Suche senden
Hochladen
Social Media in the City Dec 2012
•
0 gefällt mir
•
420 views
Sertac Doganay, M.D.
Folgen
Social Media Performance Index by Sociagility
Weniger lesen
Mehr lesen
Melden
Teilen
Melden
Teilen
1 von 38
Jetzt herunterladen
Downloaden Sie, um offline zu lesen
Empfohlen
The Community Manager Report 2012
The Community Manager Report 2012
Social Fresh Conference
Social Media and reputation: what you can learn from big companies
Social Media and reputation: what you can learn from big companies
Addison Group
Evolution Of The Networked Enterprise
Evolution Of The Networked Enterprise
javiermoreno2009
Recruitment and social media overview of research - 2013
Recruitment and social media overview of research - 2013
Vanguard Leadership
Bdc 2009 Social Media Benchmark
Bdc 2009 Social Media Benchmark
Jorge Barba
Social media
Social media
NoraInSite
Scaling Up Social Media
Scaling Up Social Media
Strategy&, a member of the PwC network
00130 Scaling Up Social Media
00130 Scaling Up Social Media
cvollmer10
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
IR and social media dec 2012
IR and social media dec 2012
elana123
ED Sol So Me Webinar 09 10 09 Final
ED Sol So Me Webinar 09 10 09 Final
Mark James
AIM Campaign Book
AIM Campaign Book
Mar Smith
How social media_is_changing
How social media_is_changing
Arnoldbangkok Naja
Social media whitepaper
Social media whitepaper
Karthik Kumar
Lithium Likes to Loves Tour Sydney
Lithium Likes to Loves Tour Sydney
Lithium
Comprehensive social media strategy by john bell
Comprehensive social media strategy by john bell
John Bell
Burson-Marsteller Asia-Pacific Social Media Study
Burson-Marsteller Asia-Pacific Social Media Study
Burson-Marsteller China
Brand Management, how valuable in the Digital Age?
Brand Management, how valuable in the Digital Age?
Francisco Hernandez-Marcos
Social media pres_05-26-2010 (1)
Social media pres_05-26-2010 (1)
Shari Weiss
The Coming Change in Social Media by Social Media Today
The Coming Change in Social Media by Social Media Today
Elizabeth Lupfer
Practical advice for making Social Media work for your business HINTS, TIPS A...
Practical advice for making Social Media work for your business HINTS, TIPS A...
Typeset
L2 Facebook IQ 2012
L2 Facebook IQ 2012
Alain Duchene
Burson-Marsteller Asia-Pacific Corporate Social Media Study 2011
Burson-Marsteller Asia-Pacific Corporate Social Media Study 2011
Burson-Marsteller Asia-Pacific
Social media comes of age
Social media comes of age
Paul Kennedy
Social media aids customer acquisition media buyerplanner
Social media aids customer acquisition media buyerplanner
Ralph Paglia
Was ist angesagt?
(16)
IR and social media dec 2012
IR and social media dec 2012
ED Sol So Me Webinar 09 10 09 Final
ED Sol So Me Webinar 09 10 09 Final
AIM Campaign Book
AIM Campaign Book
How social media_is_changing
How social media_is_changing
Social media whitepaper
Social media whitepaper
Lithium Likes to Loves Tour Sydney
Lithium Likes to Loves Tour Sydney
Comprehensive social media strategy by john bell
Comprehensive social media strategy by john bell
Burson-Marsteller Asia-Pacific Social Media Study
Burson-Marsteller Asia-Pacific Social Media Study
Brand Management, how valuable in the Digital Age?
Brand Management, how valuable in the Digital Age?
Social media pres_05-26-2010 (1)
Social media pres_05-26-2010 (1)
The Coming Change in Social Media by Social Media Today
The Coming Change in Social Media by Social Media Today
Practical advice for making Social Media work for your business HINTS, TIPS A...
Practical advice for making Social Media work for your business HINTS, TIPS A...
L2 Facebook IQ 2012
L2 Facebook IQ 2012
Burson-Marsteller Asia-Pacific Corporate Social Media Study 2011
Burson-Marsteller Asia-Pacific Corporate Social Media Study 2011
Social media comes of age
Social media comes of age
Social media aids customer acquisition media buyerplanner
Social media aids customer acquisition media buyerplanner
Ähnlich wie Social Media in the City Dec 2012
The State of Corporate Social Media 2012
The State of Corporate Social Media 2012
Nick Johnson
Social Business Development Roadmap in China
Social Business Development Roadmap in China
CIC
Us Cons Techtrends2012 013112
Us Cons Techtrends2012 013112
Chrisharris84
Us cons techtrends2012_013112
Us cons techtrends2012_013112
Svetlana Belyaeva
Deloitte Tech Trend 2012_Elevate IT for Digital Business
Deloitte Tech Trend 2012_Elevate IT for Digital Business
Suganya Chatkaewmorakot
Deloitte - Top Tech Trends 2012
Deloitte - Top Tech Trends 2012
Andy Black Associates
Us Cons Techtrends2012 013112
Us Cons Techtrends2012 013112
Tom_Webb
Us Cons Techtrends2012 013112
Us Cons Techtrends2012 013112
LouisaWetton
Us Cons Techtrends2012 013112
Us Cons Techtrends2012 013112
clairemccowan
[Report] The State of Social Business 2013: The Maturing of Social Media into...
[Report] The State of Social Business 2013: The Maturing of Social Media into...
Brian Solis
State Of Social Media In Belgium Report
State Of Social Media In Belgium Report
Vanguard Leadership
Social Media Business Applications
Social Media Business Applications
jgordon
The Coming Change in Social Media Applications
The Coming Change in Social Media Applications
Vlastimil Dejl
The Coming Change in Social Media Business Applications
The Coming Change in Social Media Business Applications
Elizabeth Lupfer
The Coming Change in Social Media Business Applications
The Coming Change in Social Media Business Applications
white paper
From Social Media to Social Business white paper series topic 3 :China‘s Soci...
From Social Media to Social Business white paper series topic 3 :China‘s Soci...
