the most significant variations in corporate reputation are between respondents in India and Sweden

author-image
BestMediaInfo Bureau
New Update
India & China have more positive perception of companies than the West

India & China have more positive perception of companies than the West

MSLGroup's Reputation Impact Indicator study shows that the most significant variations in corporate reputation are between respondents in India and Sweden

BestMediaInfo Bureau | Mumbai | June 8, 2015

Reputation-study

New research findings released by MSLGroup reveal important differences between countries and clusters of countries in terms of how a company is perceived by the general public. Most starkly, there appears to be a clear distinction between how consumers from the 'Old World' and 'New World' rate the same companies. Findings from MSLGroup's Reputation Impact Indicator study highlight key challenges facing global reputation managers today.

The research shows respondents in Brazil, China, India, and South Africa have a more positive perception of companies than their counterparts in North America, and particularly in Europe, where respondents can be said to demonstrate greater skepticism towards companies in general. Specifically, the study shows that the most significant variations in corporate reputation are between respondents in India (who provided an average Reputation Core score of 79 across all companies) and Swedish respondents (providers of the lowest average Reputation Core score of 51).

At an individual company level, the study findings also point to the likelihood of enjoying a markedly different reputation from country to country, even if a company has high brand awareness in each. For example, GlaxoSmithKline has a Reputation Core score between 81 and 42 points, with the highest being in India and the lowest in Sweden. Similarly, HSBC's Reputation Core score varies from 78 points in China to 45 in Sweden.

Glenn Osaki, President, MSLGroup in Asia, commented, “Brands are global, corporate reputation is local. There are large variances in the reputation of individual companies at a country level. The differences observed between 'the old world' and 'the new world' underline the need for a finely-tuned reputation strategy. Brands should avoid a standardised global definition of reputation, but attend to each individual market with insight and care.”

The Reputation Impact Indicator also sheds light on the importance of corporate 'mind space' – a measurement of how easily a person can relate to a company in determining a brand or company's reputation. In fact, the study shows that those companies and brands with high relatability, and thus a clear ability to elicit an instinctive, intuitive reaction among consumers, enjoyed a reputation that was 43 per cent higher on average than those that did not.

The study's results demonstrate that 'mind space' – meaning both how easily a person relates to a company and the nature of the connotations invoked – plays a different but equally important role in corporate reputation compared to people's rational views about products, services, financial performance, corporate behaviour and how those companies manage relationship with consumers.

The study questioned over 25,000 people in 10 countries and analyses how members of the public worldwide retrieve the information they use to form an opinion about a company. The Reputation Impact Indicator also explored the individual drivers of reputation and looked at the relative significance of each driver across industries.

The findings provide rich insights that will help the C-Suite zone-in on one or more specific areas of 'Reputation Core' that they should address. For example, corporate behaviour has a larger impact on corporate reputation of pharmaceutical companies than businesses in other industries. Similarly, Internet companies also display an industry-specific pattern: providing products and services that are perceived as “value for money” does not have the same impact on corporate reputation as it does in the three other industry clusters – Pharmaceuticals, Consumer Electronics and FMCG – where “value” is one of the core drivers.

Insights and their implications for corporate leadership:

Truth Implication
Global brands, local reputations: Brands are global; corporate reputation is local. There are large variances in the reputation of individual companies at the regional and country level. A global strategy for brand building and marketing does not mean that a company can take a global approach to reputation. Each individual market must be attended to with insight and care. This is a significant challenge given the growing importance and reach of web-based communication makes this even truer.
Corporate reputation varies in different industries: What the audience values and the expectations it has of a company is largely decided by the industry and kind of business in which the company operates. There is no “one size fits all” solution where communication is concerned. It is crucial for management and communications professionals to have an understanding of the specific dynamics within their industry and to use this information as input when making business and communication decisions.
“Mind Space” matters  Companies that have a clearly defined Mind Space will enjoy a more robust corporate reputation, while companies with a low “relatability” factor, or indeed those who leave a neutral versus an overtly positive impression with the public, will have a weaker reputation. There is a need for a more qualitative approach to brand awareness where building positive mental associations in the stakeholders' minds' eye is key. Authentic and engaging storytelling is crucial to building “Mind Space.”
Finding the right balance: In today's hyper-connected, real-time world, reputation is more dynamic than ever before; the challenges this poses to a company have never been greater. With continual pressure on the bottom line and competition for marketing communications investment fierce, our hypothesis is that success is about optimal rather than maximum reputation. 'Optimal' refers to a level for each company in every given situation where expectations and actions meet and reputation can bounce back from smaller hits and disturbances.  Companies will benefit from strategic expertise in this area.
Actions speak louder than words: Delivery of company's core business and ethical business behavior are the main drivers of corporate reputation for the general public. The way the issue is handled and the perceived level of transparency and sincerity can have as large of an impact on the reputation of the company as the issue itself.
Navigating complexity with facts: In today's digital era, the number of exchanges between a company and the customer has exploded and each interaction leaves a progressively smaller impression.  Industry competitors from all corners of the world now scramble to create even brief connections with the customer. It is crucial that companies use fact-based input to evaluate which elements of their communications have the most positive impact on their reputation.
Social Media as a Mirror: Social media content reflects the aspects that have the most impact on reputation among the general public. A large majority of discussions online are on topics related to company products and services and a majority of negative posts online are related to corporate behavior. Monitoring and analysis of social media content is an important part of corporate reputation management. Special attention needs to be paid to topics related to company products and services, and to corporate behavior.

Methodology

The research behind the Reputation Impact Indicator was designed by Robert Gelmanovski, a researcher in reputation management at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm (KTH) – who is affiliated with MSLGroup in the Nordics, and Dominic Payling, Director and Head of Planning & Insight at MSLGroup in London, alongside a reference group of senior consultants from MSLGroup's global network. The research was then conducted by Robert Gelmanovski.

A statistically validated sample of the general public aged 16–65 in 10 countries was surveyed in the last quarter of 2014 in online panels provided by CINT, a company with a presence in more than 60 countries. A total of 26,467 interviews in 10 countries were conducted, at least 2,500 interviews per country. Countries covered were the US, Canada, the UK, France, Germany, Sweden, China, India, Brazil, and South Africa.

Click here to view the Reputation Impact Indicator study.

Info@BestMediaInfo.com

Info@BestMediaInfo.com

Advertisment