Online Comments Report 2014

Reputation

Online Comments
Report 2014
Results and Conclusions

Document prepared by
Corporate Excellence – Centre for Reputation Leadership
Llorente & Cuenca
February 2014

Reference Number: M–6366–2014

www.corporateexcellence.org
Sagasta 27, 3 Izq. B
28004 Madrid (Spain)
+34 91 445 18 18
info@corporateexcellence.org

Contents
01. Introduction

04

02. Trends

07

03. Findings

13

By Sectors

14

By Dimensions

17

By Stakeholders

19

By Networks

22

04. Model

24

Study Sample

25

Analysis variables

26

Dimensions and stakeholders

27

Introduction
Digital economy, characterized by wide access to large volumes of information,
immediacy of its circulation as well as ubiquity of online communications, is
shaping a new informational ecosystem, where the power of supporters and
detractors is multiplied. Democratization brought about by new technologies
enables any individual to generate content and create their own communities
and audiences.

This context implies important challenges
for corporate reputation management, where
reputation is understood as a set of collective
evaluations that an organization evokes in its
stakeholders and that are able to lead to value–
generating behaviours. Thus brands may only
be successful if they are able to participate in
those networks that are interesting for their
stakeholders and establish long–term relations,
unleashing favourable behaviours. In this scenario,
corporate communication is making a U–turn,
and companies are likely to face a new challenge
– brand journalism, a new way of communication
brought about by the influence of the Internet and
the proactive attitude assumed by stakeholders.
Today power is defined by the ability to
recommend: people believe the experience
of their peers. This new scenario is radically
different from the traditional communication
process based on massive one–way streaming
of messages aiming to persuade stakeholders
and encourage them to purchase a product.
Fragmentation of the audience into multiple
channels, equality of products and services in terms
of impact, as well as erosion of trust experienced
by companies and institutions urges companies to
employ a new communication model. This model
is based on creating a strong identity relevant for

stakeholders and able to generate identification
(“building beliefs”) that leads to action and
encourages an organization’s key stakeholders to
share the beliefs of this organization voluntarily.
Shared beliefs encourage stakeholders to
recommend products, services and the organization
proper to all individuals that form their network.
Thus the new communication model turns
stakeholders into companies’ key ambassadors.
This communication model is not based on the
capacity to persuade. Instead, it uses the enormous
potential of communication to unleash the
powerful influence of stakeholders’ favourable
attitudes and behaviours towards companies.
Creation of relevant content for stakeholders
as well as intensive use of technologies and
social networks is the most effective way to
multiply and reinforce the effect of advocacy,
generating business, strengthening relations with
the stakeholders, building strong brands and
an excellent reputation for the organization.
Currently, 93% of companies report generating
brand content, but point out that only 42%
of these cases are effective1. Today more than
ever brands need to change the way they relate
to their key stakeholders and understand what
really works in the new digital context.

1. B2B Content Marketing Trends 2014, IAB. Available at: http://www.iab.net/media/file/B2BResearch2014.pdf

5

Online Comments Report

That’s why Corporate Excellence – Centre for
Reputation Leadership jointly with Llorente
& Cuenca launched the Online Comments
Reports, drawing on the analysis model titled
BEO – Balance the Expresiones Online (Analysis
of Online Comments, BEO). The present
report summarizes the results of the 3rd issue
and the previous year, and is a rigorous analysis
of comments made voluntarily on the Internet
as well as their impact by the dimensions that
constitute corporate reputation: Products and
Services, Innovation, Finance, Workplace,
Citizenship, Leadership and Governance.

evaluations expressed by stakeholders of different
companies at different online communication
platforms. This strategic focus has been applied
to 71 companies based in Spain, Argentina,
Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Portugal.
The Report aims to help organizations understand
the new information environment which emphasizes
management of the growing number of stakeholders
who have access to digital technologies.

The report contains a map of stakeholders that
actively use the Internet and the networks
that should be taken into account at the time
of developing a strategy of positioning on
the Internet: the real–time network Twitter,
the social network Facebook, the multimedia
network YouTube, and the hypertextual network
Google. The report identifies relevant content
for different audiences and helps to map key
reputational risk areas for companies.
Annual results of the Online Comments Report
help us to identify emerging trends in the area of
corporate reputation on the Internet, and interpret


6

Trends
Analysis of 78,896 URLs, 45,063 mentions, 71 corporate brands and
16 industries carried out for the 3rd issue of Online Comments Report
allowed analysts to pinpoint some communication trends that help to spot
improvement opportunities that may be used by companies with regard to their
reputation on the Internet.

