Upload
nguyen-huu-tuan
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/29/2019 Social Media Brand Index 2011
1/18
2011 SOCIAL MEDIA
BRAND INDEXBy Erica Ruyle and Theo Downes-Le Guin, Market Strategies International
Social media provides brands with new opportunities
to increase market presence and to engage existing
and new customers. When a consumer connects with
a brand in social media, she is ofering to connect
her own online persona and credibility to the brand.
Even i we dont quite understand the dynamics o
this relationship, marketers know that this connection
represents a prooundly new opportunity to nurture
loyalty and advocacy.
White Pap
Market Strategies International is pleased to oer the frst edition o its annual
Social Media Brand Index. The Index is intended to provide an objective,
comprehensive view o how top brands across dierent industries succeeded
in social media during 2011. The Index includes measures o both consumer-
generated social media as well as the brands sponsored content.
Index Signicance
For corporate marketers, a brands socialness matters only i we can clearly
relate success in social media channels to return on investment (ROI). I
consumers social connections to a brand produce greater proft, and i we can
increase those connections through marketing activities, then we have a new
and very powerulelement in the marketing mix.
Because social media represents a young and heterogeneous marketing
medium, however, we are likely to be years rom agreed-upon models o
ROI that are adaptable across multiple channels (e.g., Facebook vs. Twitter)
and across multiple product and consumer types. Ater all, true ROI (eect
o investment on corporate proft) is elusive even in mature and more static
media such as network television advertising. Like it or not, marketing ROI is,
and always will be, a tough nut to crack because marketing is not a clearly
defned cost in the same way as materials or labor.
All trademarks and registered trademarks are the property o their respective owners.
For more inormation on the Social
Media Brand Index, please email
Market Strategies International is a
market research consultancy ocused
on helping clients make confdent
business decisions.
Additional inormation can be ound
at www.marketstrategies.com .
mailto:socialmedia%40marketstrategies.com?subject=2011%20Social%20Media%20Brand%20Indexhttp://www.marketstrategies.com/http://www.marketstrategies.com/mailto:socialmedia%40marketstrategies.com?subject=2011%20Social%20Media%20Brand%20Index7/29/2019 Social Media Brand Index 2011
2/18
White Pap
2
Our Index rests on the assumption that social media will remain an
important part o many companies marketing mix, and that our ability to
reliably and validly demonstrate that importance in fnancial terms will
grow over time. For now, its enough to understand the what without
ully understanding the why.
A Better Way to Index Brands
Market Strategies is by no means the frst to tread into the territory o
measuring brand socialness. Ongoing and ad hoc studies dating back
several years by EngagementDB, Inegy/Social Radar, Razorfsh,
Sysomos, Vitrue and Yomego (detailed in the appendix) helped lay the
groundwork or marketers eorts to understand brand perormance in
social media. Our conclusion rom comparing various approaches was that a comprehensive measure would have
to include social media reach, consumer sentiment toward the brand, and some understanding o the impact o
social interactions activated by paid marketing vs. social interactions that are wholly consumer-driven and organic.
A comprehensive measure
has to include social media
reach, consumer sentiment,
and some understanding
o the impact o social
interactions activated by
paid marketing vs. wholly
consumer-driven content.
METHODOLOGY
Brands
Our competitive set o 146 brands or the Index is based on the top companies in the 2010 Fortune 500 and on
Interbrands 100 Best Global Brands (see appendix or more detail). By using these sources, we sought to create
a competitive set that was comprehensive but not overly weighted toward US-based and publicly traded brands.
The methodology behind the Fortune and Interbrand rankings led to the exclusion o some well-known brands
that might otherwise be expected to appear in the rankings. In an eort to ocus on truly global brands and on
corporate rather than product brands, we excluded some telecommunications, pharmaceutical and other brands
that ace awareness challenges outside o home markets.
While some o the strongest and most interesting brands are, in act, product brandsiPad, Kleenex and Lipitor to
name a ewthere are simply not enough publicly disclosed nancial data on product brands to meet our criteria
or inclusion. Only in the case o luxury goods (which Interbrand values separately rom the parent entity) are
product brands avored over the parent company (e.g., Louis Vuitton, not LVMH).
Technology brands that are mostly or only ocused on social media brands such as Facebook and Twitter were
excluded while broader technology and web brands that includebut are not limited tosocial media platorms
(such as Google and Amazon) were retained.
Any brand with ewer than 20,000 unique posts in the last year was not included in the Index.
