SlideShare ist ein Scribd-Unternehmen logo
1 von 38
Downloaden Sie, um offline zu lesen
 




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	
  
 
                                                                                 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	
  
 
                                                                                               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	
  
 
                                                                                          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	
  
 
                                                                                        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	
  
 
                                                                                     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	
  
 
                                                                                            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	
  
 
                                                                                           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	
  
 
                                                                                         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	
  
 
                                                                                         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	
  
 
                                                                                                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	
  
 
                                                                                      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	
  
 
                                                                                      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	
  
 
                                                                                             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	
  
 
                                                                                          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	
  
 
                                                                                     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	
  
 
                                                                                    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	
  
 
                                                                                                                                          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	
  
 
                                                                                                                                          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	
  
 
                                                                                         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	
  
 
                                                                                        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	
  
 
                                                                                        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	
  
 
                                                                                                                                   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	
  
 
                                                                                          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	
  
Social Media in the City Dec 2012
Social Media in the City Dec 2012
Social Media in the City Dec 2012
Social Media in the City Dec 2012
Social Media in the City Dec 2012
Social Media in the City Dec 2012
Social Media in the City Dec 2012
Social Media in the City Dec 2012
Social Media in the City Dec 2012
Social Media in the City Dec 2012
Social Media in the City Dec 2012
Social Media in the City Dec 2012
Social Media in the City Dec 2012
Social Media in the City Dec 2012

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

IR and social media dec 2012
IR and social media dec 2012IR and social media dec 2012
IR and social media dec 2012elana123
 
ED Sol So Me Webinar 09 10 09 Final
ED Sol So Me Webinar  09 10 09 FinalED Sol So Me Webinar  09 10 09 Final
ED Sol So Me Webinar 09 10 09 FinalMark James
 
AIM Campaign Book
AIM Campaign BookAIM Campaign Book
AIM Campaign BookMar Smith
 
Social media whitepaper
Social media whitepaperSocial media whitepaper
Social media whitepaperKarthik Kumar
 
Lithium Likes to Loves Tour Sydney
Lithium Likes to Loves Tour SydneyLithium Likes to Loves Tour Sydney
Lithium Likes to Loves Tour SydneyLithium
 
Comprehensive social media strategy by john bell
Comprehensive social media strategy by john bellComprehensive social media strategy by john bell
Comprehensive social media strategy by john bellJohn Bell
 
Burson-Marsteller Asia-Pacific Social Media Study
Burson-Marsteller Asia-Pacific Social Media StudyBurson-Marsteller Asia-Pacific Social Media Study
Burson-Marsteller Asia-Pacific Social Media StudyBurson-Marsteller China
 
Brand Management, how valuable in the Digital Age?
Brand Management, how valuable in the Digital Age?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)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 TodayThe Coming Change in Social Media by Social Media Today
The Coming Change in Social Media by Social Media TodayElizabeth 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...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
 
Burson-Marsteller Asia-Pacific Corporate Social Media Study 2011
Burson-Marsteller Asia-Pacific Corporate Social Media Study 2011Burson-Marsteller Asia-Pacific Corporate Social Media Study 2011
Burson-Marsteller Asia-Pacific Corporate Social Media Study 2011Burson-Marsteller Asia-Pacific
 
Social media comes of age
Social media comes of ageSocial media comes of age
Social media comes of agePaul Kennedy
 
Social media aids customer acquisition media buyerplanner
Social media aids customer acquisition   media buyerplannerSocial media aids customer acquisition   media buyerplanner
Social media aids customer acquisition media buyerplannerRalph Paglia
 

Was ist angesagt? (16)

IR and social media dec 2012
IR and social media dec 2012IR 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 FinalED Sol So Me Webinar  09 10 09 Final
ED Sol So Me Webinar 09 10 09 Final
 
AIM Campaign Book
AIM Campaign BookAIM Campaign Book
AIM Campaign Book
 
How social media_is_changing
How social media_is_changingHow social media_is_changing
How social media_is_changing
 
Social media whitepaper
Social media whitepaperSocial media whitepaper
Social media whitepaper
 