1. Consumer Electronics tops the
chart and changes the scenario
The 3rd issue of the Online Comments Report
incorporated some new sectors that have changed
the analysis landscape completely as compared
to previous report. Consumer Electronics sector
took over Telecommunications both by awareness
and recognition and currently demonstrates
top results by awareness and recognition.
Good positioning of this sector is explained by
higher than average awareness and favourable
comments by such dimensions as Citizenship,
Innovation and Products and Services. YouTube is
the friendliest platform for Consumer Electronics
(large volume of comments and a good level of
these comments’ recognition is demonstrated).

2. Hotels gain ground and stake on
local presence
Hotels was one of the sectors that saw significant
changes in terms of awareness. Over the
year, hotel chains focused on improving their
reputation on the Internet by creating special
content, online resources and promotional
materials for the countries of their presence.
Besides, favourable comments made by customers
at different online platforms had a favourable
impact on the position of this sector.

8


3. Oil and Gas companies as employers
Companies of the Oil and Gas sector improved
their recognition year on year. The strongly
negative charge common for last year’s comments
gave way to a neutral stance thanks to the ability
of these companies to communicate their progress
in employee treatment (Workplace dimension).
Companies operating in this sector try to
improve their image as employers and expressly
and consistently encourage young talent.

4. Public opinion demands transparency
From being a neutral stakeholder, Public Opinion
drifted towards criticism. This, coupled with the
fact that the Governance dimension received
lowest grades from Internet users in 2013, proves
that the web is used by citizens to perform
public control of the companies’ activities.
Sponsorship and CSR activities are still
important although this year their awareness
results decreased. However, it is clear that
these activities are pointless if they are not
combined with transparency by all aspects
of the company’s activity as well as its
commitment to ethics and good governance.

5. Internet as the key to
customer–company relations
Customers as a stakeholder group
experienced important changes in terms
of recognition, transforming from a
neutral stakeholder into a detractor.
Consumers view the Internet as a quick way
of making their claims and complaints heard.
This is especially true of Twitter and Facebook
(corporate pages in these networks), where
customers share their opinions about companies’
service, and usually these opinions are negative.
In this context companies are urged to develop
a good customer service in social networks
in order to optimize the process of managing
responses, claims and suggestions that customers
publish online. A good management process
improves overall corporate reputation.

6. Journalists are active users
of online networks
Journalists enjoyed a higher level of
awareness as compared to 2012 and
became the No.1 stakeholder group by
awareness in many sectors, e.g. Finance,
Governance and Products and Services.

This increase in awareness ran parallel to
proliferation of journalists’ personal profiles on
the web. Corporate websites and profiles of the
mass media contain links to private pages of
journalists where they share information, opinions
and discuss current events. Thus, in order to
achieve communication objectives, companies
need to establish new ways of communicating
with journalists by means of the Internet.

7. Google is still the king
Just like in 2012, the hypertextual network
Google achieved the best results by awareness
(better reach) and further increased its
results by recognition (better evaluation).
This positive trend, especially in terms of
recognition, is due to continued efforts of
companies, which, apart from generating
awareness among other stakeholders, continued
working towards expanding their online
presence and creating own content.
Similar to the 2012 issue, the positions of
Twitter and Facebook deteriorated both in terms
of awareness and recognition, making these
networks a hostile environment for companies.


9

Findings
This section contains research results, presenting them by sectors, dimensions,
stakeholders and platforms (networks). This year, in order to monitor data
dynamics year on year, we analyzed 78,896 URLs, 45,063 mentions, 71 corporate
brands and 16 industries. Research analyzes the data as of December 20132.
3.1 By Sectors
Notable changes have been observed in
terms of recognition (evaluation contained
in comments) by different sectors. As for
awareness, only slight changes have been
observed in the dynamics by sectors.
Important awareness changes: Telecommunications
sector increased its general position two–fold

largely due to greater awareness achieved
in such dimensions as Finance, Innovation
and Citizenship. Greater awareness was also
achieved by the Hotels sector, which has
also improved its recognition level due to
better results in the categories of Finance,
Workplace and Products and Services.