Index Components
The Indexs underlying premise, based on our review o the emerging literature on social media marketing
strategies, is that our elements drive a successul brand presence in social media:
Volume represents the number o conversations, sometimes called buzz or sound bites (individual sentences
that contain a consumer opinion, emotion or behavior). The number o posts, comments and mentions
represents the extent to which a brand is being discussed online in any orum or social media context.
7/29/2019 Social Media Brand Index 2011
3/18
White Pap
3
Net Sentiment represents the ratio o positive to negative sentiments expressed about a brand based on
automated natural language processing o the content o posts, comments and mentions.
Positive Emotions represent the number o content items that are identied as having positive emotions, again
based on automated coding o content.
Sponsored Presence represents the number o likes on a companys sponsored Facebook US/English
page, the number o ollowers per sponsored corporate Twitter account(s), and the number o subscribers to
sponsored YouTube channel(s). A brands sponsored presence on these platorms indicates intent to create
consumer engagement with ans, ollowers or viewers, a proxy or reach in traditional marketing terms.
For our analysis, Volume, Net Sentiment and Positive Emotions were collected and produced in NetBase, a leading
social media analytics platorm, based on 12 months o online activity in 2011. NetBase indexes over nine billion
sound bites, extracted rom more than one billion posts. This includes more than 50 million social media sources
such as public Facebook proles and Twitter accounts, more than 40 million blogs and more than 7 million orums.
50% 30% 15% 5%Volume Net
SentimentPositive
EmotionsSponsoredPresence
+ + +
To create a scale with a clearlydened foor and ceiling, all elements
o the Index were converted to
percentiles. Components were
weighted to refect Market Strategies
assessment o the importance o
each component in determining
overall brand socialness.
This weighting refects Market Strategies assessment o the importance o consumer-generated or organic channelsand content vs. sponsored channels and content. Volume and sentiment reveal how much a brand is discussed
in social media and how people regard it, which are, in many senses, the truest measure o a brands socialness.
Sponsored presence in social media becomes part o this discussion and eedback loop as, or example, links to
useul (or annoying) corporate videos are retweeted. A sponsored presence can, as an outlet, help quell negative
sentiment or negative emotions during a controversial period or a brand. It can also help keep the brand in a
consumers top o mind and personiy a brand in a more positive way.
The nal Index score was determined by summing the weighted percentiles or a brand, then transorming all brands
so they all on a 1,000-point scale. Further details on the analytic approach can be ound in the appendix.
http://netbase.com/http://netbase.com/7/29/2019 Social Media Brand Index 2011
4/18
White Pap
4
TOP 20 SOCIAL BRANDS
Rank BrandIndexScore Volume
NetSentiment
PositiveEmotions
Sponsored Presence
1 Starbucks 1000 s s s s s
2 Amazon 926 s s s s
3 Walt Disney 919 s s s s s
4 Canon 904 s s s
5 Google 903 s s s s s
6 Nike 895 s s s s s
7 Coca-Cola 858 s s s s s
8 McDonald's 853 s s s s
9 Samsung 851 s s s s
10 Ford 840 s s s s s
11 Audi 808
12 Apple 805 s s s s
13 Sony 805 s s s s
14 Panasonic 803s
15 Blackberry 803 s t s s s s
16 Adidas 796 s s s
17 Gucci 795 s s
18 Microsot 795 s s s s
19 Honda 793 s s s
20 IBM 791 s
s Top 20% perormance t Bottom 20% perormance
RESULTS
The most social brands represent a diverse mix o industries and products, and diverse
routes to their success in social media. Among the top ten, all are global but eight are
headquartered in the US. All the top brands share two traits: a relatively high volume o
discussion across social media channels and strong positive emotions.
Top brands do not enjoy exclusively positive sentiment in social media. For example, Disneys strong reach and
high volume o positive emotions in social conversations are counterbalanced by relatively high negative sentiment,
due in part to consumer concerns about theme park pricing and Disney Channel content. Similarly, McDonalds
has many detractors in social media, but also inspires erce enthusiasm and loyalty in many consumers. Other less
broadly successul brands, such as Burberry and LOreal, oten generate less emotionally polarized content online
but ultimately lack the reach o the top brands. As is evidenced by Audi (Index rank 11), a brand can have average
perormance in all components o the Index categories and still rank relatively high.
7/29/2019 Social Media Brand Index 2011
5/18
White Pap
5
The most social brands also rank in the top quintile o perormance in sponsored, non-organic social media presence
despite the low weight given to sponsored presence in the calculation o the Index. The ten most social brands enjoy
above-average reach or their sponsored Facebook, Twitter and YouTube presences, while low-perorming brands
consistently have minimal sponsored presence (or attract ew ollowers to their sponsored channels).
