After nine months of planning, and five months of nominating, analysing and judging the Social Brands 100 ranking is live! The full findings are now available to download at www.socialbrands100.com. We would love to know what you think of this year’s roll call of social brand leaders.
Congratulations to every brand listed, you prevailed over another 200 brands that were put forward at the nomination stage. To be included in the 100 shortlist is an achievement in itself, and the range and quality of brands present this year is superb. The popularity of the crowd-sourced nominations has inevitably resulted in many ‘new entrants’ into the list, and a subsequent reshuffle of brand positions from 2011.
The highest ranking brand this year is Innocent, of smoothies fame, a worthy winner that proves year-in year-out an ability to maintain a personal and human connection with its fans. While there are other household names in the top ten, Cadbury, Starbucks, ASOS, The Ellen DeGeneres Show, Cancer Research UK, there are also some less obvious names; The Met Office, ARKive, British Red Cross and giffgaff. This is something Social Brands 100 is proud of.
As outlined in earlier posts to use a methodology that ranks brands from different sectors, and of different sizes, as fairly as possible is our primary concern.
To do this we evolved our 2012 methodology from 2011 in two ways. Firstly, we increased the number of platforms, and metrics from those platforms, collected and analysed. In total we selected nineteen metrics from eight different platforms and carefully ascribed weightings to them that reflect where consumers are (fish where the fish are!), and how platforms are used. This gave us what we call our ‘Data Score’ for each brand (full details are on pages 11 and 43-46 of the Social Brands 100 publication). Secondly, we increased the weighting of the Data Score in relation to our ‘Panel Score’, which is derived from our expert panel of judges scoring each brand. This reflects the increased scope of the Data Score to assess metrics such as effectiveness and value of content posted by brands in social spaces.
Of course, you may well have your own opinion on the strengths or weaknesses of this methodology to judge your particular brand’s social performance, and consider that certain platforms or weightings could be changed. It is possible to ‘bespoke’ social performance measurement through our subsequent brand specific research. However, the intention of the Social Brands 100 methodology is to find a common ground that indicates whether the fundamental social principles of win-win relationships, active listening and appropriate behaviour are being adopted.
Amongst the insights and highlights from this year’s ranking and analysis are:
- The highest ranked brands create genuine one-to-one connections with individuals on a consistent basis
- Charity brands emerge as the best performing sector with three charities in the Top Ten, and over 25% of the top twenty.
- Google+ made its mark as a new entrant with 49 of the 100 brands adopting the platform
- foursquare remains a niche platform for the Social Brands 100 with 18% adoption compared to 22% in 2011’s ranking
The top ranked brands by industry sector were;
- Automotive – Ford
- Charity – Cancer Research UK
- Entertainment – The Ellen de Generes Show
- Fashion and Beauty – Lush
- Financial Services – Wonga
- FMCG – Innocent
- Manufactured goods – Gibson
- Media – Guinness World Records
- Retail – ASOS
- Services – Met Office
- Technology – HTC
- Telecom – giffgaff
- Travel & Leisure – Starbucks
Many of these brands will be joining us at an event to celebrate the Social Brands 100 at 4PM (GMT) today (May 29th). To follow the conversation go to @socialbrands100, and track the #sb100 hashtag. We will be taking questions from Twitter as well as the audience, so please feel free to get involved.
There is a host of additional information, detailed analysis and case studies in the full publication that is available for download, here. What do you think of the Social Brands 100 ranking this year? We’d love to know!