Recognition

Results by sectors 2013
6%

4%
Consumer Electronics
Beer
Production

2%

Water
Supply

Retail

Fashion
Automotive
Insurance
Foods Production
Delivery Services
Hotels
Telecommunications
Power Generation
Oil and Gas

0%

Banking

–2%

Passenger Transport

Transport Infrastructure
–4%

–6

–250%

0%

250%
Awareness

2013

2. Since we are not using any universal reputation measurement tool that could serve as a reference for absolute values, the
findings are presented as the difference between the company’s result and an average for analysed elements, in relative terms.

14


Better recognition was achieved by the Water
Supply industry (a shift from largely critical
to largely favourable comments). This trend
is explained by good results in Products and
Services, as well as Citizenship categories.
Fashion and Insurance sectors were included
into the analysis in December 2012, and have
seen important changes by recognition since
then. Fashion’s positions worsened due to the
comments made in the category of Governance
and posted by employees and public institutions.
Positions of Insurance by recognition have also
deteriorated due to low scores by Leadership,
Innovation and Citizenship, leaving this sector
below average by awareness and recognition.

Recognition

3%

Retail

2%

Telecommunications

1%
Hotels
Banking
0%

Food Production

Passenger Transport
Delivery Services
Water Supply

–1%

Oil and Gas

Power Generation
Transport Infrastructure

–2%

–3%

100%

0%

100%

3%

2%

Telecommunications
1%
Food Production

In December 2013, three new industries were
incorporated into the analysis: Beer Production
(Cruzcampo, Estrella Damm, Estrella Galicia,
Heineken, Mahou and San Miguel,), Consumer
Electronics (Apple, Nokia, Samsung and Sony)
and Automotive (Citröen, Peugeot, Renault, Seat
and Volkswagen). We will not be able to discuss
the evolution of these sectors until the next issue.
However, their results this year may be compared
to the results of other sectors by awareness and
recognition. Apart from that, new companies were
added to the analysis in the sectors of Banking,
Power Generation, Water Supply and Insurance.
Consumer Electronics is the leading sector
by awareness and recognition. Such good
results are explained by high scores in
Innovation, Products and Services, and
Leadership both in terms of awareness and
recognition. Governance and Workplace are
the dimensions that yielded lowest scores.

200%

Awareness

Recognition

Two significant recognition changes should be
noted as compared to previous year: an increased
number of critical comments about Transport
Infrastructure largely made by journalists,
employees and professionals resulted in
deterioration of this sector’s position. Evaluation of
the Oil and Gas sector has improved, upgrading its
recognition level from very critical (–2) to neutral.
The improvement is attributed to better scores by
Workplace, Innovation and Products and Services.

Retail

Hotels
Banking
Power Generation
Passenger transport

0%

Transport
Infrastructure

Delivery services

Water Supply

–1%

Oil and Gas
–2%

–3%

100%

0%

100%

200%

Awareness
2012

Meaningful changes

Please note that the X–axis and Y–axis
values may vary from year to year, and
corresponding adjustments are needed
in order to compare the graphs.


15

Beer Production and Automotive are close to
average by awareness. Beer Production has good
results in terms of recognition due to comments
made by companies themselves and journalists.
YouTube is the most favourable platform for
beer producers. The Automotive industry is in
the middle of the chart by recognition, showing
divided opinions in the Finance dimension.

• Hotels (nt 6%; nb –0.6%): AC Hoteles, Marriot,
Meliá Hotels International and NH Hoteles.

The list of sectors by awareness (from highest
to lowest results): Consumer Electronics,
Fashion, Telecommunications, Oil and Gas,
Hotels, Food Production, Retail, Automotive,
Beer Production, Passenger Transport, Banking,
Power Generation, Insurance, Delivery Services,
Transport Infrastructure and Water Supply.

• Automotive (nt –34; nb 0.5%): Citroën,
Peugeot, Seat, Renault and Volkswagen.

In terms of recognition, Telecommunications
is no longer the chart leader. This year’s list
(from highest to lowest results): Consumer
Electronics, Beer Production, Water Supply, Retail,
Automotive, Fashion, Insurance, Food Production,
Delivery Services, Telecommunications, Hotels,
Oil and Gas, Power Generation, Banking,
Passenger Transport and Transport Infrastructure.