Lithium Likes to Loves Tour Sydney
Lithium Likes to Loves Tour SydneyLithium Likes to Loves Tour Sydney
Lithium Likes to Loves Tour Sydney
 
Comprehensive social media strategy by john bell
Comprehensive social media strategy by john bellComprehensive 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 StudyBurson-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?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)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 TodayThe 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...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 2012L2 Facebook IQ 2012
L2 Facebook IQ 2012
 
Burson-Marsteller Asia-Pacific Corporate Social Media Study 2011
Burson-Marsteller Asia-Pacific Corporate Social Media Study 2011Burson-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 ageSocial media comes of age
Social media comes of age
 
Social media aids customer acquisition media buyerplanner
Social media aids customer acquisition   media buyerplannerSocial 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 2012The State of Corporate Social Media 2012
The State of Corporate Social Media 2012Nick Johnson
 
Social Business Development Roadmap in China
Social Business Development Roadmap in ChinaSocial Business Development Roadmap in China
Social Business Development Roadmap in ChinaCIC
 
Us Cons Techtrends2012 013112
Us Cons Techtrends2012 013112Us Cons Techtrends2012 013112
Us Cons Techtrends2012 013112Chrisharris84
 
Us cons techtrends2012_013112
Us cons techtrends2012_013112Us cons techtrends2012_013112
Us cons techtrends2012_013112Svetlana Belyaeva
 
Deloitte Tech Trend 2012_Elevate IT for Digital Business
Deloitte Tech Trend 2012_Elevate IT for Digital BusinessDeloitte Tech Trend 2012_Elevate IT for Digital Business
Deloitte Tech Trend 2012_Elevate IT for Digital BusinessSuganya Chatkaewmorakot
 
Us Cons Techtrends2012 013112
Us Cons Techtrends2012 013112Us Cons Techtrends2012 013112
Us Cons Techtrends2012 013112Tom_Webb
 
Us Cons Techtrends2012 013112
Us Cons Techtrends2012 013112Us Cons Techtrends2012 013112
Us Cons Techtrends2012 013112LouisaWetton
 
Us Cons Techtrends2012 013112
Us Cons Techtrends2012 013112Us Cons Techtrends2012 013112
Us Cons Techtrends2012 013112clairemccowan
 
[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...[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   ReportState Of Social Media In Belgium   Report
State Of Social Media In Belgium ReportVanguard Leadership
 
Social Media Business Applications
Social Media Business ApplicationsSocial Media Business Applications
Social Media Business Applicationsjgordon
 
The Coming Change in Social Media Applications
The Coming Change in Social Media ApplicationsThe Coming Change in Social Media Applications
The Coming Change in Social Media ApplicationsVlastimil Dejl
 
The Coming Change in Social Media Business Applications
The Coming Change in Social Media Business ApplicationsThe Coming Change in Social Media Business Applications
The Coming Change in Social Media Business ApplicationsElizabeth Lupfer
 
The Coming Change in Social Media Business Applications
The Coming Change in Social Media Business ApplicationsThe Coming Change in Social Media Business Applications
The Coming Change in Social Media Business Applicationswhite 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...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_marketingThe state of_social_marketing
The state of_social_marketingSvetlana Belyaeva
 
Social media and the communication profession eacd en univ of st. gallen
Social media and the communication profession eacd en univ of st. gallenSocial media and the communication profession eacd en univ of st. gallen
Social media and the communication profession eacd en univ of st. gallenMarketingfacts
 

Ähnlich wie Social Media in the City Dec 2012 (20)

The State of Corporate Social Media 2012
The State of Corporate Social Media 2012The State of Corporate Social Media 2012
The State of Corporate Social Media 2012
 
Social Business Development Roadmap in China
Social Business Development Roadmap in ChinaSocial Business Development Roadmap in China
Social Business Development Roadmap in China
 
Us Cons Techtrends2012 013112
Us Cons Techtrends2012 013112Us Cons Techtrends2012 013112
Us Cons Techtrends2012 013112
 
Us cons techtrends2012_013112
Us cons techtrends2012_013112Us cons techtrends2012_013112
Us cons techtrends2012_013112
 