Its tempting to read causality into these ndings (sponsored social media presence drives overall success). But in
truth, the model o infuence is devilishly complex. Brands that are consumer-oriented and use a branded house
rather than house o brands strategy are much more likely to be the topic o organic consumer attention, and
also have generally been early adopters and experimenters in social media. Spontaneous attention in social media
undoubtedly boosts reach or sponsored social media channelsjust as a wide, sponsored presence can help to
sustain the requency and intensity o discussion outside o those channels.
The Most Social Brands by Industry
Even within tightly dened industry groups, brands vary widely in their social media presence and eectiveness.
Consumer electronics and computers, or example, range rom the ourth most social brand (Canon) to seventy-
second (Xerox). No ast-moving consumer goods make the top twenty brands, but Index scores still represent a
range o almost 400 points rom Avon (rank 29) to Campbells (106).
Not surprisingly, industries with numerous strong consumer brands demonstrate higher highs, and a greater range, o
social media marketing strength than industries that are primarily business-to-business or that have limited consumer
branding (or example, chemical). And some industries, like fnancial services, are clearly divided between consumer-
oriented brands that inspire substantial social media discourse (American Express, rank 57; Visa, 93) vs. brands that
have retail operations but little social media reach (Morgan Stanley, 130; UBS, 133).
Following is a handul o the most social brands by select industry segments.
TOP BRANDSALCOHOL
Rank BrandIndexScore
25 Corona 773
65 Heineken 607
68 Smirno 576
74 Jack Daniels 548
75 Budweiser (InBev) 548
TOP BRANDSAUTOMOTIVE
Rank BrandIndexScore
10 Ford 840
11 Audi 808
19 Honda 793
21 BMW 789
42 Mercedes-Benz 710
TOP BRANDSCOMMERCIAL BANKS
Rank Brand
Index
Score
94 Bank o America 459
114 Wells Fargo 346
118 JPMorgan Chase & Co. 323
121 Citigroup 280
TOP BRANDSCOMPUTERS, ELECTRONICS, SOFTWARE
Rank Brand
Index
Score
12 Apple 805
18 Microsot 795
23 Adobe 776
24 Dell 774
27 Intel 771
7/29/2019 Social Media Brand Index 2011
6/18
White Pap
6
TOP BRANDSFAST-MOVING CONSUMER GOODS
Rank BrandIndexScore
29 Avon 769
70 Kleenex 572
76 L'Oreal 547
83 Nestle 511
86 Gillette 494
TOP BRANDSINSURANCE
Rank BrandIndexScore
91 State Farm Insurance 463
99 Allstate 425
104 Prudential Financial 413
110 UnitedHealth Group 356
116 AXA 324
TOP BRANDSMEDIA, ENTERTAINMENT
Rank BrandIndexScore
3 Walt Disney 919
37 MTV 734
62 Thomson Reuters 617117 Time Warner 323
124 News Corp. 258
TOP BRANDSPETROLEUM
Rank BrandIndexScore
100 Chevron 425
122 Exxon Mobil 276
125 Shell 248137 Sunoco 197
140 ConocoPhillips 167
TOP BRANDSRESTAURANTS
Rank BrandIndexScore
1 Starbucks 1000
8 McDonald's 853
28 KFC 770
39 Pizza Hut 729
TOP BRANDSTELECOMMUNICATIONS
Rank BrandIndexScore
40 Verizon 719
54 AT&T 682
56 Sprint Nextel 674
84 Comcast 509
7/29/2019 Social Media Brand Index 2011
7/18
White Pap
7
Diversity o social channels and tactics is critical to success.
A legitimate debate rages in the blogosphere as to whether social media marketing is oxymoronic.
Some strategists argue that traditional marketing approaches are ineective given the user-driven nature
o social media. Whether or not corporations can eectively stimulate and manage their social media presence over
the long haul, it is clear that many traditional tactics o marketing are being replicated in social online channels and are
joined by new advocacy-based models as well.
The most social brands seek to combine dierent elements to create a rich online presence through channels such
as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and blogging. These elements complement a brands traditional marketing eort
and work to improve its brand perception and create deeper connections with customers. O course, our analysis
demonstrates that sponsored social activities alone arent enoughthey must accompany a robust, consumer-
generated presence and positive net sentiment as well, neither o which are completely in the brands control.
Every industry has a diferent right level o social.
Unortunately, given our frst fnding about the importance o diverse social channels, not every brand
can take advantage o every social media marketing channel and tactic. Much o the current dialog among
digital marketers is oriented toward well-known consumer brands and ignores the vast dierence between consumer-
acing vs. B2B brands, between a branded house and house o brands, and between dierent industry verticals.