Results in detail
Further below each sector’s percentages by
awareness (nt) and recognition (nb) are presented:
• Consumer Electronics (nt 476; nb 3.7%):
Apple, Nokia, Samsung and Sony.
• Fashion (nt 371; nb 0.4%): Adolfo
Domínguez, H&M, Mango and Zara.
• Telecommunications (nt 144%; nb –0.5%):
Ono, Orange, Telefónica and Vodafone.
• Oil and Gas (nt 32 %; nb –0.8%):
Cepsa, BP, Repsol and Shell.

16


• Food Production (nt –22%; nb 0.1%): Coca
Cola, Danone, Leche Pascual and Nestlé.
• Retail (nt –33%; nb 1%): Amazon, El
Corte Inglés, Inditex and Mercadona.

• Beer Production (nt –74; nb 1.8%):
Cruzcampo, Estrella Damm, Estrella Galicia,
Heineken, Mahou and San Miguel.
• Passenger Transport (nt –83%;
nb –1.73%): Alsa, Iberia and Renfe.
• Banking (nt –91%; nb –1.6%): Bankinter,
Banco Popular, Bankia, BBVA, CaixaBank,
La Caixa, ING Direct and Santander.
• Power Generation (nt –92%; nb –0.9%):
Enagás, Endesa, Eon, Iberdrola, Gas
Natural Fenosa and Red Eléctrica.
• Insurance (nt –93; nb 0.2%): Axa, Catalana
Occidente, DKV, Mapfre and Mutua Madrileña.
• Delivery Services (nt –98%; nb 0%):
Correos, DHL, Fedex and MRW.
• Transport Infrastructure (nt –98%; nb
–3.0%): Adif, AENA and Puertos del Estado.
• Water Supply (nt –98%; nb 1.69%):
Agbar, Aqualogy and Canal de Isabel II.

3.2 By Dimensions

compared to last year: neutral tone has
given way to favourable comments.

Significant changes have been observed in
Governance, Innovation and Workplace,
especially in terms of recognition.

Workplace is still among the dimensions with
lowest recognition results. A slight increase of
the number of negative comments is observed
year on year, confirming an overall critical
stance of Internet users in this regard.

Governance has seen a steep decline in
terms of awareness and recognition. The
extent of exposure halved, while the
tone of comments shifted from neutral
to critical. Overall evaluation results of
this dimension are lower year on year.
Innovation achieved best results by recognition.
Clearly positive dynamics is traceable as

Similar to last year’s results, the comments
that get higher exposure are the ones related
to the Products and Services dimension.
Recognition level of this dimension improved
this year, indicative of the positive trend as
compared to largely neutral tone reported last

Recognition

Results by dimensions 2013
10%

7,5%

Innovation

5%

Leadership
2,5%

Products and Services
Citizenship

0%

Finance

–2,5%
Workplace
–5%

–7,5%
Governance
–10%

–200%

0%

200%

400%
Awareness

2013


17

The list of dimensions by awareness (from
top to bottom positions): Products and
Services, Innovation, Leadership, Citizenship,
Governance, Finance and Workplace.

Recognition

year. The position of Finance and Citizenship
dimensions is below average by awareness and
around the average level by recognition.

2%

1,5%

1%

Innovation
Leadership

0,5%

In terms of recognition, the research yielded
the following list (from top to bottom
positions): Leadership, Products, Citizenship,
Finance, Workplace and Governance.

Products and
services

Citizenship

0%

Finance
Workplace

–0,5%

–1%

Governance

–1,5%

Results in detail

–2%

–200%

0%

200%

400%

Awareness

• Products and Services (nt 321%;
nb.2 %): efficient claim management,
meeting the customer needs, quality–
price relationship, quality of products/
services, good customer service.
• Innovation (nt –24%; nb 4%): launch
of innovative products or services, easy
adjustment to changes, business innovations.
• Leadership (nt –45%; nb 3.8%):
strong and respected leadership, good
organisation, clear vision of the future.

