Corporate Eye

...compare, compete, excel

Lucy Nixon

Lucy Nixon

What Makes for Effective Investor Relations Sites? Part 5: Historical Share Price Information

The third essential piece of share price information for investors coming to your web site is historical stock price information. When investors buy stock they know they are supposed to record their purchase price, but they often fail to do so. Or they misplace the information. So companies need to provide an easy way for people to look up the stock price on a particular day.

There are several ways to address this need for investors. The Telephonica site includes one that I think is well done. Reproduced below is a page that pops up when you click on a link for historic price data. Note that the page also allows you to enter different dates to customize the information.

telephonica

An alternative to this is to provide for an excel spreadsheet data download. I encountered this in a couple of U.K. sites I investigated, but unfortunately, when I downloaded the data, it was in comma delimited format and not very user friendly. (I sometimes wonder if the investor relations departments ever actually take their sites out for a test drive, or merely take their data providers at their word.)

To go along with this, it’s helpful to provide investors with a way to calculate the worth of their holdings. Below is the page from British American Tobacco’s site that provides this calculator. Note that the calculator allows the investor to enter the data for share price in a number of different ways and also provides for calculation of the investment return.

BAT

All of this inures principally to the benefit of retail investors, as institutional investors will have very sophisticated systems for tracking price movement and charting, but it will also save a fair amount of heartburn in investor relations departments, as it should cut down on the number of calls coming in looking for this type of information, particularly around tax time.

In this series:
Previous post: Share price charts
Next post: Eye candy for stock charts

The Top Global Brands – Value vs. Social Media Buzz

Back in September, I published a post here on the Corporate Eye blog that discussed Interbrand’s annual list of the top global brands.  The 2009 list didn’t have a lot of big surprises, and passed by the eyes of the world without much fanfare.

Now, Sysomos has conducted additional research on the top 20 global brands listed in Interbrand’s 2009 ranking.  Sysomos analyzed those brands during the same period of time that Interbrand researched them for its best global brands list, and created a separate ranking based on how often those brands were mentioned online, particularly through social media.

Comparing the rankings of the brands included in the Sysomos study to the rankings from the Interbrand study is very interesting.  The results are below:

Sysomos-brand-study

Perhaps the most interesting piece of data revealed by the Sysomos study is the difference in ranking between the Sysomos list and the Interbrand list for Apple.  This is a brand that has grown exponentially in recent years thanks to innovative products and a massive consumer buzz, particularly online.  Notice in the chart above that Apple ranks 20th on Interbrand’s 2009 list of the top global brands but in terms of social media buzz as calculated by Sysomos, Apple is #2.

On the flip side, Coca-Cola ranks first in Interbrand’s study, but the brand is only ranked 12th on the Sysomos list, putting it in the lower half of the 20 brands analyzed.  Similarly, IBM ranks second in Interbrand’s study, but it’s only ranked 15th in the Sysomos list.

One conclusion that could be speculated based on the data from this small study is that well-established, mature brands don’t seem to need the high levels of social media buzz to sustain their value, while new and growing brands can reap great benefits from the power of a social media buzz.

Of course, this is a very small study of just the top 20 brands based on global value, so conclusions can only be hypothetical.  However, it makes sense that new and growing brands have more to gain from investing in social media advertising and branding campaigns than established or new brands do.

What do you think of these two studies when the data is placed side-by-side?  Any interesting revelations?

Image: Sysomos

What Makes for Effective Investor Relations Sites? Part 4: Share Price Charts

Last week we focused on immediate share price information and today we will be looking at stock charts. At its very basic, a stock chart should clearly convey the price history of a stock over a defined period of time. So at a minimum, a line chart over the past year with a clearly defined axis showing the price is what investors can expect. Most companies also include a volume chart below the share price. Scottish and Southern Energy has a nice example of this simple approach and I’ve reproduced it below.

Scottish & Southern stock chart
Click image to enlarge

You will note that the charting page for Scottish and Southern Energy also includes a selection tool that allows investors to select the time period that they wish to view, ranging from intraday to five years in length.

This is the next iteration of choice for price charts and very helpful for someone thinking about purchasing the stock.

Taking it one step further, some companies also allow user selected dates to define the beginning and end of the chart. This makes sense for people who already own the stock as chances are most investors did not buy the stock on the one, two or five year anniversary of their looking at the chart.

A good example of this capability is the chart of Friends Provident Group, reproduced below, where I’ve arbitrarily chosen to look at the share price performance since the beginning of the year 2000.

