South Africa … · South Africa were measured via an online survey among a ......
Transcript of South Africa … · South Africa were measured via an online survey among a ......
2
Table of Contents
Introduction Section 1 4
Country resultsSection 2 10
DemographicsAppendix 1 35
MethodologyAppendix 2 37
2
4
About the Study
What follows are the results of the RepTrak® Pulse 2017
reputation study conducted in South Africa by the Reputation
Institute and the Reputation House.
The reputations of the biggest and most visible companies in
South Africa were measured via an online survey among a
representative sample of the general public in South Africa.
Data collection took place in February and March, 2017.
Contact information
For more information about the study please contact:
4
5
The RepTrak® Model
Reputation Institute’s generic model for reputation is structured
around four core themes, seven reputation dimensions and 23
reputation attributes. Together, these elements explain a
company’s reputation.
1 - Reputation
RepTrak® Pulse is the core of a company’s reputation and
shows how strong the emotional bond is between the company
and the public.
2 – Dimensions and attributes
The RepTrak® model consists of seven operational dimensions
and 23 attributes that explain the reputation profile.
3 - Drivers
The individual attributes mean different things to people and are
perceived differently in terms of weighted importance.
Analyses identify areas that are most important for strengthening
a company’s reputation.
Drivers can be at dimension and attribute level and show how
the company gains value for money in its communication.
The RepTrak® Model Explains Reputation
1
2
3
5
6
What is the relationship between RepTrak® Pulse
and the 7 reputation dimensions?
RepTrak® Pulse measures the overall reputation
based on people's immediate emotional perception
of the company. In contrast, the 7 reputation
dimensions examine people’s rational perception of
corporate reputation based on specific and detailed
statements.
RepTrak® Pulse score is not necessarily always
equal to the average of the 7 reputation dimensions.
People’s emotional perception may be influenced by
an overall positive attitude to the company, which is
not necessarily rewarded by a proper evaluation of
the respective company's products, innovation,
workplace, governance, citizenship, leadership or
performance.
RepTrak® - Rational vs. Emotional
Emotional Rational
explanation of the emotional
6
7
Direct experience
What a company communicates
What others say
Say positive
Benefit of the doubt
Buy Invest
Work for
Recommend the companyTrust the company
Welcome into the community
Recommend as an investment
Recommend products/services
Touch Points Reputation Supportive Behaviour
Choose
Stakeholders build their perceptions about a company through three types of channels:
• “Direct Experience” (buying product/service, contacting customer support
• “What a company communicates” (company’s own communication, marketing material, newsletters, website)
• “What others say” (word of mouth, media publications, expert opinions)
Perceptions gained through Direct Experience and Own Communication can be to large extent controlled by the company. What others say, on
the other hand, can only be influenced indirectly. The company needs to manage its reputation in order to appear in accordance to expectations
of its stakeholders.
Why should we care about reputation
Reputation is important, because it drives supportive behaviour and through support of its stakeholders allows the company to achieve business
results.
7
8
Significant differences and normative scale
Significant differences
In any study based on a sample of the population there is a statistical error in all measurements.
The table below shows the difference needed between two scores before they can be said to be significantly different.
Only score differences that are statistically significant will be shown in this report.
Normative scale
Using an extensive database containing results from thousands of studies throughout the world since 1998, Reputation Institute has developed
a Normative Scale (in everyday language “The Traffic Light”) that indicates whenever a particular score is high or low when benchmarked
against previous studies of a similar character.