Recognition

Further below each dimension’s percentages by
awareness (nt) and recognition (nb) are presented:

2%

1,5%

1%

Leadership

0,5%

Governance

• Governance (nt –59%; nb –7%): ethical
behaviour, responsible use of power, open
access to information and transparency.
• Finance (nt –61%; nb 0%): growth potential,
generation of profit, good results.
• Workplace (nt –76; nb –3%): a good
place to work, fair remuneration, equal
opportunities, care about health and
well–being of the employees.

18


Citizenship

Finance

–0,5%

–1%
Workplace
–1,5%

–2%

• Citizenship (nt –53%; nb 0.32%): protection
of the environment, positive contribution
to the society, support of social causes.

Products and
services

Innovation
0%

–200%

0%

200%

400%

Awareness
2012

Meaningful changes


3.3 By Stakeholders

– Journalists top the list by awareness,
becoming one of the most important
stakeholder groups along with
Companies and Professionals. At
the same time, Public Opinion and
Customers intensified their criticism.

As for stakeholders, our conclusions are
based on the following findings:
• Companies continued focusing on their online
activities and corporate communication
channels, which had a favourable impact
on the overall recognition level.

– NGOs, Trade Unions and Activist
Groups kept their below the average
position by both variables. Awareness
deteriorated year on year, while
recognition points to growing criticism
on the part of these groups.

• Changes have been observed in the
following stakeholder groups:
– Public Opinion and Customers
scored much lower on awareness and
underwent significant changes in
terms of recognition, shifting from
neutral to clearly negative impact.

– Employees achieved a higher level
of recognition (above 5%), while
recognition achieved by Public
Institutions sank as low as –2%.

Recognition

Results by stakeholders 2013
6%

Companies

4%

Employees

2%

0%

NGOs, Trade Unions...

Professionals
Journalists

Public Institutions
Customers

Investors

Public Opinion

Shareholders

–2%

–4%

–6%
–200

100%

0%

100%

200%
Awareness

2013


19

Recognition

• The list of stakeholders by awareness (from
top to bottom): Journalists, Companies,
Professionals, Public Opinion, Customers,
Employees, NGOs and Trade Unions, Public
Institutions, Shareholders, Investors.
• The recognition list (from top to bottom):
Companies, Employees, Professionals,
Public Institutions, Journalists,
Shareholders, Public Opinion, Customers,
Investors, NGOs and Trade Unions.

4%
Companies
3%

2%
Employees

Professionals

1%

Public Opinion

Journalists
0%

Public Institutions
Investors

Customers

–1%

–2%

Results in detail

Shareholders

–3%
NGOs, Trade Unions...

Further below each stakeholder group’s
percentages by awareness (nt) and
recognition (nb) are presented:

• Companies (nt 114%; nb 13%): corporate and
public relations channels used by the company.

–100%

0%

100%

200%

Awareness

Recognition

• Journalists (nt 208%; nb –0.46%)
communication professionals who express an
opinion or inform others about the brand with
respect to the Finance dimension (economic
sections or the mass media), Products
and Services, Leadership and Innovation
(specialised publications), Citizenship
(general/local mass media) or Governance
(general or political publications).

–4%

6%

Companies

4%

2%
Professionals
Public Institutions

0%

Employees

Customers
Journalists

Public Opinion

Shareholders NGO’s, Trade Unions...

–2%

–4%

• Professionals (nt 96%; nb 0.6%)
collaborators or competitors in the sector
who talk about the brand, covering
different dimensions of its reputation.
• Public Opinion (nt 87%; nb –2.96%):
physical persons or legal entities that express
an opinion about a brand without clear
association with any other category.

20


–6%

100%

0%

100%

200%

Awareness
2012

Meaningful changes


• Customers (nt –55%; nb –3.5%): physical
or legal persons who refer to brands from
the viewpoint of Products and Services
and express an opinion about the quality
or price of the product or service.
• Employees (nt –72%; nb 7%): persons who
identify themselves as workers of the company.
• NGOs, Trade Unions and Activist Groups
(nt –87%; nb –5%): physical or legal persons
whose criticism affects different dimensions
of the brand reputation, for example
Workplace (trade unions), Citizenship
(NGOs), Governance (parties), Products and
Services (associations of consumers), etc.

• Public Institutions (nt –92%; nb 0%):
representatives of the authorities (physical
or legal persons) who express opinions
or inform others about the brand based
on their competencies and with regard
to different reputation dimensions.
• Shareholders (nt –97%; nb –2%):
actors that identify themselves as
founding partners of the company.
• Investors (nt –98%; nb –4%): physical or
legal persons who express an opinion about
a brand related to the Finance dimension.