Kantar Media CIC
The state of_social_marketing
The state of_social_marketing
Svetlana Belyaeva
BankingEXPERT
BankingEXPERT
Yana Saulova
Social media and the communication profession eacd en univ of st. gallen
Social media and the communication profession eacd en univ of st. gallen
Marketingfacts
AEP-OU-social media-04-24-13
AEP-OU-social media-04-24-13
AEP Economic & Business Development
Ähnlich wie Social Media in the City Dec 2012
(20)
The State of Corporate Social Media 2012
The State of Corporate Social Media 2012
Social Business Development Roadmap in China
Social Business Development Roadmap in China
Us Cons Techtrends2012 013112
Us Cons Techtrends2012 013112
Us cons techtrends2012_013112
Us cons techtrends2012_013112
Deloitte Tech Trend 2012_Elevate IT for Digital Business
Deloitte Tech Trend 2012_Elevate IT for Digital Business
Deloitte - Top Tech Trends 2012
Deloitte - Top Tech Trends 2012
Us Cons Techtrends2012 013112
Us Cons Techtrends2012 013112
Us Cons Techtrends2012 013112
Us Cons Techtrends2012 013112
Us Cons Techtrends2012 013112
Us Cons Techtrends2012 013112
[Report] The State of Social Business 2013: The Maturing of Social Media into...
[Report] The State of Social Business 2013: The Maturing of Social Media into...
State Of Social Media In Belgium Report
State Of Social Media In Belgium Report
Social Media Business Applications
Social Media Business Applications
The Coming Change in Social Media Applications
The Coming Change in Social Media Applications
The Coming Change in Social Media Business Applications
The Coming Change in Social Media Business Applications
The Coming Change in Social Media Business Applications
The Coming Change in Social Media Business Applications
From Social Media to Social Business white paper series topic 3 :China‘s Soci...
From Social Media to Social Business white paper series topic 3 :China‘s Soci...
The state of_social_marketing
The state of_social_marketing
BankingEXPERT
BankingEXPERT
Social media and the communication profession eacd en univ of st. gallen
Social media and the communication profession eacd en univ of st. gallen
AEP-OU-social media-04-24-13
AEP-OU-social media-04-24-13
Mehr von Sertac Doganay, M.D.
Detox Talks
Detox Talks
Sertac Doganay, M.D.
Deloitte - Annual Turkish M&A Review 2014
Deloitte - Annual Turkish M&A Review 2014
Sertac Doganay, M.D.
Global Internet Report 2014
Global Internet Report 2014
Sertac Doganay, M.D.
Deloitte technology media telecommunications predictions 2014
Deloitte technology media telecommunications predictions 2014
Sertac Doganay, M.D.
Sağlık ve İnsan Dergisi Nisan 2014
Sağlık ve İnsan Dergisi Nisan 2014
Sertac Doganay, M.D.
Reflex Dergisi - Sağlık ve sosyal medya - Nisan 2014
Reflex Dergisi - Sağlık ve sosyal medya - Nisan 2014
Sertac Doganay, M.D.
Farmagazin 2000'ler
Farmagazin 2000'ler
Sertac Doganay, M.D.
Farmagazin Mayıs 2012 90'lar
Farmagazin Mayıs 2012 90'lar
Sertac Doganay, M.D.
Zeitgeist 2013 Trends in SlideShare
Zeitgeist 2013 Trends in SlideShare
Sertac Doganay, M.D.
Hong Kong Gezi Notları
Hong Kong Gezi Notları
Sertac Doganay, M.D.
Tanzanya Gezi Notları
Tanzanya Gezi Notları
Sertac Doganay, M.D.
Türkiye İnternet Ekosistemi Analizi - Kasım 2013
Türkiye İnternet Ekosistemi Analizi - Kasım 2013
Sertac Doganay, M.D.
Sağlık ve i̇nsan Dergisi Kasım 2013
Sağlık ve i̇nsan Dergisi Kasım 2013
Sertac Doganay, M.D.
Sağlık ve insan - Agustos 2013
Sağlık ve insan - Agustos 2013
Sertac Doganay, M.D.
Sağlık ve İnsan Dergisi - Haziran 2013
Sağlık ve İnsan Dergisi - Haziran 2013
Sertac Doganay, M.D.
Gezi parkı and social media
Gezi parkı and social media
Sertac Doganay, M.D.
Sağlık Bilişim Zirvesi - 30 Mart 2013
Sağlık Bilişim Zirvesi - 30 Mart 2013
Sertac Doganay, M.D.
Farmagazin Mart 2012 - 80'ler
Farmagazin Mart 2012 - 80'ler
Sertac Doganay, M.D.
Pharmaceutical Business Review Kasım 2012
Pharmaceutical Business Review Kasım 2012
Sertac Doganay, M.D.
Trendwatching report 2012 november [presumers]
Trendwatching report 2012 november [presumers]
Sertac Doganay, M.D.
Mehr von Sertac Doganay, M.D.
(20)
Detox Talks
Detox Talks
Deloitte - Annual Turkish M&A Review 2014
Deloitte - Annual Turkish M&A Review 2014
Global Internet Report 2014
Global Internet Report 2014
Deloitte technology media telecommunications predictions 2014
Deloitte technology media telecommunications predictions 2014
Sağlık ve İnsan Dergisi Nisan 2014
Sağlık ve İnsan Dergisi Nisan 2014
Reflex Dergisi - Sağlık ve sosyal medya - Nisan 2014
Reflex Dergisi - Sağlık ve sosyal medya - Nisan 2014
Farmagazin 2000'ler
Farmagazin 2000'ler
Farmagazin Mayıs 2012 90'lar
Farmagazin Mayıs 2012 90'lar
Zeitgeist 2013 Trends in SlideShare
Zeitgeist 2013 Trends in SlideShare
Hong Kong Gezi Notları
Hong Kong Gezi Notları
Tanzanya Gezi Notları
Tanzanya Gezi Notları
Türkiye İnternet Ekosistemi Analizi - Kasım 2013
Türkiye İnternet Ekosistemi Analizi - Kasım 2013
Sağlık ve i̇nsan Dergisi Kasım 2013
Sağlık ve i̇nsan Dergisi Kasım 2013
Sağlık ve insan - Agustos 2013
Sağlık ve insan - Agustos 2013
Sağlık ve İnsan Dergisi - Haziran 2013
Sağlık ve İnsan Dergisi - Haziran 2013
Gezi parkı and social media
Gezi parkı and social media
Sağlık Bilişim Zirvesi - 30 Mart 2013
Sağlık Bilişim Zirvesi - 30 Mart 2013
Farmagazin Mart 2012 - 80'ler
Farmagazin Mart 2012 - 80'ler
Pharmaceutical Business Review Kasım 2012
Pharmaceutical Business Review Kasım 2012
Trendwatching report 2012 november [presumers]
Trendwatching report 2012 november [presumers]
Social Media in the City Dec 2012
1.