Statistical Significance
RepTrak® Pulse > 3,7
Dimensions > 7,3
Excellent/Top tier 80+
Strong/Robust 70-79
Average/Moderate 60-69
Weak/Vulnerable 40-59
Poor/Lowest tier <40
8
10
Most Visible Companies
10
List of Companies
South Africa
[Sorted by Industry]
Financial_Short-Term Insurance FMCG Oil, Gas & Lubricants
1st for Women (Pty) Ltd Clover BP
Auto & General Coca Cola Caltex
Budget Insurance Nestle Engen
Dial Direct Procter & Gamble Sasol
MiWay Insurance SAB Miller Shell
Outsurance Tiger Brands Total South Africa
Santam Unilever
Financial – Bank Financial - Diversified Telecommunications
ABSA Discovery Cell C
Capitec Bank Holdings Liberty Holdings MTN Group
First National Bank Momentum Telkom SA
Nedbank Old Mutual Vodacom Group
Standard Bank Sanlam
Retail State Owned Enterprises
Edcon Group Eskom
Massmart Holdings South African Airways
Mr Price Group South African Broadcasting Association
Pick n Pay Holdings South African Post Office
Shoprite Holdings Transnet
The Foschini Group
The Spar Group
Truworths (International)
Woolworths Holdings
11
Company 2016 2017
1st for Women
ABSA
Auto & General
Barloworld
Bidvest
BP
Budget Insurance
Caltex
Capitec Bank
Cell C
Clover
Coca-Cola
Dial Direct
Discovery
Edcon Group
Engen
Eskom
First Rand_FNB
Foschini Group
Liberty Holdings
Massmart_Makro/Game/Dion
MiWay Insurance
Momentum
Mr Price Group
MTN
Company 2016 2017
Nedbank
Nestlé
Old Mutual
Outsurance
Pick n Pay
Procter & Gamble
SABMiller
Sanlam
Santam
Sasol
Shell
Shoprite
South African Airways
South African Broadcasting Corporation
South African Post Office
Spar Group
Standard Bank
Telkom
Tiger Brands
Total
Transnet
Truworths
Unilever
Vodacom
Woolworths
Measured companies - 2016 to 2017
11
12
Coca Cola 2% n = 2.152First National Bank 1% n = 2.302Eskom 1% n = 3.692Vodacom Group 1% n = 2.429Pick n Pay Holdings 1% n = 2.281Telkom SA 1% n = 3.456The Spar Group 2% n = 2.308Nestle 0% n = 2.260Mr Price Group 1% n = 2.350Cell C 1% n = 2.297Clover 0% n = 2.298ABSA 1% n = 2.248Shell 0% n = 2.215South African Post Office 0% n = 2.265Truworths 0% n = 2.328MTN Group 0% n = 2.615Woolworths Holdings 1% n = 3.789Standard Bank 0% n = 2.129Engen 0% n = 2.356Shoprite Holdings 1% n = 2.250Massmart Holdings_Makro/Game/Dion 0% n = 2.336Caltex 1% n = 2.346BP 0% n = 2.513Nedbank 1% n = 2.147Old Mutual 0% n = 2.322
Familiarity distribution (%)
[South Africa]
[sorted by very familiar]
85%
81%
80%
78%
78%
77%
76%
75%
75%
74%
74%
74%
74%
73%
73%
73%
72%
72%
71%
71%
69%
69%
69%
67%65%
12%
15%
17%
15%
16%
18%
17%
21%
21%
21%
21%
21%
22%
22%
21%
21%
20%
24%
23%
20%
21%
23%
25%
24%27%
1%
4%
2%
4%
3%
2%
4%
2%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
5%
4%
5%
3%
3%
5%
6%
6%
4%
5%6%
0%
0%
1%
2%
1%
1%
1%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
2%
1%
2%
3%
4%
1%
2%
3%1%
Very familiar Somewhat familiar Have only heard the name Not at all familiar Not sure
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Familiarity Distribution
12
South Africa (1/2)
13