21

3.4 By Networks
From the viewpoint of perception on
the Internet and its key networks and
their effect on reputation, the following
conclusions have been made.

YouTube’s level of awareness declined, although
its recognition improved, making it a favourable
environment given the importance that
companies attribute to multimedia content.

Google is still the best network for improving
corporate reputation, as it tops the list
both by awareness and recognition. An
important increase in the level of recognition
has been traced year on year: the network
considerably improved its positions largely
due to companies’ online resources.

Twitter is again found to be a hostile
space. The network is at the end of the
list by awareness and recognition, and its
position by both variables declined.
The list of networks both by awareness
and recognition (from top to bottom):
Google, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter.

This year’s results confirm last year’s conclusion
that Facebook is a hostile environment
for companies. Besides, the network’s
awareness level is still below average.

Recognition

Results by networks 2013
10%

7,5%
Google
5%

2,5%
YouTube
0%
Facebook
–2,5%

–5%
Twitter
–7,5%

–10%

–100%

–50%

0%

50%

100%
Awareness

22


2013

Results in detail:
Recognition

Further below each network’s
percentages by awareness (nt) and
recognition (nb) are presented:
• Hypertextual network
(nt 121%; nb 6%): Google.
• Multimedia network
(nt 11%; nb 1%): YouTube.
• Social network
(nt –32%; nb –2%): Facebook.
• Real–time network
(nt –77%; nb –6%): Twitter.

1%

0,75%

Facebook

0,5%

0,25%
YouTube
0%
Google

–0,25%

–0,5%
Twitter
–0,75%

–1%

–50%

0%

50%

100%

Awareness

Recognition

2%

1,5%

1%

0,5%
Facebook
0%

Youtube

Google

–0,5%
Twitter
–1%

–1,5%

–2%

–50%

0%

50%

100%

Awareness
2012

Meaningful changes



23

Model
Analysis of Online Comments developed by Llorente & Cuenca with Corporate
Excellence – Centre for Reputation Leadership is an instrument of managing
corporate reputation online, providing useful information to reputation managers
thus improving evaluation of companies by stakeholders.

4.1 Study Sample

main objective is to maintain and facilitate
communication between individuals with
common interests rather than mere publication
of content. This category includes services
like Facebook, Google+ or LinkedIn.

In order to analyze online comments that may
affect corporate reputation, research focused
on the universe and sample described below.

Universe
The universe of the study was defined as all
messages about analyzed companies published
through different networks on the Internet.
We define these messages as direct expressions
of stakeholders’ knowledge of the companies’
activities and their evaluation of these
activities made over the Internet.
In order to reflect the heterogeneity of the
analysed messages and in order to be able to use
coherent normalisation elements, we divided
the research universe into four big parts:
• Hypertextual network. Refers to all
permanently open formats that are used above
all for reading hypertexts (expanded text
content): websites, online media, blogs, forums,
etc. This format is usually accessed through
large search engines (Google, Bing, etc.).
• Multimedia network. This format is defined
by the nature of its content based on
graphic and audiovisual elements (videos,
presentations, picture galleries, etc.). The
spaces that channel the traffic in this
environment are websites like YouTube,
Flickr or Slideshare, among others.
• Social network. This format is characterised
by a closed communication environment
based on interpersonal relations, whose

25


• Real–time network. This format is
characterised by the interpersonal
communication environment with closed
interaction and open publication based
on rapid exchange of short and concise
messages. The most representative
service in this category is Twitter.

Research Sample
Selection of the sample for the research aimed
to achieve adequate representation of each
of the abovementioned four categories.
In order to achieve it, we first identified the
most important networks by each category and
thus picked samples for further analysis. More
specifically, we chose the following networks:
•
•
•
•

Hypertextual network: Google.
Multimedia nework: YouTube.
Social network: Facebook.
Real–time network: Twitter.