Social Media in
The City Benchmarking the corporate social media performance of the FTSE 100 In association with the PRCA December 2012 Web: www.sociagility.com | Email: hello@sociagility.com | Twitter: @sociagility | +44 (0)20 7193 6793
2.
Social Media in The City Contents Foreword 3 Introduction 4 Summary 5 Why corporate social media performance matters 7 Study scope and methodology 11 Leaders and laggards 13 The FTSE 100 Social Performance Index 2012 16 Sector benchmarks 20 Engagement platforms 24 LinkedIn – an ideal corporate social media platform? 26 Social media performance and financial performance 28 Return on social – the need for social KPIs 30 Conclusions and recommendations 31 Appendix I: About the authors 33 Appendix II: Sociagility – social media performance consultants 34 Appendix III: About the PRCA 35 Appendix IV: The PRINT™ Methodology 36 © 2012 Sociagility Ltd Page 2
3.
Social Media in The City Foreword By Francis Ingham, Director-‐General of the Public Relations Consultants Association Like the PRCA, Sociagility believes that effective social communications creates competitive advantage for brands and organisations. I am therefore very pleased to introduce their first ever purely quantitative and comparative study of the social media performance of the FTSE 100. I hope viewing these fascinating results will encourage many more communications departments to take a much closer look at their social media strategies. We have now reached a point where social media engagement should be embraced not avoided. However, a recent PRCA study found that at a senior level 17% of organisations still do not understand social media. This compares to 66% of board members who saw social media as an opportunity, 2% that saw it as a threat, and 2% that feel social media is not relevant. To consider social media as irrelevant, or to continue to misunderstand it, places organisations at a competitive disadvantage to their rivals. We must all now recognise that proactive, strategic social media communications can work to enhance our brands and protect our reputations. Particularly in a crisis, our first response is increasingly made via ‘the thin social line’. Yes, social communication comes with a risk – we must be very careful to put the right strategies and resources in place. However, it would be a far greater risk to let our social media policy simply stagnate. Business now operates in an online and connected world and we should view social media as a fact of everyday communications and engagement. Senior management and their communications teams must make it their duty not to be left behind. Francis Ingham © 2012 Sociagility Ltd Page 3
4.
Social Media in The City Introduction It is still early days in the ‘social media revolution’. As companies absorb its implications, the default position is that it is a matter mainly for the marketing or communications department. In creating this study, we hope to focus attention on what we believe to be true: that social media performance really matters for corporate brands; that it is a competitive issue; and this should be of concern to the whole C-‐suite. The research methods we have used are completely quantitative and objectively measure the comparative performance of the FTSE 100. We have assessed performance on the web, Twitter, Facebook and YouTube using our established PRINT™ methodology (already used for a variety of previous reports). Separately, we have taken a similar quantitative approach to LinkedIn -‐ a first, we believe. Together, we think they provide a potential KPI for social media communications. As with any ranking there are winners and losers. Some of these are predictable but there are some big surprises too – from individual companies and from whole sectors. We have made no attempt to investigate or understand individual company strategies for corporate social media communication. Nevertheless, 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. 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. However, we hope that the general trends we have observed will be of general use – to the FTSE 100 and beyond – and focus attention on the neglected area of the ‘social corporate’. © 2012 Sociagility Ltd Page 4
5.
Social Media in The City Summary The Social Media in the City study suggests that the majority of the FTSE 100 may be at a competitive disadvantage by failing to engage effectively with social media networks like LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. While there are some high performers, including some companies from surprising sectors, the research indicates that most companies do not regard social media and networks as important for corporate communications. However, social media are used by a variety of stakeholders, by commentators and by mainstream media. Report highlights • Two-‐thirds of FTSE 100 companies perform below the group average on main social media networks • Shell, AstraZeneca and Sainsbury’s lead the ranking of the best-‐performing companies • Some top performers come from surprising sectors. For example, the mining firm Vedanta and computer chip-‐manufacturer ARM Holdings both appear in the top 10 • The highest performing FTSE sector is pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, followed by oil and gas producers and retailers • Only one-‐fifth of FTSE 100 companies have an active company page on LinkedIn • Statistically significant correlations found between social media performance and subsequent daily share price movement; higher social media performance scores associated with positive changes in share price The research was conducted in November this year. It used Sociagility’s 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. © 2012 Sociagility Ltd Page 5
6.
Social Media in The City While most companies (95%) have a LinkedIn presence, frequently as a result of employee activity, only one-‐fifth have an actively managed company page and just 12% saw any kind of audience engagement over the course of a week. A separate quantitative analysis ranks the FTSE100 based on three attributes: Popularity; Activity; and Engagement. Shell leads this LinkedIn ranking. The report’s authors argue that under-‐performing companies may be incurring a reputational disadvantage internationally compared with competitor companies that engage with social media successfully. Previous Sociagility studies have shown a close correlation between PRINT™ rankings and measures for brand strength and growth and sales. © 2012 Sociagility Ltd Page 6
7.