The Foschini Group 1% n = 2.245South African Airways 1% n = 2.490South African Broadcasting Corporation 1% n = 2.233Sasol 0% n = 2.472Discovery 1% n = 2.454Outsurance 1% n = 2.388Capitec Bank Holdings 1% n = 2.323Sanlam 0% n = 2.636Total South Africa 1% n = 2.742Tiger Brands 0% n = 2.509Transnet 0% n = 3.910SAB Miller 2% n = 2.777Unilever 1% n = 2.644Momentum 1% n = 2.462Edcon Group 1% n = 2.879Santam 1% n = 2.603MiWay Insurance 0% n = 3.011Budget Insurance 1% n = 2.459Auto & General 1% n = 2.6081st for Women 1% n = 2.951Bidvest 1% n = 2.784Dial Direct 1% n = 2.925Liberty Holdings 1% n = 2.874Barloworld 3% n = 3.259P & G 3% n = 3.446
Familiarity distribution (%)
[South Africa]
[sorted by very familiar]
65%
64%
64%
64%
62%
61%
61%
60%
59%
54%
51%
49%
47%
46%
45%
45%
43%
42%
42%
41%
40%
40%
39%
30%22%
27%
29%
24%
28%
26%
27%
28%
30%
25%
30%
30%
28%
30%
36%
24%
36%
32%
36%
33%
35%
36%
34%
31%
33%29%
5%
5%
7%
6%
9%
8%
8%
7%
9%
11%
14%
12%
13%
12%
14%
14%
18%
16%
18%
17%
18%
19%
17%
19%24%
2%
1%
3%
2%
2%
3%
1%
2%
6%
4%
5%
10%
9%
5%
16%
5%
7%
5%
6%
6%
5%
6%
12%
15%21%
Very familiar Somewhat familiar Have only heard the name Not at all familiar Not sure
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 13
Familiarity Distribution
South Africa (2/2)
14
South Africa – 2017 Top 10
14
Excellent/Top tier 80+
Strong/Robust 70-79
Average/Moderate 60-69
Weak/Vulnerable 40-59
Poor/Lowest tier <40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
80,3
79,5
77,6
76,7
76,3
75,8
75,6
75,2
72,7
72,4
RepTrak® Pulse – Top 10
South Africa: 2017
15
Changes in Top 10
2016 vs 2017
15
Excellent/Top tier 80+
Strong/Robust 70-79
Average/Moderate 60-69
Weak/Vulnerable 40-59
Poor/Lowest tier <40
12
34
56
78
910
78,1
76,2
75,4
74,9
73,3
72,6
72,1
71,6
70,2
69,9
2016
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
80,3
79,5
77,6
76,7
76,3
75,8
75,6
75,2
72,7
72,4
2017
16
RepTrak® Pulse
South Africa 2017
Clo
ver
1
Coca C
ola
2
Pic
k n P
ay
Hold
ings
3
Nestle
4
First N
atio
nal B
ank
5
Woolw
ort
hs H
old
ings
6
The S
par
Gro
up
7
Old
Mutu
al
8
Dis
cove
ry
9
The F
oschin
i Gro
up
10
Massm
art
Hold
ings_M
akr
o/G
am
e/D
ion
11
Sanla
m
12
Tru
wort
hs
13
Bid
vest
14
Engen
15S
AB
Mill
er
16
Calte
x
17
Unile
ver
18
Tig
er
Bra
nds
19
Lib
ert
y H
old
ings
20
Capite
c B
ank
Hold
ings
21
Shell
22
Sasol
23
Mr
Price G
roup
24
Shoprite
Hold
ings
25
Barlow
orld
26
Santa
m
27
Sta
ndard
Bank
28
Nedbank
29
Edcon G
roup
30
Tota
l South
Afr
ica
31
Vodacom
Gro
up
32
BP
33
Outs
ura
nce
34
1st fo
r W
om
en (
Pty
) Ltd
35
Mom
entu
m
36
Auto
& G
enera
l
37
Budget In
sura
nce
38
MiW
ay
Insura
nce
39
Pro
cte
r &
Gam
ble
40
Dia
l Direct
41
MT
N G
roup
42
South
Afr
ican A
irw
ays
43
AB
SA
44
Cell
C
45
Tra
nsnet
46
Telk
om
SA
47
South
Afr
ican P
ost O
ffic
e
48
South
Afr
ican B
roadcastin
g C
orp
ora
tion
49
Esko
m
50
RepTrak® Pulse Rankings
2017
16
Excellent/Top tier 80+
Strong/Robust 70-79
Average/Moderate 60-69
Weak/Vulnerable 40-59
Poor/Lowest tier <40
17
Industry Ranking
FMCG (7) n = 699
Retail (9) n = 1 101
Financial - Diversified (5) n = 502