Friends Provident stock chartA close inspection of the chart will also show that investors have the capability to chart against other companies (in this case, up to eight pre-selected companies), indexes and sectors.

As an investor, this is useful, because you always want to know “Compared to what?” however, it probably comes under the “Nice to have“ category as opposed to essential information.

Finally, a feature I really like, but which I don’t see that often, is illustrated on the chart from ENI. (If you really want to see a well-executed investor site, visit ENI’s site www.eni.it.)

eni stock price chart
Click image to enlarge

They have overlain their interactive chart with indicators of the release of corporate information. For example, by scrolling over April 24, 2009, you are able to see that the rise in their stock price coincided with the release of ENI’s first quarter 2009 results.

I find this particularly helpful when I look at a large rise or fall on a stock price chart as it often helps me understand what may have been causing the movement.

In this series:
Previous post: Share price information
Next post: Historical share price data

Talent Acquisition 2009: No Surprises


Big 2

Looking over Talent Acquisition Strategies 2009: Cutting through the Clutter and Proactively Managing Quality Candidates, a new report from the Aberdeen Group, there’s a definite sense of familiarity.  Almost every finding and every recommendation is related to strategies and tactics that have been covered here on Corporate Eye and widely discussed among recruiting professionals.  So the value of the report is not so much in big news as in validation of the conventional wisdom–and some ideas for strategic fine-tuning.

As mentioned in the introductory post for this series, the report covers a lot of territory.  So I will focus on highlighting the information that pertains to corporate websites, social media, and employer branding.  By way of introduction:

  • The report defines three “maturity classes”—Best in Class (20% of respondents), Industry Average (50%), and Laggards (30%)
  • Class placement is assessed on four measures—percentage of new hires that were top choice; year-over-year increase in candidate quality; year-over-year increase in retention; percentage of new hires meeting or exceeding requirements on first review
  • Differences between Best in Class and Laggards were fairly dramatic in some cases—with BiCs getting 90% of their first choice hires, Laggards only 27%, but . . .
  • Laggards were not as far off in employee success measured by first reviews, with the BiCs showing 90%, the Laggards 71%

So what do we learn about Best in Class practices?  Among other things:

  • BICs are much more likely than Laggards to have a well-defined candidate relationship management process in place
  • As a preferred response to economic stress, expanding the candidate pipeline proactively was the top choice for BiCs (39%) and scaling back on recruiting efforts was the bottom choice (14%)
  • BiCs are significantly more likely than Averages and Laggards to use a variety of pre-hire assessments

In terms of how to build/expand the pipeline of quality candidates, the top two BiC choices were:

  • Cultivating employee referrals (which entails the need to increase employee engagement)
  • Maintaining “an engaging and informative company career portal”

As for other aspect of technology–large percentages (70% to 90%) of all three maturity classes have adopted:

  • Applicant tracking systems
  • Hiring management systems
  • Background screening solutions, and
  • Online career portals (both external- and internal-facing)

The gap between BiCs and all others is also relatively small when it comes to the use of “Web 2.0 and social networking,” but in this case the percentages are all low rather than high.  Less than 30% of companies in each maturity class utilize these capabilities now, with another 30% “planning to use.”

Note that (a) this assessment leaves about 40% with neither implementation nor plan, and (b) BiCs are no further along than Laggards.  (Though of the BiCs that do use social networking tools, three-quarters say their recruiters are trained on use of the tools, while just under half of Laggard users have training in place.)

In a related Aberdeen report (HR Executive’s Guide to Web 2.0: Cracking the Code for Talent Management), a survey of more than 500 companies found that less than half were using Web 2.0 and social networking tools for talent acquisition, but noted a 105% rate of growth in use over the the previous year’s figures.  Respondents in that study identified the greatest value of Web 2.0 tools in recruitment as “[giving] the candidate a sense of the company’s culture.”

I hope anyone who gleans further insights from the Aberdeen report will share—and in the meantime, I’ll offer an additional line of thought in the next post.


(Thanks to gthomasbower for the visual mash-up of Number 2.)

How to be a Useful Expert

I recently invited Josh Hanagarne, World’s Strongest Librarian, to write a guest post for us. Josh is the twitchy giant behind World’s Strongest Librarian, a blog about living with Tourette’s Syndrome, book recommendations, buying pants when you’re 6’8”, old-time strongman training, kettlebells, and much more. Please subscribe to Josh’s RSS Updates to stay in touch.