Social Media in The City Why corporate social media performance matters The emergence of fast-‐growing platforms that facilitate connection and sharing (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube et al) is transforming the way that people discover and consume information. The highly personal way that people engage with each other via these ‘social’ media has redefined their expectations of how organisations engage with them – and vice versa. While brands are first and foremost about genuine performance, they are also about peoples’ perceptions, created both by what brands say about themselves as well as ‘what people say about you when you’ve left the room’. As audience communication preferences migrate from traditional to social media, so too must the company’s communications attention. This is hardly a novel observation for the world’s leading brands. Most sophisticated brands and companies recognize that, in an increasingly competitive online environment, accentuated by current economic circumstances, social media and networks are becoming critically important. But does a good social media performance actually matter for corporate audiences? We would not be in business if we didn’t think so, and it is reassuring that a majority of FTSE 100 companies apparently agree… or at least enough to have a social media presence of some kind. But not everyone’s equally keen – or capable. Two-‐thirds perform below average for the group. Who’s on what? First, by ‘corporate’, we mean the overall business, rather than its constituent companies or brands. For some ‘company brands’, of course, this is the same brand name. Specifically, for the purposes of this study we have looked at the online profiles of the entity actually listed on the London Stock Exchange, the PLC. The breakdown for FTSE 100 usage of the four most common public platforms measured by PRINT™ is as follows: • 100% of the FTSE 100 have a website aimed at corporate audiences • 72% have created some kind of corporate Twitter account • 65% have a corporate YouTube channel • Only 56% have a corporate Facebook page, perhaps indicative of a platform being perceived as more consumer-‐focused © 2012 Sociagility Ltd Page 7
8.
Social Media in The City For this study, we also looked at usage of LinkedIn amongst the FTSE 100 group using a quantitative framework based on PRINT™. Nearly 100% of companies have a dedicated company page -‐ but this can be an almost totally passive act, as LinkedIn creates these automatically for the most well-‐known companies. Only 20% of FTSE100 companies have what we would consider to be an active LinkedIn presence – i.e. the company has used it to engage in the previous 30 days. Worse still, only 12% saw any kind of audience engagement over a 7-‐day period. It is 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 not relevant for the others? Corporate and financial stakeholders Of course there are a whole host of potential ‘corporate’ stakeholders: employees, trades unions, suppliers, local communities as well as regulators, and legislators. Most have their associated interest groups and commentators plus a broad spectrum of ‘traditional’ media -‐ trade, business, specialist and broadcast. All these groups include many important individuals who are active users of social media. For them, it is just another way to have a relationship with a brand or company – or simply to 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? In any case, surely it is more controllable 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. We believe that this view is short-‐sighted for a variety of reasons. • Shareholders and potential investors are people too – and, just like customers, likely to be participating in social media, especially in the UK and USA. • Investors use social media – private investors and the ‘wholesale’ City institutions like insurance companies, banks and brokers, routinely use social media as one input for their buy/sell/hold decisions. • Traditional media use social media – City commentators, not least the financial press, use social media to track news and opinion – and themselves engage in creating social media content. © 2012 Sociagility Ltd Page 8
9.
Social Media in The City Fragmented responsibility = fractured response The Internet in all its forms is a public mirror (sometimes distorted) for brands and companies, showing the good and the bad, highlighting successful strategies and exposing corporate fault-‐lines. And social media is by no means the only part of corporate communications that can suffer from a less than holistic approach. Yet some FTSE 100 companies still seem to be adopting a traditional, pre-‐ Internet (let alone pre Web 2.0) approach to managing their social media presence. Specific audiences are assigned specific channels 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 it is more likely to be because someone in the Press Office was seen to ‘get’ Twitter… so he/she got it forever. But while Twitter may undoubtedly be useful to the press office, it can also be a great tool for many other departments/functions such as CRM, HR etc. There is similar issue with Facebook. The perception – aided and abetted by Facebook and some agencies – is that it is purely a consumer platform and the only role for companies is product advertising. Yet many organisations use it successfully to reach out to local communities, job seekers and even business partners. Perhaps most confused of all is LinkedIn. Lots of reports say this is a highly rated channel and nearly all (95%) of FTSE100 companies have a presence. But only one-‐fifth have an active company page and fewer still see any audience engagement. So it looks like this one is falling through the cracks: LinkedIn is getting left out. When things go bang It is the nature of the social media universe to abhor a vacuum – whatever the opinion, someone is bound to have it. And, unlike formal news brands, citizen publishers do not need to fact-‐check. So even positive stories about a company can get wildly distorted, while negative rumours can spread quickly – and in a crisis, almost instantaneously. Any company which lacks a listening presence and a means to respond is very vulnerable. And companies that have not built up a solid body of positive content and a history of engagement will likely do © 2012 Sociagility Ltd Page 9
10.
Social Media in The City less well managing negative episodes than those which have already created some kind of positive social media context. The tendency for corporate communications departments to want to ‘control the message’ is understandable – for many that is seen as part of the job spec. But the reality is that old-‐style control is no longer possible and a balanced, hands-‐on approach to social media engagement is the best way to help a brand achieve the reputation it desires and deserves. A competitive issue Unsurprisingly, Sociagility’s point of view is that social media have a large and increasing important part to play in corporate communications – including the daily struggle for stakeholders’ confidence and support. We believe that how well a company engages corporately through social media is a competitive issue internationally – both as a risk to be managed properly and an opportunity to gain advantage. Furthermore, as we show later in this report, statistical analysis of our research data indicates that social media performance correlates significantly with share price movement. It is therefore important not just for corporate communicators and marketing directors but also for company chairmen, CEOs and their boards. © 2012 Sociagility Ltd Page 10
11.
Social Media in The City Study scope and methodology This study compared the social media performance of the companies that made up the FTSE 100 as at 1 November 2012. The scores and rankings have been calculated using Sociagility’s PRINT™ methodology, assessing the available websites, Twitter accounts, Facebook pages and YouTube channels which have been clearly designated as ‘corporate’ (as opposed to directly customer-‐facing) by each organisation. Each firm was given the opportunity to contribute to the channel selection before data was collected, in order to ensure the most accurate representation of their activities. Where some organisations are not using a channel this is indicated in the rankings, however overall scores have been calculated based on all four platforms. The data for this study was gathered from 1–7 November 2012. Corporate profiles Because our focus with this research is on corporate social communications we have used corporate profiles for our comparisons. As described earlier, this means the websites and accounts associated with the entity actually listed on the London Stock Exchange. In some cases this will simply be the holding company. In others, where the company and product or service brand names are the same, it will be the same website, Twitter account etc. However, where it is not, i.e. where companies themselves have created specific online profiles for their PLC entity quite separate from the constituent brands, we have selected these profiles to compare, reflecting the chosen approach of the company. We felt this was the best way to create a level ‘corporate’ playing field. A full list of the profiles analysed can be found at http://www.sociagility.com/ftse100. Unused channels Some companies do not use all the channels that PRINT™ measures. This may be a matter of choice or simply inaction. Regardless, because we are looking at overall performance, for the purpose of the overall Social Performance Index (SPI) ranking, all scores are included. However, to allow a comparison based on the efficiency solely of the channels used, we have also analysed these separately. It is debatable how valid such a © 2012 Sociagility Ltd Page 11
12.