Deloitte Tech Trend 2012_Elevate IT for Digital Business
Deloitte Tech Trend 2012_Elevate IT for Digital BusinessDeloitte 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 2012Deloitte - Top Tech Trends 2012
Deloitte - Top Tech Trends 2012
 
Us Cons Techtrends2012 013112
Us Cons Techtrends2012 013112Us Cons Techtrends2012 013112
Us Cons Techtrends2012 013112
 
Us Cons Techtrends2012 013112
Us Cons Techtrends2012 013112Us Cons Techtrends2012 013112
Us Cons Techtrends2012 013112
 
Us Cons Techtrends2012 013112
Us Cons Techtrends2012 013112Us 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...[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   ReportState Of Social Media In Belgium   Report
State Of Social Media In Belgium Report
 
Social Media Business Applications
Social Media Business ApplicationsSocial Media Business Applications
Social Media Business Applications
 
The Coming Change in Social Media Applications
The Coming Change in Social Media ApplicationsThe 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 ApplicationsThe 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 ApplicationsThe 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...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_marketingThe state of_social_marketing
The state of_social_marketing
 
BankingEXPERT
BankingEXPERTBankingEXPERT
BankingEXPERT
 
Social media and the communication profession eacd en univ of st. gallen
Social media and the communication profession eacd en univ of st. gallenSocial 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-04-24-13AEP-OU-social media-04-24-13
AEP-OU-social media-04-24-13
 

Mehr von Sertac Doganay, M.D.

Deloitte - Annual Turkish M&A Review 2014
Deloitte - Annual Turkish M&A Review 2014 Deloitte - Annual Turkish M&A Review 2014
Deloitte - Annual Turkish M&A Review 2014 Sertac Doganay, M.D.
 
Deloitte technology media telecommunications predictions 2014
Deloitte technology media telecommunications predictions 2014Deloitte technology media telecommunications predictions 2014
Deloitte technology media telecommunications predictions 2014Sertac Doganay, M.D.
 
Sağlık ve İnsan Dergisi Nisan 2014
Sağlık ve İnsan Dergisi Nisan 2014Sağlık ve İnsan Dergisi Nisan 2014
Sağlık ve İnsan Dergisi Nisan 2014Sertac Doganay, M.D.
 
Reflex Dergisi - Sağlık ve sosyal medya - Nisan 2014
Reflex Dergisi - Sağlık ve sosyal medya - Nisan 2014Reflex Dergisi - Sağlık ve sosyal medya - Nisan 2014
Reflex Dergisi - Sağlık ve sosyal medya - Nisan 2014Sertac Doganay, M.D.
 
Zeitgeist 2013 Trends in SlideShare
Zeitgeist 2013 Trends in SlideShareZeitgeist 2013 Trends in SlideShare
Zeitgeist 2013 Trends in SlideShareSertac Doganay, M.D.
 
Türkiye İnternet Ekosistemi Analizi - Kasım 2013
Türkiye İnternet Ekosistemi Analizi - Kasım 2013Türkiye İnternet Ekosistemi Analizi - Kasım 2013
Türkiye İnternet Ekosistemi Analizi - Kasım 2013Sertac Doganay, M.D.
 
Sağlık ve i̇nsan Dergisi Kasım 2013
Sağlık ve i̇nsan Dergisi Kasım 2013Sağlık ve i̇nsan Dergisi Kasım 2013
Sağlık ve i̇nsan Dergisi Kasım 2013Sertac Doganay, M.D.
 
Sağlık ve İnsan Dergisi - Haziran 2013
Sağlık ve İnsan Dergisi - Haziran 2013Sağlık ve İnsan Dergisi - Haziran 2013
Sağlık ve İnsan Dergisi - Haziran 2013Sertac Doganay, M.D.
 
Sağlık Bilişim Zirvesi - 30 Mart 2013
Sağlık Bilişim Zirvesi - 30 Mart 2013Sağlık Bilişim Zirvesi - 30 Mart 2013
Sağlık Bilişim Zirvesi - 30 Mart 2013Sertac Doganay, M.D.
 