Over to you, Josh…

How To Be A Useful Expert

Ancient Japanese Proverb

Too many boatmen will run the boat up to the top of the mountain

different-directions

Nothing is more useful than an expert.  Nothing is more useless than an expert that nobody can benefit from.

We turn to experts for answers because they’ve paid their dues to acquire bodies of knowledge that most people don’t have.  Their talents and vision are often needed to Get Things Done.  But I’ve seen groups of experts that have no idea how to work with other people.  When projects need collaborators to be successful, this can be a disaster.  If nobody else can benefit from your talents, what is your expertise really worth? 

I’ve seen this over and over in two worlds: Academics and Business

Academics

The world of academics is full of insecure, brilliant people with multiple PhDs.  Some of them have very big egos and very short fuses.  I’ve seen some very nasty arguments between geniuses about whose realm is more important and should receive more of the money. 

But I get it.  I really do.  If you have paid your dues and reached the top of your niche, it can sting when someone refuses to acknowledge your greatness and majesty. 

Not to be too obvious, but have noticed that not everyone shares the same passion?  You’ve never seen a sadder argument than a botanist trying to convince a literary theorist that botany is the Ultimate Academic Discipline.  Once things are nearing the point of blows being exchanged, the likelihood of productive partnering in the future becomes unlikely.

Whether either one of those fields is important, I’ll leave to you. 

The Private Sector

The Private Sector is no different.  Various CEOs, department heads, and top dogs from all walks of the business can develop a tendency to believe their own specialty is the most important.  Everyone has vanity, ego, and insecurities somewhere inside of them.  That’s one of the costs of being alive. 

But what happens when there is a project to work on and everyone wants to be in charge?  Sometimes you can’t afford to say, “Well, we’re all just fallible humans.  Of course we’re fighting and howling about this!  Please pass me the boxing gloves.”  

How A Cliche becomes A Cliche

I’m not a big fan of acronyms and I like superficial “Rah Rah” corporate-speak even less.  But hidden inside every cliche is something true.  Have you ever heard of TEAM, aka “Together everyone achieves more?”

Don’t roll your eyes just yet if you can help it.  It’s not the fault of the phrase that it’s been spouted around for so long that nobody can hear it without retching.  It is true that the right team can get more done than any of the single players can do alone.

A Simple But Not Simplistic Example

Suppose a corporation wants to start a website.  After the website is built, someone up high hears that these blog things are pretty sweet and now they want a blog for the corporate website.  The person at the top selects the eight department heads and says, “Get a blog going and fill it with content.  Make it work and make it work for us.” 

Now let’s go out on a limb and assume that those eight department heads don’t agree on everything 100% of the time.  How will they figure out what will go on the blog?  Whose department gets the most exposure?  How often?  Who is the best writer?  Who is the worst writer?  Does everyone believe that a blog is actually a good idea?  Does everyone agree on the reasons for why the blog exists? 

There are questions that need to be asked at the beginning of any collaborative effort. 

They don’t always get asked and then–sometimes the best you can do is try to get your mouth guard in before the punching starts.

So What’s The Answer?

People like to feel good about what they know and what they can do.  I’ve never met anyone who does not enjoy the chance to display their own skills and talents. In this example, the useful expert is the one who has something to offer to the project–not the expert who feels the need to constantly remind everyone of how many degrees they have and how much money their talents have made them. 

Maybe that’s the question to ask when a group of competent, smart, but potentially-at-odds people get together to collaborate:

What is everyone good at?  How can each person’s talent be included?  Of course, if you’re putting together a corporate blog for a media conglomerate and someone raises their hand and says, “I’m an elite botanist, give me the reins and I can totally do this!”…

Cooler heads do have their place and should also be given the chance to prevail at times. 

Thanks, Josh!

Climate Change: Clunk-Click and the Corporate Website

isolated polar bear

“UK companies are lagging on targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions”

Carbon Disclosure Project

“Emissions are falling at 0.5% per year, whereas 2-3% is needed to meet targets”

Committee on Climate Change

“UK scientists say the global average temperature could rise by 4C as early as 2060”

Met Office

“Less than half of the British think that climate change will affect them during their lifetime – and less than 20% believe their children will be affected by global warming”

Department of Energy and Climate Change

It’s not all bad but there’s more to do

The good news is that some of our top companies are showing a year on year improvement in the data they disclose. And, although the highest ever levels of emissions have been disclosed, this seems to be because more companies are able to measure and report their emissions accurately. And most of the FTSE100 do identify their responsibility KPIs and report progress against their responsibility targets.