Oil, Gas & Lubricants (6) n = 600
Financial - Banking (5) n = 500
Financial - Short-term Insurance (7) n = 702
Telecommunication (4) n = 602
State Owned Enterprises (5) n = 901
Total n = 5 807
72,8
72,1
70,8
69,7
68,7
66,8
63,5
58,4
45,2
Industry Rankings
2017
17
All score differences > +-3,7 are significant at 95% confidence interval
Excellent/Top tier 80+
Strong/Robust 70-79
Average/Moderate 60-69
Weak/Vulnerable 40-59
Poor/Lowest tier <40
18
Industry Leaders
Leaders within each Industry
2017
FMCG (Clover)
Retail (Pick n Pay Holdings)
Financial - Banking (First National Bank)
Financial - Diversified (Old Mutual)
Oil, Gas & Lubricants (Engen)
Financial - Short-term Insurance (Santam)
Telecommunication (Vodacom Group)
State Owned Enterprises (South African Airways)
Industry Leaders
2017
18
Excellent/Top tier 80+
Strong/Robust 70-79
Average/Moderate 60-69
Weak/Vulnerable 40-59
Poor/Lowest tier <40
19
Rank 2016 2017
FMCG
Retail
Financial - Banking
Financial - Diversified
Oil, Gas & Lubricants
Financial – Short-
term Insurance
Telecommunication
State-Owned
Enterprises
Industry Leaders
2016 vs 2017
19
Excellent/Top tier 80+
Strong/Robust 70-79
Average/Moderate 60-69
Weak/Vulnerable 40-59
Poor/Lowest tier <40
21South Africa
n = 5.806
Explanation
Pro
du
cts
So
uth
Afr
ica
Enterprise
Products vs. enterprise analysis is based on two sets of
indices for all companies in South Africa: the Products
index (defined as Products & Services and Innovation)
and the Enterprise index (defined as Workplace,
Governance, Citizenship, Leadership and Performance).
The indices are created by multiplying each dimension
score by their respective South Africa weights.
The x-axis shows the deviation of the given company’s
Enterprise index from the South Africa average.
The y-axis shows the deviation of the given company’s
Product index from the South Africa average.
The line represents the average balance between the
Product and Enterprise dimensions for companies’
reputation in South Africa.
The reputation of companies above the line is more
strongly influenced by the Product dimensions (is Product-
centric), while the reputation of companies below the line
is more strongly influenced by the Enterprise dimensions
(is Enterprise-centric).
-24
-19
-14
-9
-4
1
6
-24 -19 -14 -9 -4 1 6
Products vs. Enterprise - driving reputation
21
23
Who You Are Matters More than What You Do
% Influence on
Emotional Bond
South African Companies Overall Pulse
ENTERPRISE
69.1%
PRODUCTS
30.9%
66.0
23
24
2017 Reputation Drivers
To win the support and trust of
consumers, you have to engage on all 7
dimensions:
• Each of the 7 dimensions account for
more than 12% of reputation, except for
Workplace. So to win you need to excel
and communicate about each one of the
dimensions.
• The key reputation drivers: Product &
Services, Governance and Performance
explain almost 50% of reputation (47.4%).
• Building a company specific reputation
platform across dimensions is the key to
succeed in the reputation economy.