As a result, many marketers assume that every brand needs a social strategy, and every product category will beneft.
Pity the corporate marketer working in a B2B-ocused industry category whose senior execs are pressuring him or
a social strategy. Its neither helpul nor appropriate to compare tactics and outcomes or Honeywell International to
Gucci. Furthermore, some industries (such as pharmaceuticals) are required to restrict their social media interactions
because o regulatory requirements and/or possible legal exposure (see Pfzers Facebook page, or example).
For these reasons, its critical that you gauge expectations and tactics that are appropriate to your industry and
brand. This Index oers some modest tools to help set expectations. I no scores in your industry reach the top
quartile, or example, you are likely in an industry where the intensity o brand loyalty is lower and products are
intrinsically less amenable to social discussions; tailor your social media marketing investment accordingly. I you are
in an industry with a broad range o Index scores, on the other hand, you may need to dig into whose strategies and
tactics are most successul, how widely social media marketing investments vary among competitors, and what it
takes to leadrather than trailthe pack.
Finally, sometimes it just makes more sense to compare competitors on a product line basis. Xbox and Wii is a better
indicator than Microsot and Nintendo in the gaming segment. Similarly, iPad and Kindle and Xoom is better than
Apple and Amazon and Motorola. Although the Index doesnt oer all the tools to acilitate these comparisons, our
basic approach can be replicated or product brands on a custom basis.
Reach without positive sentiment is a short-term win.
The ancient PR chestnut that any publicity is good publicity takes on new resonance in social media.
Even more than in traditional PR channels, publicity in social media is beyond the control o the brand.
Moreover, the results o social discussions live on orever in that giant archive o consumer sentiment we call the web.
FIVE KEY TAKEAWAYS
No. 1
No. 2
No. 3
https://www.facebook.com/Pfizer?sk=app_103822229704881https://www.facebook.com/Pfizer?sk=app_1038222297048817/29/2019 Social Media Brand Index 2011
8/18
White Pap
8
The enduring tendency to ocus on measures o size (volume o content, reach, buzz, etc.) is a legacy o early days
in social media marketing. And without question, reaching a threshold o critical social mass is a key component
o successwhich is why the Index weights Volume higher than any other component. But while individuals may
be equally pleased with negative or positive sentiment as long as their discussion volume is high (thank you, Paris
Hilton), brands do not enjoy the ull luxury o the any publicity adage online. A key measure o social media
marketing success is to generate positive attitudes about the brand through all possible channels (rom product orservice quality to advertising) and combine that with careully-planned sponsored activities that increase customer
engagement and loyalty.
Not all sponsored channels are equal.
Tapping into social media via sponsored channels helps propel a brand orward in the consumers mind
and may signifcantly increase reach. But doing so requires using the right channels in the right ways. While
there are multiple channels that allow sponsorship, we ocus on the three best known: Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.
Almost every brand in this Index has some sort o corporate Twitter presence. Twitter is currently the easiest
sponsored channel or a company to grow its reach. While Facebook is also a highly common sponsored presence,
our analysis suggests that Facebook rarely seeds social conversations as eectively as Twitter. To be sure, Twitterretweets and Facebook likes are undamentally dierent. But reaching out to your consumers 140 characters at a
time requires a level o creativity and engagement that brands oten ail to provide on Facebook.
YouTube remains a more challenging sponsored channel to use eectively. Not all brands will benet rom a
corporate YouTube channel; videos, when done poorly, have the power o not only words but images to degrade
brand image. Length o video, content, production values and requency o postings present a complex balance or
marketers to achieve.
Finally, not all consumers are savvy in all social media, underscoring our rst takeaway: diversity o approaches
(with careul attention to avoid oversaturating the consumer) is critical to success. Successul brands segment their
presence by product, message and media, allowing consumers to pick and choose how they wish to engage.
Measuring success requires mashing up data sources.
This Index and social media monitoring in general is most useul when combined with as many
other data sources as possible, rom traditional market research to marketing spend data, to internal
and external marketing metrics such as the ACSI Customer Satisaction Score and Net Promoter Score. Especially
in pursuit o a sense o ROI or social media marketing activities, successwhether judged by this Index or another
metricmust be correlated with investment and nancial outcome or the brand.