Social Media in The City comparison is across the whole group. At its extreme, this could mean that a company that is effective just on one channel (e.g. Twitter) could outscore a company that is marginally less effective on that channel but better on all others. Nevertheless, as we say elsewhere in this report, channel strategy is an important part of social media performance and, for an individual company, one channel may be much more important than another. The PRINT™ methodology Sociagility’s PRINT™ methodology compares organisations’ performance across multiple social media platforms, against five key contributors to social brand performance (the PRINT™ attributes): • Popularity – being well known or having a high status • Receptiveness – willingness to listen and engage, not just broadcast • Interaction – communities that engage regularly and consistently with the brand • Network reach – actual and potential audience size • Trust – influence and authority within the community Scores for each attribute and channel combination are calculated using over 50 publicly available metrics. Some of these are raw measures (e.g. friends, followers, fans, subscribers, etc.) and others are ratios that have been specifically chosen in order to ensure a fair comparison (e.g. engagement per thousand followers, subscriptions per day, etc.). In addition to an overall score (the Social Performance Index or SPI), the ‘popularity’ and ‘network reach’ attributes are combined to provide the Awareness Quotient (AQ) and the remaining attributes made up the Engagement Quotient (EQ). LinkedIn performance A separate study was undertaken into the performance of FTSE 100 company pages on LinkedIn. The results of this analysis appear on page 26. A single score was calculated using Sociagility’s proprietary LinkedIn performance algorithm, which looks at metrics including follower and employee numbers, product and service recommendations, and company updates, likes and comments. The data for this study was gathered on 9 November 2012. © 2012 Sociagility Ltd Page 12
13.
Social Media in The City Leaders and laggards The companies compared in this report are by definition already highly successful in terms of at least one dimension of financial performance, ie capital value. But not all FTSE 100 companies show a corporate social media performance commensurate with their status. This may be because they have not participated in social media, because they are holding companies for other more ‘social’ organisations, or simply because they are not very good at it. All organisations in this study are being compared against the full group, not some theoretical perfect score. So any description of ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ is comparative, not absolute. For many such a broad comparison will be unrealistic, as they do not actually compete with each other in the same category. So, as well as the sector highlights in subsequent sections, a bespoke company/sector report can be requested at http://www.sociagility.com/ftse100. Top 20 Rank Company FTSE Sector Mkt Cap* SPI 1 Royal Dutch Shell Oil & Gas Producers £58,743m 996 2 AstraZeneca Pharma & Biotech £36,011m 859 3 J Sainsbury Food & Drug Retailers £6,700m 446 4 M&S Group General Retailers £6,238m 415 5 Next General Retailers £5,885m 362 6 Vedanta Resources Mining £2,972m 322 7 ITV Media £3,417m 313 8 ARM Holdings Technology Hardware £9,587m 311 9 Unilever Food Producers £29,969m 258 10 Wm Morrison Food & Drug Retailers £6,329m 206 11 BAE Systems Aerospace & Defence £10,316m 200 12 BT Group Fixed Line Telecoms £17,828m 188 13 InterContinental Hotels Travel & Leisure £4,149m 177 14 GlaxoSmithKline Pharma & Biotech £68,171m 166 15 G4S Support Services £3,679m 152 16 Barclays Banks £29,072m 147 17 BSkyB Group Media £12,390m 139 18 Reckitt Benckiser Group Household Goods £27,172m 137 19 Pearson Media £10,131m 136 20 Vodafone Group Mobile Telecoms £82,353m 132 * Market Capitalisation as at 8 November 2012 © 2012 Sociagility Ltd Page 13
14.
Social Media in The City Shell, AstraZeneca and J Sainsbury lead the overall ranking of corporate social media performance, with the latter punching well above its market capitalisation. Indeed, only seven of the 20 largest companies in the FTSE 100 appear in this ranking, making way for a number of smaller cap organisations including Vedanta Resources, ITV, G4s and InterContinental Hotels Group (all sub-‐£5,000m market capitalisation). Some companies do not use all the channels that PRINT™ measures. The re-‐ weighted ranking below therefore compares performance based on the efficiency solely of the channels used. However, at its extreme, this could mean that a company that is effective just on one channel (e.g. Twitter) could outscore a company that is marginally less effective on that channel but better on all others. The result is few changes in the overall top 20. Royal Dutch Shell still leads the group, followed by AstraZeneca. ITV jumps to third place, and a few new entrants emerge in the form of Rolls-‐Royce (17th) and BP (20th). Top 20 (channel re-‐weighted) Rank Company We Tw Fb YT cSPI 1 Royal Dutch Shell x x x x 799 2 AstraZeneca x x x x 690 3 ITV x x 503 4 J Sainsbury x x x x 358 5 M&S Group x x x x 333 6 Next x x x x 291 7 Vedanta Resources x x x x 258 8 ARM Holdings x x x x 250 9 BSkyB Group x x 223 10 Unilever x x x x 207 11 Wm Morrison x x x x 166 12 BAE Systems x x x x 161 13 BT Group x x x x 151 14 InterContinental Hotels Group x x x x 142 15 Vodafone Group x x x 142 16 GlaxoSmithKline x x x x 133 17 Rolls-‐Royce Holdings x x x 131 18 G4S x x x x 122 19 Barclays x x x x 118 20 BP x x x 113 © 2012 Sociagility Ltd Page 14
15.