Pharmaceutical Business Review Kasım 2012
Pharmaceutical Business Review Kasım 2012Pharmaceutical Business Review Kasım 2012
Pharmaceutical Business Review Kasım 2012Sertac Doganay, M.D.
 
Trendwatching report 2012 november [presumers]
Trendwatching report  2012 november [presumers]Trendwatching report  2012 november [presumers]
Trendwatching report 2012 november [presumers]Sertac Doganay, M.D.
 

Mehr von Sertac Doganay, M.D. (20)

Detox Talks
Detox TalksDetox Talks
Detox Talks
 
Deloitte - Annual Turkish M&A Review 2014
Deloitte - Annual Turkish M&A Review 2014 Deloitte - Annual Turkish M&A Review 2014
Deloitte - Annual Turkish M&A Review 2014
 
Global Internet Report 2014
Global Internet Report 2014Global Internet Report 2014
Global Internet Report 2014
 
Deloitte technology media telecommunications predictions 2014
Deloitte technology media telecommunications predictions 2014Deloitte technology media telecommunications predictions 2014
Deloitte technology media telecommunications predictions 2014
 
Sağlık ve İnsan Dergisi Nisan 2014
Sağlık ve İnsan Dergisi Nisan 2014Sağlık 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 2014Reflex Dergisi - Sağlık ve sosyal medya - Nisan 2014
Reflex Dergisi - Sağlık ve sosyal medya - Nisan 2014
 
Farmagazin 2000'ler
Farmagazin 2000'lerFarmagazin 2000'ler
Farmagazin 2000'ler
 
Farmagazin Mayıs 2012 90'lar
Farmagazin Mayıs 2012 90'larFarmagazin Mayıs 2012 90'lar
Farmagazin Mayıs 2012 90'lar
 
Zeitgeist 2013 Trends in SlideShare
Zeitgeist 2013 Trends in SlideShareZeitgeist 2013 Trends in SlideShare
Zeitgeist 2013 Trends in SlideShare
 
Hong Kong Gezi Notları
Hong Kong Gezi NotlarıHong Kong Gezi Notları
Hong Kong Gezi Notları
 
Tanzanya Gezi Notları
Tanzanya Gezi NotlarıTanzanya Gezi Notları
Tanzanya Gezi Notları
 
Türkiye İnternet Ekosistemi Analizi - Kasım 2013
Türkiye İnternet Ekosistemi Analizi - Kasım 2013Türkiye İnternet Ekosistemi Analizi - Kasım 2013
Türkiye İnternet Ekosistemi Analizi - Kasım 2013
 
Sağlık ve i̇nsan Dergisi Kasım 2013
Sağlık ve i̇nsan Dergisi Kasım 2013Sağlık ve i̇nsan Dergisi Kasım 2013
Sağlık ve i̇nsan Dergisi Kasım 2013
 
Sağlık ve insan - Agustos 2013
Sağlık ve insan - Agustos 2013Sağlık ve insan - Agustos 2013
Sağlık ve insan - Agustos 2013
 
Sağlık ve İnsan Dergisi - Haziran 2013
Sağlık ve İnsan Dergisi - Haziran 2013Sağlık ve İnsan Dergisi - Haziran 2013
Sağlık ve İnsan Dergisi - Haziran 2013
 
Gezi parkı and social media
Gezi parkı and social mediaGezi parkı and social media
Gezi parkı and social media
 
Sağlık Bilişim Zirvesi - 30 Mart 2013
Sağlık Bilişim Zirvesi - 30 Mart 2013Sağlık Bilişim Zirvesi - 30 Mart 2013
Sağlık Bilişim Zirvesi - 30 Mart 2013
 
Farmagazin Mart 2012 - 80'ler
Farmagazin Mart 2012 - 80'lerFarmagazin Mart 2012 - 80'ler
Farmagazin Mart 2012 - 80'ler
 
Pharmaceutical Business Review Kasım 2012
Pharmaceutical Business Review Kasım 2012Pharmaceutical Business Review Kasım 2012
Pharmaceutical Business Review Kasım 2012
 
Trendwatching report 2012 november [presumers]
Trendwatching report  2012 november [presumers]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