After that, a search of study objects was carried
out using the search engines of each network.
The mechanism of these search engines is set to
show search results by relevance, thus yielding
the most representative results for each platform.
We then held flexibility tests in order to
determine the number of results to analyse,

i.e. the minimum number of analysis units,
to which our metrics may apply. We have
chosen 100 results per each network.
Finally, we established coefficients by assigning
weight to each network category of the
study, based on their relative importance in
public communication over the Internet.
•
•
•
•

Hypertextual network: Google (50%).
Multimedia network: YouTube (20%).
Social network: Facebook (20%).
Real–time network: Twitter (10%).

4.2 Analysis variables
In order to evaluate online comments that may
affect reputation, we used two analysis variables
that helped us to understand and describe this
phenomenon using the following definitions:
• Awareness (Notoriedad, Nt) refers to
expression of intensive knowledge about a
company over the Internet which may be
influenced by the accuracy of interpretation,
planning, execution/evaluation of resources
and channels that host online content. It
is “the quality of being known”, something
“public and known by everyone”. When
applied to reputation, it reflects an expression
of knowledge about a company published
on the Internet. “How well it is known”.
• Recognition (Notabilidad, Nb) stands
for expression of evaluations referring to
companies exchanged over the Internet
between persons, which may be influenced
by the accuracy of interpretation, planning,
execution/evaluation of the company’s
participation in online interactions.
Recognition is defined as the “quality of
being noticed”, something “worth noting,
attention or care”. The term may also
refer to a “person known for their good
qualities or merits”. When applied to
reputation, it reflects an evaluation received
by a company from its stakeholders on
the Internet. “How it is evaluated”.

The analysis thus yields indices that reflect each
dimension, which then may be represented
in the Cartesian coordinate system, where
the X–axis represents awareness and Y–axis
represents recognition or evaluation.

A) Awareness
Awareness index combines two
indicators: presence and reach.

Online Awareness:
∑4i=1ci* fi(presence i, reach i)

Presence
Presence is defined as the number or
volume of messages that make a reference
to the object of study at different Internet
networks. In order to analyze this parameter,
we employ the following metrics:
• Hypertextual network. Number of results
yielded by a search at google.com.
• Multimedia network. Number of results
yielded by a search at youtube.com.
• Social network. Number of results
yielded by a search at facebook.com.
• Real–time network. Selection of 100 most
relevant tweets on the global level, according
to the relevance algorithm developed by
Topsy Pro3, Twitter–based social search tool.
Reach
Reach is defined as the global impact of messages
included into the presence indicator. The following
metrics are used to analyze this parameter:
• Hypertextual network. Number of
links that contain text related to the
reference search at google.com.

3. “Relevance Score is based on a weighted score that combines various factors. The factors include the influence of the
authors of all the citations, the extent to which each citation matches the query terms, and the time distribution of the
citations matching the query term. Citations are tweets that have been retweeted or tweets that have links”.


26

• Multimedia network. Number of reproductions
achieved by 20 most visited videos among those
yielded by the reference search at youtube.com.
• Social network. Number of members or followers
achieved by 20 most popular pages or groups among
those yielded by the reference search at facebook.com.

Authority
Finally, we estimated authority, defined as the
influence potential associated with the source
of message included in the sample. In order to
analyze it, we used the following analysis units:

• The real–time network. Number of RT in the last
few days of the reference search at twitter.com.

• Hypertextual network. Number of
links related to the main domain in
each message of the sample (100 most
relevant results of the Google search).

B) Recognition

• Multimedia network. Number of reproductions
of each of the YouTube videos included in
the sample (100 most relevant results).

Recognition index combines three indicators:
relevance, quality and authority.

∑

Online Recognition:
ci* fi(quality i, authority i, relevance i)

4
i=1

Relevance
First, we analyzed relevance defined as the
level of intensity related to the mention of the
study object in analyzed sample messages.
In order to analyze this indicator, we used a
scale from 1 to 5, where 1 stands for “very
low” and 5 stands for “very high”.
Analysts assigned scale value to each of the sample
messages by estimating the visibility of its key content
elements (title, URL, bold font, images, etc.)
Quality
After that, we study quality (evaluation) defined
as the positive or negative charge of the opinion
about an object, transmitted in the message
chosen for the sample by applying corresponding
attributes of reputation dimensions.
In order to analyze this indicator we used a
scale from 1 to 7, where 1 stands for “strongly
disagree” and 7 stands for “strongly agree”.
Analysis assigned a scale value to each of the messages
in the sample by carrying out a denotative and
connotative analysis of its meaningful content (title,
body of the message, comments, images, etc.).