Social Media in The City Bottom 10 At the bottom of the table, it is perhaps not unusual to find FTSE 100 constituents that are not household names. Primarily in business-‐to-‐business or industrialised sectors, these kinds of company scores are to be expected when comparing to a group that includes much more familiar brand names. Still, there are one or two surprises in the form of Prudential (90th), Tate & Lyle (73rd) and Admiral Group (67th). The full ranking can be found on pages 18–19. Rank Company FTSE Sector SPI 91 Croda International Chemicals 13 92 Meggitt Aerospace & Defence 13 93 CRH Construction 12 94 Weir Group Industrial Engineering 12 95 Associated British Foods Food Producers 12 96 Polymetal International Mining 11 97 Evraz Industrial Metals 10 98 Kazakhmys Mining 10 99 Capital Shopping Centres Group REITs 10 100 Babcock International Group Support Services 8 © 2012 Sociagility Ltd Page 15
16.
Social Media in The City The FTSE 100 Social Performance Index 2012 A full ranking of social media performance of all FTSE 100 companies appears on the following pages, along with their respective PRINT™, attribute and channel scores. For an interactive version of this table, or to request a bespoke company/sector analysis, please visit http://www.sociagility.com/ftse100. PRINT™ Scores Over 50 different measures make up the PRINT™ methodology, based on different attributes of corporate social media performance across multiple platforms. The scores that appear in the table on the following pages – and elsewhere in this document – provide a variety of different indicators. SPI: Social Performance Index The SPI is an overall indicator of social media performance, from which all the scores below are derived. AQ: Awareness Quotient AQ isolates the impact of a company’s status on the SPI by combining the Popularity and Network Reach attribute scores. EQ: Engagement Quotient EQ isolates the impact of a company’s participation in and engagement with social media on the SPI by combining the Receptiveness, Interaction and Trust attribute scores. Attribute Scores The five attribute scores are calculated across all four channels, comparing each company’s performance against the mean of the comparison group using over 50 publicly available metrics. Pop: Popularity Popularity measures how well known or popular each company is, based on metrics such as page ranking, followers/fans, references, engagement levels and traffic data. Rec: Receptiveness Receptiveness measures each company's willingness to actively listen and participate on each platform, using metrics including linking, generosity, responsiveness to questions, and reciprocation. © 2012 Sociagility Ltd Page 16
17.
Social Media in The City Int: Interaction Interaction measures the extent to which people engage regularly with the company, using metrics such as shares, activity and engagement levels, and conversation volume. Net: Network Reach Network Reach measures the actual and potential audience size of each company’s social media activity, based on metrics that include linking, reach, audience size and subscriber growth. Tru: Trust Trust measures the influence and authority of each company’s social media output, using metrics such as influence, authority, favourability, likes and ratings. How these scores can be used When used as part of a formal social media performance benchmarking exercise for a brand or company versus focal competitors, these scores provide key performance indicators that should be tracked over time. They can also be used as the basis for comprehensive, evidence-‐based planning which identifies the channels and behaviours that offer a company the greatest competitive advantage, provide priority areas for action (and examples of best practice) and can even be linked to other measures of business success in order to better quantify the financial impact of improvements in performance. © 2012 Sociagility Ltd Page 17
18.
Social Media in The City PRINT™ Scores Attribute Scores Channel Scores Rank Company SPI AQ EQ Pop Rec Int Net Tru Web Tw Fb YT 1 Royal Dutch Shell 996 1092 932 772 184 1529 1412 1082 49 385 3160 390 2 AstraZeneca 859 1086 708 846 335 758 1326 1031 118 3047 225 46 3 J Sainsbury 446 462 436 466 288 525 458 494 75 184 1113 413 4 M&S Group 415 508 352 357 252 208 658 598 119 70 1145 324 5 Next 362 358 366 430 287 653 285 157 496 256 495 203 6 Vedanta Resources 322 128 451 117 53 477 139 824 62 39 30 1157 7 ITV 313 245 359 225 191 825 265 61 853 401 0 0 8 ARM Holdings 311 407 247 321 482 135 493 125 178 145 106 816 9 Unilever 258 354 193 364 236 190 344 154 167 136 503 224 10 Morrison (Wm) 206 229 191 189 246 195 270 131 91 58 560 116 11 BAE Systems Supermarkets 200 217 189 286 165 244 148 159 196 69 113 422 12 BT Group 188 212 171 354 354 76 70 84 73 368 24 286 13 InterContinental Hotels 177 103 226 118 440 115 88 124 78 85 86 460 14 GlaxoSmithKline Group 166 185 153 162 156 145 209 160 270 117 114 165 15 G4S 152 150 154 229 145 150 71 167 108 55 376 71 16 Barclays 147 127 159 182 258 83 72 137 116 107 227 136 17 British Sky Broadcasting 139 252 64 31 106 30 473 55 485 71 0 0 18 Reckitt Group Benckiser Group 137 116 151 117 305 65 116 84 170 113 105 162 19 Pearson 136 85 170 70 334 88 100 90 131 93 35 287 20 Vodafone Group 132 133 132 135 36 259 130 102 143 51 0 336 21 National Grid 131 172 104 200 116 79 145 116 65 95 293 71 22 Aviva 123 122 123 174 223 58 69 90 75 115 60 241 23 Rolls-‐Royce Holdings 123 253 36 105 15 33 400 60 100 0 0 391 24 United Utilities Group 122 58 164 94 76 327 23 90 63 101 9 315 25 Sage Group 120 150 100 58 173 56 242 72 192 149 114 25 26 WPP 118 169 84 277 122 54 60 75 106 279 68 18 27 Standard Chartered 116 100 127 93 157 118 107 106 113 138 131 83 28 Royal Bank Of Scotland 112 59 148 66 253 105 52 86 92 95 67 196 29 Rio Tinto Group 109 104 112 152 39 204 56 93 98 114 0 223 30 Anglo American 107 89 119 133 152 81 44 124 82 90 184 71 31 BP 106 110 103 59 65 115 161 129 255 87 81 0 32 Johnson Matthey 95 144 62 262 61 46 26 78 54 73 196 56 33 Hargreaves Lansdown 88 46 116 74 231 39 18 77 44 58 0 250 34 Smith & Nephew 83 89 79 59 60 64 119 111 79 187 9 56 35 HSBC Hldgs 81 131 47 112 57 36 150 47 159 53 0 110 36 Tesco 76 83 72 66 71 69 100 76 50 61 0 194 37 Whitbread 75 45 95 71 116 97 19 72 47 59 80 113 38 SABMiller 72 57 82 93 82 80 21 85 59 112 21 97 39 British American Tobacco 72 66 75 72 43 130 60 54 146 42 0 98 40 Severn Trent 71 47 86 72 64 118 23 77 64 61 0 157 41 Standard Life 67 26 94 40 179 32 13 70 75 61 72 59 42 Centrica 63 36 82 53 111 53 18 83 54 89 0 110 43 Intertek Group 62 78 52 36 43 64 119 50 119 117 0 14 44 Experian 59 59 60 35 49 62 83 68 70 125 0 43 45 RSA Insurance Group 57 38 70 63 133 29 13 49 58 65 107 0 46 SSE 57 51 62 78 58 45 23 83 60 99 0 70 47 Aggreko 57 48 63 33 47 78 63 65 62 107 0 60 48 Diageo 57 47 64 54 84 43 40 64 91 63 0 73 49 Lloyds Banking Group 56 58 55 31 79 47 85 39 98 126 0 0 50 Legal & General Group 53 25 73 34 121 37 15 59 120 45 11 38 © 2012 Sociagility Ltd Page 18
19.