Even i we set aside the Holy Grail o marketing ROI, however, a deep understanding o your brands socialness
aids in creative development. Social media provides a competitive context that might not be available in traditional
research, and correlates to word o mouth marketing, an important actor in measuring brand infuence. Social
discussionswhether online or in persondemonstrate credibility and satisaction since the people talking about
the brand dont stand to gain personally. The positive experiences marketers learn rom analyzing social media help
make any story that a marketer chooses to highlight relatable and relevant to the audience.
No. 4
No. 5
7/29/2019 Social Media Brand Index 2011
9/18
White Pap
9
ALL BRANDS RANK ORDER
Rank BrandIndexScore Volume
NetSentiment
PositiveEmotions
Sponsored Presence
1 Starbucks 1000 s s s s s
2 Amazon 926 s s s s
3 Walt Disney 919 s s s s s
4 Canon 904 s s s
5 Google 903 s s s s s
6 Nike 895 s s s s s
7 Coca-Cola 858 s s s s s
8 McDonald's 853 s s s s
9 Samsung 851 s s s s
10 Ford 840 s s s s s
11 Audi 808
12 Apple 805 s s s s
13 Sony 805 s s s s
14 Panasonic 803 s
15 Blackberry 803 s t s s s s
16 Adidas 796 s s s
17 Gucci 795 s s
18 Microsot 795 s s s s
19 Honda 793 s s s
20 IBM 791 s21 BMW 789 s s s s
22 Nokia 781 s s s s
23 Adobe 776 s s
24 Dell 774 s s s
25 Corona 773 s t t
26 Yahoo! 772 s s s
27 Intel 771 s s s
28 KFC 770 s
29 Avon 769 s
30 eBay 768 s s
31 Sprite 761 s
32 Nintendo 759 s s s
33 IKEA 754 s
34 Burberry 747 s s s s
35 Walmart 743 s t s s s
36 Target 737 s s
s Top 20% perormance t Bottom 20% perormance
APPENDIX
Complete Index Sorted by Brand Socialness
7/29/2019 Social Media Brand Index 2011
10/18
White Pap
10
ALL BRANDS RANK ORDER
Rank BrandIndexScore Volume
NetSentiment
PositiveEmotions
Sponsored Presence
37 MTV 734 s t s s s s
38 Costco Wholesale 730 t
39 Pizza Hut 729 s
40 Verizon 719 s t s s
41 Best Buy 712 s s s
42 Mercedes-Benz 710 s s s
43 Louis Vuitton 704 s s
44 GE 700
45 Toyota 697 s s s
46 Porsche 696 s
47 3M 696 s t
48 PepsiCo 696 s s s s
49 Oracle 695
50 SAP 694
51 Hewlett-Packard 691 s
52 Armani 688 s
53 Zara 683 s
54 AT&T 682 s t s
55 Volkswagen 679 s
56 Sprint Nextel 674 s t s t
57 American Express 652 s
58 Cisco Systems 649 s
59 H&M 647 s s s
60 Hyundai 642 s
61 Ferrari 633 s s
62 Thomson Reuters 617 s t t
63 Home Depot 614
64 Hermes 607 t
65 Heineken 607 s
66 Krat Foods 598 s
67 Chrysler Group 580
68 Smirno 576 s
69 Harley Davidson 575 s
70 Kleenex 572 s t t
71 Cartier 565 s
72 Xerox 563 s
73 Walgreen 557
74 Jack Daniels 548 s
75 Budweiser (InBev) 548
s Top 20% perormance t Bottom 20% perormance
7/29/2019 Social Media Brand Index 2011
11/18
White Pap
11
ALL BRANDS RANK ORDER
Rank BrandIndexScore Volume
NetSentiment
PositiveEmotions
Sponsored Presence
76 L'Oreal 547 s
77 Boeing 532
78 Deere 531 s
79 Siemens 531 s t
80 FedEx 529 t
81 Lowe's 524 s
82 CVS Caremark 513 t t
83 Nestle 511
84 Comcast 509 t
85 Kroger 498 t
86 Gillette 494
87 Kelloggs 483
88 Lancme 481 t s
89 Accenture 473 t s t
90 General Motors 465 t
91 State Farm Insurance 463
92 Dupont 461 t t
93 Visa 460 t s
94 Bank o America 459 t
95 Nivea 449 s t
96 Colgate 444
97 Procter & Gamble 427
98 Heinz 425 t t t
99 Allstate 425
100 Chevron 425
101 Barclays 421 t
102 Delta Air Lines 417 t s
103 Honeywell International 414 t s t
104 Prudential Financial 413 s t t t
105 Saeway 400
106 Campbells 389 t s t
107 Tiany & Co. 371 t s t
108 Nesca 368 t t