14.3% 17.5%
13.0% 13.4%
12.9%
15.6%
13.4%
Dimension Drivers
2017
1
2
3
24
25
Reputation Drivers Overtime
Products & Services 18,5 16,6 15,2 18,9 18,2 17,5
Innovation 15,4 15,9 14,8 15,5 13,4 13,4
Workplace 13,2 13,6 13,8 13,1 12,8 13,4
Governance 13,1 13,6 13,4 12,8 15,3 15,6
Citizenship 13,5 13,0 15,0 12,6 13,2 12,9
Leadership 12,6 12,7 12,9 12,7 13,6 13,0
Performance 13,7 14,7 14,8 14,4 13,5 14,3
Adj. R² n = 0.759 0.689 0.753 0.548 0.769 0.743
n = 2,300 1,999 2,400 10,547 5,000 5,000
Dimension Drivers Over TimeSouth Africa: 2012 - 2017
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Products & Services
Governance
Performance
Innovation
WorkplaceLeadership
Citizenship
25
26
Dimension Rankings – Winner Per Dimension
26
2017
2016 vs 2017
2016
Excellent/Top tier 80+
Strong/Robust 70-79
Average/Moderate 60-69
Weak/Vulnerable 40-59
Poor/Lowest tier <40
27
Performance
Coca-Cola
Clover
Pick n Pay
Nestlé
First National Bank
The Spar Group Woolw orths The Spar Group
Bidvest Discovery First National Bank
Coca-Cola Coca-Cola Pick n Pay
Clover Pick n Pay Clover
Governance Citizenship Leadership
Pick n Pay Clover Coca-Cola
Woolw orths Nestlé Sanlam
First National Bank Pick n Pay Sasol
Coca-Cola Clover First National Bank
Nestlé First National Bank Clover
Products and Services Innovation Workplace
Clover Coca-Cola Coca-Cola
Dimension Rankings – Top 5
27
Excellent/Top tier 80+
Strong/Robust 70-79
Average/Moderate 60-69
Weak/Vulnerable 40-59
Poor/Lowest tier <40
28
Dimension Quadrant
RepT
rak®
Dim
ensio
n I
mport
ance:
2017
South
Afr
ica
South Africa
RepTrak® Dimension Scores: 2017
Products & Services
InnovationWorkplace
Governance
Citizenship
Leadership
Performance
12,0
17,0
60,0
Products/Services Innovation Workplace Governance Citizenship Leadership Performance
Lower Priority Weaknesses Lower Priority Strengths
Score Weights
Products 66,7 17,5
Innovation 65,0 13,4
Workplace 63,1 13,4
Governance 63,6 15,6
Citizenship 63,4 12,9
Leadership 64,2 13,0
Performance 66,9 14,3
n = 5,806
28
All score differences > +-3,7 are significant at 95% confidence interval
Excellent/Top tier 80+
Strong/Robust 70-79
Average/Moderate 60-69
Weak/Vulnerable 40-59
Poor/Lowest tier <40
29
Dimension distribution Q1 2017
Score
Products & Services 6% 3% 66,7
Innovation 7% 4% 65,0
Workplace 6% 20% 63,1
Governance 7% 10% 63,6
Citizenship 7% 13% 63,4
Leadership 7% 11% 64,2
Performance 6% 11% 66,9
n = 5.806
South Africa
[by dimension order]
36%
37%
33%
37%
36%
35%
33%
55%
51%
40%
46%
44%
47%
51%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Negative (1-2) Neutral (3-5) Positive (6-7) "Not sure %"
Dimension Distribution
South Africa
29
31
RepTrak® Pulse vs. Recommend company (%) in South Africa
If a company improves its reputation by 5 points, the number of people who would recommend the company goes up by 6.3%.
RepTrak® Pulse Score
Will
ingness t
o s
upport
(R
ecom
mend c
om
pany t
o o
thers
Top-t
wo b
ox)
ABSA
Barlow orld
BidvestBP
Clover
Coca Cola
Dial Direct
Discovery
Engen
Eskom
First National Bank (FNB)
Massmart
MomentumMTN
Nedbank
Nestlé
Old Mutual
Pick n Pay
Procter & Gamble
Shoprite
South African Airways
South African Broadcasting Association
South African Post Office
Telkom
Transnet
Woolw orths Holdings
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
Adj. R² = 0.92
Excellent/Top tier 80+
Strong/Robust 70-79
Average/Moderate 60-69
Weak/Vulnerable 40-59
Poor/Lowest tier <40
32
Support for the most and least reputable companies in South Africa
32
Top 5 vs bottom 5
Supportive behavior distribution Count
The 5 most reputable companies 3% 0% n = 499
The 5 least reputable companies 28% 2% n = 1.101
The 5 most reputable companies 3% 0% n = 499