Social Media in The City PRINT™ Scores Attribute Scores Channel Scores Rank Company SPI AQ EQ Pop Rec Int Net Tru Web Tw Fb YT 51 Amec 53 42 60 49 79 39 35 63 97 69 0 46 52 Schroders 50 38 59 60 56 40 16 81 57 87 25 32 53 Reed Elsevier 49 39 56 39 69 35 39 62 108 88 0 0 54 BHP Billiton 48 51 46 29 35 65 73 40 91 101 0 0 55 BG Group 45 42 47 43 42 37 42 63 59 51 0 70 56 Aberdeen Asset 45 44 46 76 66 17 12 54 74 0 37 69 57 Imperial Tobacco Group Management 41 48 37 29 27 43 67 40 50 115 1 0 58 Tullow Oil 41 37 44 46 53 25 28 55 48 60 1 56 59 British Land Co 39 28 47 47 29 48 9 63 46 55 7 48 60 John Wood Group 38 20 49 32 74 20 7 54 85 37 0 27 61 Land Securities Group 36 28 42 45 38 33 11 55 47 88 0 10 62 Capita 36 25 44 35 72 17 14 43 77 37 1 30 63 Kingfisher 36 17 48 29 37 42 5 66 43 58 0 42 64 Hammerson 35 20 45 29 36 45 10 54 43 43 2 50 65 Burberry Group 33 14 46 24 114 2 4 23 134 0 0 0 66 Resolution 33 10 49 19 126 0 0 21 133 0 0 0 67 Admiral Group 33 16 45 28 41 35 4 58 44 45 0 43 68 Eurasian Natural Resources 32 12 45 22 110 2 2 23 127 0 0 0 69 Old Mutual Corporation 31 16 40 26 69 4 6 49 50 0 1 72 70 Carnival 30 13 42 23 102 0 3 23 121 0 0 0 71 Serco Group 29 20 35 30 40 31 10 33 75 40 0 0 72 Compass Group 28 21 33 37 30 18 5 52 40 64 0 9 73 Tate & Lyle 27 16 35 26 57 15 6 32 70 39 0 0 74 Rexam 26 18 31 27 4 47 9 43 45 0 0 59 75 Glencore International 25 16 31 30 54 15 3 25 97 0 4 0 76 Randgold Resources 25 19 29 36 8 33 3 47 46 0 0 56 77 Xstrata 25 20 28 29 37 19 12 28 67 34 0 0 78 Smiths Group 25 15 32 24 70 0 7 25 100 0 0 0 79 Petrofac 25 13 33 23 25 47 2 27 63 35 0 0 80 GKN 24 18 28 25 27 6 11 49 61 0 0 33 81 Wolseley 24 15 29 26 43 14 4 30 57 35 0 2 82 IMI 22 14 27 25 56 0 3 25 87 0 0 0 83 Melrose 22 10 29 20 66 0 0 21 86 0 0 0 84 Pennon Group 21 12 27 23 39 13 1 28 50 34 0 0 85 Bunzl 20 13 24 24 49 1 3 22 79 0 0 0 86 ICAG 19 12 24 24 33 14 1 25 45 32 0 0 87 Antofagasta 18 11 22 21 42 0 1 24 71 0 0 0 88 Fresnillo 17 11 21 22 26 14 1 24 37 32 0 0 89 Shire 15 18 13 26 8 3 10 26 59 0 0 0 90 Prudential 14 16 13 25 10 3 6 25 54 0 0 1 91 Croda International 13 15 12 25 11 0 5 25 53 0 0 0 92 Meggitt 13 13 12 24 11 1 3 24 50 0 0 0 93 CRH 12 14 11 26 5 4 3 24 49 0 0 0 94 Weir Group 12 12 12 23 12 1 2 23 48 0 0 0 95 Associated British Foods 12 14 11 25 5 3 2 24 47 0 0 0 96 Polymetal International 11 9 11 18 14 0 0 20 42 0 0 0 97 Evraz 10 13 9 21 4 1 4 21 41 0 0 0 98 Kazakhmys 10 12 9 23 1 0 1 25 40 0 0 0 99 Capital Shopping Centres 10 12 9 23 1 0 1 25 40 0 0 0 100 Babcock Group International 8 10 7 20 0 1 0 21 34 0 0 0 Group © 2012 Sociagility Ltd Page 19
20.