109 Goldman Sachs 365 t t t t
110 UnitedHealth Group 356 t s t t t
111 HSBC 355 t t
112 Johnnie Walker 352 t s t
113 Rite Aid 351 t t
114 Wells Fargo 346 t
s Top 20% perormance t Bottom 20% perormance
7/29/2019 Social Media Brand Index 2011
12/18
White Pap
12
ALL BRANDS RANK ORDER
Rank BrandIndexScore Volume
NetSentiment
PositiveEmotions
Sponsored Presence
115 General Dynamics 332 t s t t t t
116 AXA 324 t s t t
117 Time Warner 323 t t
118 JPMorgan Chase & Co. 323 t t
119 Lockheed Martin 304 t t
120 United Parcel Service 303 t
121 Citigroup 280 t t
122 Exxon Mobil 276 t t t
123 Credit Suisse 263 t t t
124 News Corp. 258 t t t t t
125 Shell 248 t t t
126 Berkshire Hathaway 247 t t t t
127 Humana 242 t t t t
128 Pfzer 232 t
129 Johnson & Johnson 231 t t
130 Morgan Stanley 230 t t t t
131 Allianz 230 t t t t
132 Phil ip Morris International 223 t t t t t
133 UBS 216 t t t t t
134 Sears 211 t t
135 Aetna 211 t t t t
136 Liberty Mutual Insurance Group 209 t t t
137 Sunoco 197 t t t t
138 MetLie 177 t t t t
139 Santander 167 t t t t t
140 ConocoPhillips 167 t t t t
141 Merck 166 t t t t t t
142 AIG 161 t t t t
143 Freddie Mac 156 t t t t
144 Fannie Mae 154 t t t t t
145 Caterpillar 116 t t
146 Dow Chemical 77 t t t t t
s Top 20% perormance t Bottom 20% perormance
7/29/2019 Social Media Brand Index 2011
13/18
White Pap
13
ALL BRANDS ALPHABETICAL ORDER
Rank BrandIndexScore Volume
NetSentiment
PositiveEmotions
Sponsored Presence
47 3M 696 s t
89 Accenture 473 t s t
16 Adidas 796 s s s
23 Adobe 776 s s
135 Aetna 211 t t t t
131 Allianz 230 t t t t
99 Allstate 425
2 Amazon 926 s s s s
57 American Express 652 s
142 AIG 161 t t t t
12 Apple 805 s s s s
52 Armani 688 s
54 AT&T 682 s t s
11 Audi 808
29 Avon 769 s
116 AXA 324 t s t t
94 Bank o America 459 t
101 Barclays 421 t
126 Berkshire Hathaway 247 t t t t
41 Best Buy 712 s s s
15 Blackberry 803 s t s s s s
21 BMW 789 s s s s
77 Boeing 532
75 Budweiser (InBev) 548
34 Burberry 747 s s s s
106 Campbells 389 t s t
4 Canon 904 s s s
71 Cartier 565 s
145 Caterpillar 116 t t
100 Chevron 425
67 Chrysler Group 580
58 Cisco Systems 649 s
121 Citigroup 280 t t
7 Coca-Cola 858 s s s s s
96 Colgate 444
84 Comcast 509 t
140 ConocoPhillips 167 t t t t
25 Corona 773 s t t
s Top 20% perormance t Bottom 20% perormance
Complete Index Sorted by Brand
7/29/2019 Social Media Brand Index 2011
14/18
White Pap
14
ALL BRANDS ALPHABETICAL ORDER
Rank BrandIndexScore Volume
NetSentiment
PositiveEmotions
Sponsored Presence
38 Costco Wholesale 730 t
123 Credit Suisse 263 t t t
82 CVS Caremark 513 t t
78 Deere 531 s
24 Dell 774 s s s
102 Delta Air Lines 417 t s
146 Dow Chemical 77 t t t t t
92 Dupont 461 t t
30 eBay 768 s s
122 Exxon Mobil 276 t t t
144 Fannie Mae 154 t t t t t
80 FedEx 529 t
61 Ferrari 633 s s
10 Ford 840 s s s s s
143 Freddie Mac 156 t t t t
44 GE 700
115 General Dynamics 332 t s t t t t
90 General Motors 465 t
86 Gillette 494
109 Goldman Sachs 365 t t t t
5 Google 903 s s s s s
17 Gucci 795 s s
59 H&M 647 s s s
69 Harley Davidson 575 s
65 Heineken 607 s
98 Heinz 425 t t t
64 Hermes 607 t
51 Hewlett-Packard 691 s
63 Home Depot 614
19 Honda 793 s s s
103 Honeywell International 414 t s t
111 HSBC 355 t t
127 Humana 242 t t t t
60 Hyundai 642 s
20 IBM 791 s
33 IKEA 754 s
27 Intel 771 s s s
74 Jack Daniels 548 s
112 Johnnie Walker 352 t s t
s Top 20% perormance t Bottom 20% perormance
7/29/2019 Social Media Brand Index 2011
15/18
White Pap
15
ALL BRANDS ALPHABETICAL ORDER