The 5 least reputable companies 28% 2% n = 1.101
The 5 most reputable companies 2% 3% n = 499
The 5 least reputable companies 31% 3% n = 1.101
The 5 most reputable companies 2% 0% n = 499
The 5 least reputable companies 28% 2% n = 1.101
The 5 most reputable companies 3% 5% n = 499
The 5 least reputable companies 37% 4% n = 1.101
The 5 most reputable companies 2% 5% n = 499
The 5 least reputable companies 36% 4% n = 1.101
The 5 most reputable companies 8% 5% n = 499
The 5 least reputable companies 37% 4% n = 1.101Work for
The most reputable companies vs. least reputable companies
Recommend as investment
Buy
Recommend products
Trust to do the right thing
Say something positive
Invest
19%
38%
21%
39%
25%
37%
22%
39%
22%
31%
23%
31%
25%
29%
77%
32%
76%
31%
69%
29%
76%
31%
70%
28%
69%
29%
62%
30%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Negative (1-2) Neutral (3-5) Positive (6-7) Not sure
33
Most Supported Companies – Top 5 Buy
[Sorted by Positive]
1 Clover 1% 1%
2 Nestlé 1% 0%
3 Coca-Cola 4% 0%
4 Woolw orths 4% 0%
5 The Foschini Group 5% 2%
Negative (1-2) Neutral (3-5) Positive (6-7) Not sure
13%
19%
16%
17%
16%
85%
80%
80%
79%
77%
Recommend Products
[Sorted by Positive]
1 Clover 1% 0%
2 Nestlé 3% 0%
3 Woolw orths 5% 0%
4 Coca-Cola 5% 0%
5 The Spar Group 1% 0%
Negative (1-2) Neutral (3-5) Positive (6-7) Not sure
15%
17%
18%
19%
26%
84%
80%
77%
76%
73%
Trust
[Sorted by Positive]
1 Coca-Cola 4% 2%
2 Clover 2% 4%
3 Nestlé 2% 2%
4 Woolw orths 5% 2%
5 Old Mutual 3% 3%
Negative (1-2) Neutral (3-5) Positive (6-7) Not sure
19%
19%
24%
25%
27%
75%
75%
72%
68%
67%
Say Positive
[Sorted by Positive]
1 Coca-Cola 4% 0%
2 Clover 1% 1%
3 Nestlé 1% 0%
4 Woolw orths 4% 1%
5 Old Mutual 2% 1%
Negative (1-2) Neutral (3-5) Positive (6-7) Not sure
16%
19%
23%
20%
23%
80%
79%
76%
75%
74%
Invest
[Sorted by Positive]
1 Coca-Cola 3% 6%
2 Old Mutual 3% 3%
3 Pick n Pay 2% 4%
4 Clover 1% 4%
5 First National Bank 6% 2%
Negative (1-2) Neutral (3-5) Positive (6-7) Not sure
11%
22%
23%
26%
25%
80%
72%
71%
69%
67%
Recommend as Investment
[Sorted by Positive]
1 Coca-Cola 2% 6%
2 Old Mutual 4% 2%
3 Nestlé 2% 6%
4 Pick n Pay 3% 4%
5 Clover 0% 7%
Negative (1-2) Neutral (3-5) Positive (6-7) Not sure
13%
22%
24%
26%
27%
79%
72%
68%
67%
66%
Work for
[Sorted by Positive]
1 Coca-Cola 7% 5%
2 Nestlé 4% 6%
3 Bidvest 3% 7%
4 Clover 7% 5%
5 First National Bank 8% 4%
Negative (1-2) Neutral (3-5) Positive (6-7) Not sure
20%
24%
28%
27%
29%
68%
66%
62%
61%
59%
Benefit of Doubt
[Sorted by Positive]
1 Clover 2% 6%
2 Coca-Cola 4% 1%
3 The Spar Group 1% 1%
4 Nestlé 5% 3%
5 First National Bank 6% 5%
Negative (1-2) Neutral (3-5) Positive (6-7) Not sure
17%
24%
32%
28%
27%
75%
71%
66%
64%
62%
Welcome into my Community
[Sorted by Positive]
1 Clover 0% 1%
2 Coca-Cola 4% 1%
3 Pick n Pay 2% 0%
4 Woolw orths 4% 0%
5 Nestlé 4% 1%
Negative (1-2) Neutral (3-5) Positive (6-7) Not sure
13%
12%
23%
22%
22%
86%
83%
75%
73%
73%
Recommend Company
[Sorted by Positive]
1 Clover 1% 0%
2 Coca-Cola 5% 0%
3 Nestlé 2% 2%
4 Woolw orths 4% 2%
5 Pick n Pay 2% 2%
Negative (1-2) Neutral (3-5) Positive (6-7) Not sure
17%
17%
19%
20%
24%
82%
78%
77%
74%
72%
35
Respondent Profile
South Africa 2017
3%4%5%6%7%
10%15%
23%27%
Northern CapeLimpopo
MpumalangaNorth West
Free StateEastern Cape
Western CapeKwaZulu-Natal
GautengGeography
22%
32%
21%25%
18-24 25-34 35-44 45-64
Age GroupGender
50.0%
50.0%
Education65%
35%
Loweducation
HighEducation
Middleeducation
Income
27% 25%34%
14%
LowIncome
MiddleIncome
HighIncome
Don'twish toanswer
3%
7%
9%
33%
47%
Prefer not to answer
Coloured
Indian/Asian
African
WhiteRace
35
36
Methodology
Fielding methodology. Research design. Key analyses
and modelling techniques.