Social Media in The City Sector benchmarks As the FTSE is based on capital value, its sector spread is uneven, reflecting the relative success of different parts of the national and global economy at different periods, as well as the success of the companies concerned. Many FTSE companies are therefore in a group of one… or two. For the purposes of this analysis, we have omitted sectors with less than three FTSE 100 constituents. By so doing we can see: • how average sector performances compare; and • any major variations within sector In the table below, seven sectors score above average (100) and they are not necessarily the most obvious, consumer-‐facing candidates. Both Shell’s and AstraZeneca’s strong performances are replicated across their respective sector groups, with companies in the Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology and Oil & Gas producers sectors commanding the highest average SPI scores. Sector performance Rank FTSE Sector Companies SPI (avg) 1 Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology 3 347 2 Oil & Gas Producers 4 297 3 General Retailers 3 271 4 Food & Drug Retailers 3 243 5 Media 5 151 6 Aerospace & Defence 3 112 7 Banks 5 102 8 Food Producers 3 99 10 Gas, Water & Multiutilities 5 82 11 Travel & Leisure 5 66 12 Mining 12 62 13 Financial Services 3 61 14 Life Insurance 6 53 15 Support Services 9 50 16 Oil Equipment & Services 3 38 17 Real Estate Investment Trusts 4 30 18 Industrial Engineering 3 18 As well as looking at the overall SPI score, we have isolated two general factors that contribute towards this performance – the Awareness Quotient (a measure of status) and the Engagement Quotient (a measure of participation © 2012 Sociagility Ltd Page 20
21.
Social Media in The City and interaction). Awareness Quotient (AQ) bundles 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 figure below maps these AQ and EQ scores. A low EQ combined with a high AQ suggests the PRINT™ score is driven disproportionately by scale rather than social engagement. Whilst it is possible to analyse each sector in much more detail, in this section we focus on three different groupings: banks, financial services and life insurance; support services; and gas, water and multi-‐utilities. Sector focus: Banking, financial services and life insurance Out of the 14 companies that make up the banking, financial services and life insurance FTSE sector groupings, only Barclays and Aviva occupy a leadership position. HSBC would appear to be trading mainly on its status, with little social media engagement, whereas RBS, Hargreaves Lansdown and Standard Chartered are punching well above their weight, with higher engagement than awareness scores. Although spread across all four quadrants of the grid, the banking sector performs best within this combined financial sector group. The three financial © 2012 Sociagility Ltd Page 21
22.
Social Media in The City services companies trail slightly behind and, with the exception of Aviva, life insurance companies lag the rest of the financial sector. This is the biggest surprise within this group, given that almost all are well-‐known, consumer-‐ facing household names. Sector focus: Support services Rank Company Pop Rec Int Net Tru 1 G4s 229 145 150 71 167 2 Intertek Group 36 43 64 119 50 3 Experian 35 49 62 83 68 4 Aggreko 33 47 78 63 65 5 Capita 35 72 17 14 43 6 Serco Group 30 40 31 10 33 7 Wolseley 26 43 14 4 30 8 Bunzl 24 49 1 3 22 9 Babock International Group 20 0 1 0 21 With nine companies represented in the FTSE 100, yet an average of only 50 on the SPI scale, the support services sector is one of the worst performers in our analysis. Indeed, without a strong showing from security solutions group G4S, the SPI for this sector would drop to below 40. © 2012 Sociagility Ltd Page 22
23.
Social Media in The City It is unclear as to why this might be. It is true that only two of the nine use all the platforms that PRINT™ analyses – none of the other seven are using Facebook, an odd decision perhaps considering that they all need to recruit and most will have active community relations programmes – but almost all are using social media of some kind. It would seem then that what they are doing – or not – is the issue. For instance, only G4S and Intertek Group record any above average attribute scores, despite all (with the exception of Babcock International Group) demonstrating reasonable if not outstanding levels of receptiveness. Sector focus: Gas, water and multiutilities One of the sectors that delivers average scores across the board is gas, water & utilities, made up of just five FTSE 100 companies, with a combined market capitalisation of over £5o billion. National Grid leads this small sector group, although United Utilities Group records the highest Interaction score and comes a very close second. Rank Company Pop Rec Int Net Tru SPI 1 National Grid 200 116 79 145 116 131 2 United Utilities Group 94 76 327 23 90 122 3 Severn Trent 72 64 118 23 77 71 4 Centrica 53 111 53 18 83 64 5 Pennon Group 23 39 13 1 28 21 For any of the companies performing below the FTSE100 average, like Severn Trent or Centrica, a bespoke analysis would be necessary to explain exactly where the most improvement could be made. But it is also possible to identify examples of best practice in those areas where the sector itself is weakest. The table below shows both the gap (red equals larger) between sector performance and the entire FTSE 100 average and the companies that record the highest scores for that attribute/platform combination within the sector. Popularity Receptiveness Interaction Network Reach Trust Website National Grid Severn Trent National Grid National Grid National Grid Twitter Centrica United Utilities National Grid United Utilities National Grid Facebook National Grid National Grid National Grid National Grid National Grid YouTube United Utilities Centrica United Utilities National Grid Severn Trent © 2012 Sociagility Ltd Page 23
24.
Social Media in The City Engagement platforms As well as identifying how companies are performing comparatively in terms of social media behaviours, the PRINT™ methodology allows us to isolate the contribution each social platform makes towards those scores. The result is a set of rankings for each platform, which often shows a diverse group of leading companies and sectors. Website Rank Company FTSE Sector Score 1 ITV Media 853 2 Next General Retailers 496 3 British Sky Broadcasting Group Media 485 4 GlaxoSmithKline Pharma & Biotech 270 5 BP Oil & Gas Producers 256 6 BAE Systems Aerospace & Defence 196 7 Sage Group Software 192 8 ARM Holdings Technology Hardware 178 9 Reckitt Benckiser Group Household Goods 170 10 Unilever Food Producers 167 The websites of media companies ITV and BskyB attract widespread public interest, so it is little surprise that both feature highly in this ranking. Next also has great consumer appeal. The success of most of the other top 10 can perhaps be linked to the resources these large companies can deploy but special praise must go to the much smaller Sage and ARM Holdings. Twitter Rank Company FTSE Sector Score 1 AstraZeneca Pharma & Biotech 3047 2 ITV Media 401 3 Royal Dutch Shell Oil & Gas Producers 385 4 BT Group Fixed Line Telecomms 368 5 WPP Media 279 6 Next General Retailers 256 7 Smith & Nephew Health Care Equipment 188 8 J Sainsbury Food & Drug Retailers 184 9 Sage Group Software 149 10 ARM Holdings Technology Hardware 145 © 2012 Sociagility Ltd Page 24
Jetzt herunterladen