Social Media Brand Index 2011

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

[email protected].

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%20Index


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.


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/


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.


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


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


6/18

White Pap

6

TOP BRANDSFAST-MOVING CONSUMER GOODS


29 Avon 769

70 Kleenex 572

76 L'Oreal 547

83 Nestle 511

86 Gillette 494

TOP BRANDSINSURANCE


91 State Farm Insurance 463

99 Allstate 425

104 Prudential Financial 413

110 UnitedHealth Group 356

116 AXA 324

TOP BRANDSMEDIA, ENTERTAINMENT


3 Walt Disney 919

37 MTV 734

62 Thomson Reuters 617117 Time Warner 323

124 News Corp. 258

TOP BRANDSPETROLEUM


100 Chevron 425

122 Exxon Mobil 276

125 Shell 248137 Sunoco 197

140 ConocoPhillips 167

TOP BRANDSRESTAURANTS


1 Starbucks 1000

8 McDonald's 853

28 KFC 770

39 Pizza Hut 729

TOP BRANDSTELECOMMUNICATIONS


40 Verizon 719

54 AT&T 682

56 Sprint Nextel 674

84 Comcast 509


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_103822229704881


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


9/18

White Pap

9

ALL BRANDS RANK ORDER


NetSentiment

PositiveEmotions

Sponsored Presence




4 Canon 904 s s s







11 Audi 808


13 Sony 805 s s s s

14 Panasonic 803 s


16 Adidas 796 s s s

17 Gucci 795 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


APPENDIX

Complete Index Sorted by Brand Socialness


10/18

White Pap

10



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




11/18

White Pap

11



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


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



12/18

White Pap

12



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



13/18

White Pap

13

ALL BRANDS ALPHABETICAL ORDER


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


57 American Express 652 s

142 AIG 161 t t t t


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


21 BMW 789 s s s s

77 Boeing 532


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


96 Colgate 444

84 Comcast 509 t

140 ConocoPhillips 167 t t t t

25 Corona 773 s t t


Complete Index Sorted by Brand


14/18

White Pap

14



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


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


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



15/18

White Pap

15



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


42 Mercedes-Benz 710 s s s

141 Merck 166 t t t t t t

138 MetLie 177 t t t t


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


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




16/18

White Pap

16



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



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


114 Wells Fargo 346 t

72 Xerox 563 s

26 Yahoo! 772 s s s

53 Zara 683 s



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.


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/

Documents

Social Media Brand Index 2011