Appendix 2
37
Fielding methodology & Research design
Qualified respondents are: Adults between 18-64 who reported that they were either “Somewhat Familiar” or “Very Familiar” with one of the companies in the
study. Furthermore, respondents who are not able to give valid responses to 3 of the 4 Pulse questions are screened out.
Data collection method: Respondents filled out a 15 minute online RepTrak® questionnaire designed to measure overall corporate reputation and related
questions. The questionnaire used for this research is based on the proprietary RepTrak® model developed by Reputation Institute for analysis of corporate
reputations. Respondents were invited to participate in this project through emailed invitations sent to a carefully screened online panel managed by an
established commercial market research firm, member of ESOMAR. Respondents were randomly assigned to rate up to 5 companies in a Pulse study and 2
companies in a Deep Dive study with which they were familiar.
Fielding period: February – March, 2017
Number of respondents: A minimum of 300 respondents provided ratings for each Deep Dive and a minimum of 100 for each Pulse company in the study.
Sample representation: Responses were weighted to represent the national profile on demographics, including age and gender.
Note on Gaps: All Gaps are calculated using exact scores. Occasionally reported gaps appear to differ by 0.1 from gaps calculated between scores with one
decimal. This is due to rounding error.
Note on Sample Sizes: All sample sizes reported are based on weighted data. Occasionally the weighting procedure produces a slightly smaller or larger
sample size than the unweighted raw data otherwise would.
Note on RepTrak® Pulse Scores: The RepTrak® Pulse is calculated on the basis of the answers from the four variables that measure the respondent’s
esteem, feeling, admiration and trust (captured in the Pulse score on a 0-100 scale).
37
38
Key Analysis & Modeling Techniques
RepTrak® Pulse Score
All RepTrak® analyses begin with a single reputation score (the RepTrak® Pulse) that is decomposed into a set of underlying dimensions and attributes. The
process of decomposition involves application of various forms of multivariate analyses designed to address interdependence and multicollinearity in data
obtained from cognitive research.
At the core, the RepTrak® Pulse measures reputation consisting of three questions about the emotional appeal of the company and a rating of the “Overall
Reputation” of the company. Structural Equation Modelling indicates that these four variables are a reliable indicator of the reputation construct.
• [Company] is a company I have a good feeling about
• [Company] is a company that I trust
• [Company] is a company that I admire and respect
• [Company] has a good overall reputation
Attributes were measured on 7-point scales, where 1 = Strongly Disagree and 7 = Strongly Agree.
Results are re-scaled to 100-point scale for easier interpretation.
38
39
Normative Scale
Using an extensive database containing results from thousands of studies throughout the world since 1998, Reputation Institute has
developed a Normative Scale (in everyday language “The Traffic Light”) that indicates whenever a particular score is high or low
when benchmarked against previous studies of a similar character.
Driver Analysis
The relative contribution of individual dimensions to the RepTrak® Pulse is calculated from a factor adjusted regression modeling procedure. Individual
dimension weights range from 0-1, and total to 100%.
To determine drivers of reputation, the weights are developed with a Factor Adjusted Linear Regression:
Factor analysis is used to determine the unique contribution of each attribute to the variance of the RepTrak® Pulse. Equamax rotation is used to
assign the factors to the dimensions. It creates an orthogonal structure of uncorrelated variables that allows the regression to be performed without
interference from multicollinearity. It is used to maximize interpretation of the final set of regression coefficients.