Rank BrandIndexScore Volume
NetSentiment
PositiveEmotions
Sponsored Presence
129 Johnson & Johnson 231 t t
118 JPMorgan Chase & Co. 323 t t
87 Kelloggs 483
28 KFC 770 s
70 Kleenex 572 s t t
66 Krat Foods 598 s
85 Kroger 498 t
88 Lancme 481 t s
136 Liberty Mutual Insurance Group 209 t t t
119 Lockheed Martin 304 t t
76 L'Oreal 547 s
43 Louis Vuitton 704 s s
81 Lowe's 524 s
8 McDonald's 853 s s s s
42 Mercedes-Benz 710 s s s
141 Merck 166 t t t t t t
138 MetLie 177 t t t t
18 Microsot 795 s s s s
130 Morgan Stanley 230 t t t t
37 MTV 734 s t s s s s
108 Nesca 368 t t
83 Nestle 511
124 News Corp. 258 t t t t t
6 Nike 895 s s s s s
32 Nintendo 759 s s s
95 Nivea 449 s t
22 Nokia 781 s s s s
49 Oracle 695
14 Panasonic 803 s
48 PepsiCo 696 s s s s
128 Pfzer 232 t
132 Phil ip Morris International 223 t t t t t
39 Pizza Hut 729 s
46 Porsche 696 s
97 Procter & Gamble 427
104 Prudential Financial 413 s t t t
113 Rite Aid 351 t t
105 Saeway 400
9 Samsung 851 s s s s
s Top 20% perormance t Bottom 20% perormance
7/29/2019 Social Media Brand Index 2011
16/18
White Pap
16
ALL BRANDS ALPHABETICAL ORDER
Rank BrandIndexScore Volume
NetSentiment
PositiveEmotions
Sponsored Presence
139 Santander 167 t t t t t
50 SAP 694
134 Sears 211 t t
125 Shell 248 t t t
79 Siemens 531 s t
68 Smirno 576 s
13 Sony 805 s s s s
56 Sprint Nextel 674 s t s t
31 Sprite 761 s
1 Starbucks 1000 s s s s s
91 State Farm Insurance 463
137 Sunoco 197 t t t t
36 Target 737 s s
62 Thomson Reuters 617 s t t
107 Tiany & Co. 371 t s t
117 Time Warner 323 t t
45 Toyota 697 s s s
133 UBS 216 t t t t t
120 United Parcel Service 303 t
110 UnitedHealth Group 356 t s t t t
40 Verizon 719 s t s s
93 Visa 460 t s
55 Volkswagen 679 s
73 Walgreen 557
35 Walmart 743 s t s s s
3 Walt Disney 919 s s s s s
114 Wells Fargo 346 t
72 Xerox 563 s
26 Yahoo! 772 s s s
53 Zara 683 s
s Top 20% perormance t Bottom 20% perormance
7/29/2019 Social Media Brand Index 2011
17/18
White Pap
17
Current and Past Social Media Measurement Studies
Current measurements
Yomegos Social Media Reputation (SMR). This ongoing, paid service averages requency o mentions and
aggregated sentiment, adjusting current results by comparing them to past months to determine an overall score
rom 0 to 100. While more complete than other rankings, the SMR score appears to place a disproportionate
weight (50%) on the recency score, potentially penalizing brands or short-term spikes in reach and satisaction.
Vitrues Vitrue 100. This annual report monitors buzz and does not incorporate sentiment into its ranking system
or 100 brands; platorm technology brands or social media, such as Facebook, are excluded. According to
Vitrue, the index numbers are not intended to be used in absolute terms; rather, they provide a numerical basis
to compare the social media prominence o two or more items.
Past measurements
EngagementDBs Ranking the Top 100 Global Brands: Whos most engaged?Evaluated the number o
channels in which a company participates in conjunction with its respective level o engagement in each
channel. Specics about the methodology are not available. Released or 2009 only.
Inegy/Social Radars Top Social Brands of 2009. Measured brands with the most active web presence basedon overall buzz. The list measures the number o unique individuals or sources that posted content about each
brand rather than the overall number o mentions and does not incorporate sentiment. Released or 2009 only.