27


• Social network. Number of members
or followers of all Facebook pages
or groups included in the sample
(100 most relevant results).
• Real–time network. Number of
followers of those Twitter users whose
messages were included into the sample
(100 most relevant results).

2.3 Dimensions and stakeholders
Apart from the variables, Analysis of Online
Comments estimates two key factors: reputation
dimensions and involved stakeholders.

Dimensions
• Analysis studied each of the messages
included in the sample, analyzed their
content and determined which reputation
attributes they affect, linking each analysis
unit with one of the following reputation
dimensions (established by Reputation
Institute in their RepTrakTM methodology):
• Products and Services: efficient claim
management, meeting the customer needs,
quality–price relationship, quality of
products/services, good customer service.

• Workplace: a good place to work, fair
remuneration, equal opportunities, care about
health and well–being of the employees.
• Governance: ethical behaviour,
responsible use of power, open access
to information and transparency.
• Innovation: launch of innovative
products or services, easy adjustment
to changes, business innovations.
• Leadership: strong and respected leadership,
good organisation, clear vision of the future.
• Citizenship: protection of the
environment, positive contribution to
the society, support for social causes.
• Finance: growth potential, generation
of profit, good results.

Stakeholders
Analysts studied each message in the sample
and established actors involved in the
communication based on its content:
• Public Opinion: physical persons or
legal entities that express an opinion
about a brand without clear association
with any other category.
• Customers: physical or legal persons who refer
to brands from the viewpoint of Products and
Services and express an opinion about the
quality or price of the product or service.

its reputation. If professionals identify
themselves as workers of the company, they
are included into the Employees group.
• Investors: physical or legal persons
who express an opinion about a brand
related to the Finance dimension. If they
identify themselves as partners of the
company they are called Shareholders.
• Journalists: communication professionals
who express an opinion or inform others
about the brand with respect to the Finance
dimension (economic sections or mass
media), Products and Services, Leadership
and Innovation (specialised publications),
Citizenship (general/local mass media) or
Governance (general or political publications)
• Public Institutions: representatives of the
authorities (physical or legal persons) who
express opinions or inform others about the
brand based on their competencies and with
regard to different reputation dimensions
• NGOs, Trade Unions and Activist Groups:
physical or legal persons whose criticism affects
different dimensions of the brand reputation, for
example Workplace (trade unions), Citizenship
(NGOs), Governance (parties), Products and
Services (associations of consumers), etc.
• Companies: corporate and public relations
channels used by the company.

• Professionals: collaborators or competitors
in the sector who speak about the
brand, covering different dimensions of


28

Copyright Corporate Excellence – Centre for Reputation Leadership, Madrid 2014

©2014 Corporate Excellence – Centre for Reputation Leadership
Business foundation created by large companies to professionalize the management of intangible assets and contribute to the development of
strong brands, with good reputation and able to compete in the global market. Its mission is to be the driver which leads and consolidates the
professional management of reputation as a strategic resource that guides and creates value for companies throughout the world.

Legal Notice
This document is property of the Corporate Excellence – Centre for Reputation Leadership and has as its objective to share
business knowledge about Brand, Reputation, Communication and Public Affairs Management.
Corporate Excellence – Centre for Reputation Leadership is the owner of all the intellectual property rights of the images, texts,
designs and any other content or elements of this product and has the necessary permission for its use, and therefore, its copy,
distribution, public release or transformation is prohibited, without express authorization from the owner.

Leading by

reputation
www.corporateexcellence.org

Sagasta 27, 3 Izq. B
28004 Madrid (Spain)
+34 91 445 18 18
info@corporateexcellence.org
@CE4reputation

TRUSTEES

COLABORATING COMPANIES

BBVA
CAIXABANK
IBERDROLA
REPSOL
SANTANDER
TELEFONICA

ADIF
AGBAR
BANCO POPULAR
BANKINTER
CORREOS
DANONE
DKV
EL CORTE INGLES
GAS NATURAL FENOSA
MAPFRE
RENFE

Online Comments Report 2014

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (15)

Similar to Online Comments Report 2014 (20)

More from Corporate Excellence - Centre for Reputation Leadership (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Online Comments Report 2014