Linear Regression is run using the Raw Pulse Construct as the dependent variable and the factor scores as the independent variables. Only
attributes that were found to be significantly correlated with the reputation (p<0.05) have driver weights assigned.
Excellent/Top Tier Above 80
Strong/Robust 70-79
Average/Moderate 60-69
Weak/Vulnerable 40-59
Poor/Bottom Tier Below 40
Key Analysis & Modeling Techniques
39
40
Statistical Significance
Statistical Significance of Results Reported in RepTrak® Projects
Individual responses to questions asked in a survey enable the calculation of various statistical measures, including averages (means) and standard deviations.
The greater the number of responses used in calculating an average, the more confident we are about the accuracy of the score. Similarly, the smaller the range
of responses made to a specific question, the more confident we are about the score.
Reputation Institute reports scores with a 95% confidence interval in the surveys that we conduct. The interval describes our confidence that, if we conducted
the same study repeatedly, 95 times out of 100 the obtained score would lie within the confidence interval. It therefore describes how statistically different a
score is likely to be from another score.
If a measure is created from multiple questions, the variation in responses is reduced, and our confidence in the average obtained
from the combined questions is higher, thereby shrinking the confidence interval.
The specific formula Reputation Institute therefore uses to calculate a 95% confidence interval around the mean is therefore:
Confidence Interval = Average Score +/- 1.96 * Average Standard Deviation of Attributes / SQRT (Sample Size * # of Attributes)
Directional Scores
When analyzing subgroups and/or specific and hard-to-reach stakeholders, sample sizes will often have limited power and reliability. As the sample size shrinks,
results become directional in nature. At extremely low counts, results become unreliable and are not shown.
In this report low and insufficient counts are denoted as per below:
*Low counts (<50) – scores are directional (refer to appendix for details on directional scores)
**Insufficient counts (<30)
Reporting Results
40
41
Standardizing all Reputation Scores
RepTrak® Scores - Standardized and Comparable
Market research shows that people are inclined to rate companies more or less favorably in different countries,
or when they are asked questions directly or online. When asked in a personal interview, for example, it’s known
that people tend to give a company higher ratings than when they are asked by phone, or when they are asked
to answer questions about the company online. This is a well-established source of ‘systematic bias’. Another
source of systematic bias comes from national culture - in some countries, people are universally more positive
in their responses than in other countries. In statistical terms, it means that the entire distribution of scores in a
‘positive’ country is artificially ‘shifted’ in a positive direction for all companies, good or bad. The distribution of
scores in that country may also be more ‘spread out’ than in another because people have more information and
are able to make more subtle differences between companies.
To overcome this systematic bias, Reputation Institute’s policy is to adjust all RepTrak® scores by standardizing
them against the aggregate distribution of all scores obtained from the Reputation Institute’s Annual Global
RepTrak® Pulse. Standardization has the effect of lowering scores in countries that tend to over-rate
companies, and has the effect of raising scores for companies in countries that tend to rate companies more
negatively. Two adjustments are made for every RepTrak® Score
Reputation Institute uses its cumulative database of RepTrak® Pulse scores about reputation scores internationally to carry out two adjustments:
Country Adjustment: All scores derived from surveys are standardized by subtracting the country mean and dividing by the standard deviation of all known
scores previously obtained in that country. In statistical terms, this adjustment ‘normalizes’ the distribution of scores in the country to a mean of 0 and a standard
deviation of 1, producing a ‘z-score’ for the observation.
Global Adjustment: The ‘z-score’ obtained on the country level is then used to determine the globally adjusted score. In order to do this, the results are scaled
back by multiplying each company’s score by the global standard deviation and adding back the global mean. The resulting number is the globally adjusted
score.
As additional global research comes in, Reputation Institute regularly updates the country and global distributions that are used to create our standardized
RepTrak® scores. All RepTrak® results are therefore comparable across industries, countries, and over time. 41
Reputation House
Parkwood - Johannesburg
Phone: 0027 11 268 1559
Email: [email protected]
www.reputationhouse.co.za
Contact Us