However, there is more to do. Only 35% of the FTSE 350 disclosed reduction targets; this is lower than the 51% disclosure rate of the Global 500. Sadly, this means that the actual levels of emissions are likely to be a lot higher than disclosed this year.

What more could you do?

Some companies have signed up to the Copenhagen Communique (many from the FTSE 100); others (including many smaller businesses and individuals) have committed to the 10:10 project. This kind of public commitment, along with measurable targets and disclosure of progress towards those targets makes it more likely that you’ll reach those targets.

This is all highly commendable: indeed, vital. But we need more, and I think this is about mindset, both corporate and individual.

Corporate Mindset: Opportunity or Risk?

24% of companies identify the introduction of the Carbon Reduction Commitment in April 2010 as an opportunity (though more see it as a risk).

A quick survey just through the A’s in the FTSE 100 reveals that several are promoting their response to climate change as a business advantage:

“AMEC is at the forefront of many new innovations from low-carbon energy production, carbon capture and storage to assisting customers in carbon-proofing their management systems.”

“While recognising our role as a major producer of coal, we’re also working to meet the operational, environmental and social challenges of doing business in a carbon-constrained future… We have succeeded in capturing … methane at several of our collieries and converting it into saleable energy. Instead of venting this gas, we are using it to generate electricity or supplying it to industrial users in the form of natural gas. These enterprises also improve mine safety and our bottom line.” (AngloAmerican)

“We were the first insurance company to be carbon neutral across our worldwide operations. 77% of our people think we act responsibly towards the environment.” (Aviva)

Is there an opportunity for your business?

I’m not saying that climate change doesn’t present a risk (because it does, obviously); just that it may be possible to find the positive, and work for an approach that benefits the business as well as the environment, without greenwashing.

Individual Mindset

Businesses of all sizes and all industries clearly have an impact on emissions and therefore on climate change, though the problem isn’t due to business alone; over 40% of UK’s CO2 emissions are a result of personal choices.

Why is there this wide disconnect between what scientists are predicting, and what people believe?

The New Scientist recently published a very interesting article about climate change as a cultural and psychological phenomenon, and outlines four different ‘stories’ we tell ourselves about climate change:

  • Edenic myth: describes our climate as part of a fragile natural world we need to protect
  • Apocalyptic myth: uses the language of fear and disaster to promote a call for action to prevent climate change
  • Promethean myth: describes climate as something we need to control, but can’t
  • Themisian myth: talks about climate change using the language of justice and equity, calling for environmental justice.

This is like marketing to different niche groups. Your audience might reject the idea of climate change if presented in the Themisian myth, with the response that “it doesn’t matter what I do as an individual when country X doesn’t do anything”, while if the audience had been presented with the Edenic myth, they might be more responsive.

Like the seatbelt campaign to change people’s mindsets, persuading people to take action to deal with climate change might take years, but it needs to be done. Society is still working on changing the attitude of drivers to drink-driving; but change is coming. Nowadays it is the norm to clunk-click every trip; it must become the norm to consider climate change as readily as one would consider personal safety.

What has climate change – and perspective change – to do with corporate websites?

Your corporate website visitors are there for a variety of reasons: some business, some personal. Your corporate statement on climate change and responsibility will be read by many of them:

  • Investors and analysts – who want to understand the risks to your business but also the potential opportunities
  • Journalists – looking for the story about your business and its impact on climate change (so make it a good one!)
  • CSR analysts and activists – who want to understand your impact on climate change and your actions to mitigate those
  • Job seekers and customers – who are increasingly interested in green issues and your corporate responsibility strategy

All those visitors may be professionally interested in your climate change story, but it will also have a personal impact on them and – even if only subliminally – strengthen their awareness of the breadth and significance of the climate change issues and of the responsible actions that so many organisations are undertaking across society.

So what mindset does your website appeal to?
Do you see climate change as an opportunity as well as a risk?
Are you helping to shift the perspective of society?
Are you changing people’s minds about your business as well as about climate change?

 

 

Blog Action DayThis post is part of Blog Action Day, which this year is discussing climate change.

Previous contributions to Blog Action Day were:

2008: Celebrating the FTSE 100: action on the breadline
2007: Enticing the green investor