Razorfshs Social Infuence Marketing (SIM) Score. Measured the reach and likeability (sentiment) o a brand com-
pared to the total reach/likeability o the brands industry. Since the SIM Score incorporates industry averages, it has
not been used to create a comprehensive index to rank brands across industries. Released or 2008 and 2009 only.
Sysomos Best Global Brands Online 2009. Used top 20 brands on Interbrands Best Global Brands List.
Creates two separate rankings, one based on online buzz (mentions) and another based on sentiment.
Released or 2009 only.
Brand SelectionOur competitive set o 146 brands or the Index is based on the top companies in the 2010 Fortune 500 and on
Interbrands 100 Best Global Brands.
The Fortune 500 is an annual list compiled and published by Fortunemagazine that ranks the top 500 US privately-
held and public corporations or which revenues are publicly available. Companies are ranked by their adjusted
gross revenue.
To be included or consideration on Interbrands ranking, a brand must be truly global and transcend geographic and
cultural dierences. At least 30% o revenues must come rom outside the home country and no more than 50% o
revenues should come rom any one continent. The brand must have a presence on at least three major continents,
with broad geographic coverage in growing and emerging markets. There must be publicly available data on the
brands fnancial perormance and economic proft must be positive with a return above the operating and fnancing
costs. The brand must have a public profle and awareness above and beyond its own marketplace.
When entering brands in NetBase to derive Index components (Volume, Net Sentiment and Positive Emotions), we
made every eort to disambiguate brands to remove spurious content and alse hits by modiying search terms
and ltering results. Brands that are or have common nouns (e.g., Shell) pose a greater issue in disambiguation and
have a greater chance o producing exaggerated reach estimates.
7/29/2019 Social Media Brand Index 2011
18/18
White Pap
2012 Market Strategies International. All rights reserved.No part o this publication may be reproduced by any method whatsoeverwithout the prior consent o Market Strategies International.
For more information:www.marketstrategies.com
Read our blog:www.reshmr.com
Analysis and Index Calculation
The analytic period or the Index is January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.
Volume. The number o content items discovered within NetBase or the search period.
Net Sentiment. The ratio o positive to negative sentiments expressed about a brand as coded by NetBase, which
is calculated using the ollowing ormula: Net Sentiment score = (Positive sentiment Negative sentiment) / (Posi-
tive sentiment + Negative sentiment). Note that neutral content, which can range to 80% or more o all content on a
brand or topic, is excluded. The score can range rom -100 to +10.
Sentiment is widely depended upon social media marketing to understand how individuals eel about a particular
brand, and is the most commonly examined measure o a brands success in social media. This is in spite that or
most brands and topics in social media, the majority o content is neither positive nor negative but simply neutral.
Automated sentiment coding within social media monitoring platorms is done via sophisticated language analysis o
content. While automated coding goes well beyond anything possible even a ew years ago, and greatly expedites
the ability to retrieve this inormation quickly, it is not always accurate. Across the common social media analytic
platorms, sentiment coding accuracy is claimed to be 70% to 90%; some would argue that even this number is high.
Automated coding cannot correctly detect nuances in the human language; or example, sarcasm escapes most (i
not all) social media monitoring platorms.
Positive Emotions. The number o content items coded as strongly or somewhat positive discovered within NetBase
or the search period.
Sponsored Presence. The number o Facebook likes, Twitter ollowers and YouTube subscribers or sponsored,
corporate pages/accounts/channels at 2011 year end.
All Index components were converted to percentile rankings and weighted to refect Market Strategies assessment
o the importance o each component in determining overall brand socialness (Volume = 0.50, Net Sentiment = 0.30,
Positive Emotions = 0.15, Sponsored Presence = 0.05). The nal raw score was converted to array all Index scores
on a 1,000-point scale or easy comparison.
Index rankings are relative only to one another. The Index must have a highest (1,000) score. A score o 1,000 does
not mean the perect social brand; rather, it means that compared with the other brands included in this study, the
brand in question has superior perormance in the weighted components o the Index.
http://www.marketstrategies.com/http://www.freshmr.com/http://www.research-live.com/news/analytics/automated-sentiment-analysis-gives-poor-showing-in-accuracy-test/4002844.articlehttp://www.research-live.com/news/analytics/automated-sentiment-analysis-gives-poor-showing-in-accuracy-test/4002844.articlehttp://twitter.com/#!/mrktstrategieshttp://www.linkedin.com/company/market-strategieshttp://www.facebook.com/market.strategies.internationalhttp://www.freshmr.com/http://www.marketstrategies.com/