Ipsos Corporate Reputation

How reputation and trust affect purchase decisions and marketing efficiency

HOW DOES REPUTATION INFLUENCE PURCHASE DECISIONS?

Reputation is a key consideration in purchase decisions.

The vast majority (87%) of consumers around the world say that they take the reputation of the company into account when purchasing a product or service.

There are regional differences in intensity. Consumers in Latin America and the Middle East/Africa are the most likely to say they are “very likely” to take reputation into account.

Consumers in Europe feel less strongly about taking reputation into account (just 24% “very likely”), but still a vast majority (79%) say they take reputation into account to some extent.

HOW REPUTATION AND TRUST AFFECT MARKETING EFFICIENCY

Building a good reputation generates greater marketing efficiency for companies. When you trust someone, you are more likely to believe what you hear and act on what you’re told. Companies that are trusted gain marketing efficiencies in two ways:

  • consumers are more likely to see and believe advertising from companies that they trust AND
  • consumers are more likely to act on this advertising by purchasing goods and services while being willing to spend a premium.

Around the world, trust has an enormous impact on advertising and product use. In advertising, ad believability is impacted much more than ad memorability – so even though people who distrust a company remember the ad, they are much less likely to believe it. The most significant impact on believability comes when people move into active distrust – only 39% believe advertising for companies that they “distrust a little”. This drops to just 18% for companies who are “distrusted a great deal.” People who are “neutral” toward a company on trust, are still likely to believe the ads they see (73%). 

Product/service use overall is less impacted by trust. In fact, people who are neutral are the least likely to have ever used a company’s products or services – reflecting the role that experience plays in driving corporate trust.

Two metrics that are dramatically impacted by trust are feeling good about using a product/service, and being willing to pay a premium for it. Feeling good about using a product/service has a linear relationship with trust – as trust increases, so does the percentage of buyers’ who report feeling good about it. Being willing to pay a premium, however, has the most impact on the most trusted side of the scale, and falls dramatically among those who have a “neutral” or lower trust rating.

Advertising believability suffers most from active distrust, while willingness to pay a premium benefits the most from active trust. People who are neutral toward a company are willing to believe the ads, but they are unwilling to pay a premium. This suggests that companies that avoid distrust will be able to maintain their marketing efficiency, while those that actively build trust are more likely to reap the profits of premium pricing.

The impact of trust on belief in advertising

The impact of trust on advertising believability spans all regions and industries

Across regions, the steepest decline in advertising believability occurs when people move from “neutral” to “distrust a little.” The decline is greatest in APAC and Europe, but exists in every region.

Among the industry averages, the same inflection point is apparent and holds across industries. Automotive, pharma, and technology advertising are a bit more resilient in the face of distrust.

Maintaining trust, and avoiding active distrust, is important across all companies, everywhere in the world.

Ad believability and trust at the company level

Companies need to understand trust at the individual level.

The impact of trust on advertising believability is not as apparent at the aggregate level as it is at the individual level.

Companies with low aggregate levels of trust still have relatively high advertising believability. However, the level of believability becomes much more variable as trust decreases - all of the companies with high net trust have very high advertising believability while those with lower net trust show much greater ranges of believability.

The fact that this effect is somewhat hidden at the aggregate level means that companies need to understand trust at the individual level and be able to target those who distrust the company.

Would you spend more for a product made by a company you trust?

There is a direct relationship between trust and willingness to pay a premium. Companies with high trust can generally command a premium whereas those with low trust need to offer a discount. The impact of trust on willingness to pay remains consistent across regions and industries.

Across industries and regions, the greatest decline in willingness to pay a premium happens between people who trust a company “a little” and those who are “neutral.” The ability to charge a premium depends on actively building trust, rather than just avoiding distrust.

The willingness to pay a premium is lowest in Europe, but we see the same impact of trust on willingness to pay a premium.

Trust explains 78% of the variance in willingness to pay a premium.

The impact of trust on willingness to pay a premium is more apparent at the aggregate level.

At the aggregate level, trust explains 78% of the variance in willingness to pay a premium. This effect will be magnified when examining individual country results (rather than the global average), and when analyzing at the individual company level.

Methodology: The latest wave of the Ipsos Global Reputation Monitor, conducted in September 2017, measured attitudes of more than 23,000 consumers from 31 countries toward 66 companies across nine industries.

Read more from 'Unlocking the Value of Reputation'...

Read more from the Ipsos Global Reputation Centre...

The Reputation Council Report 2020: Full Report

Welcome to the latest edition from the Ipsos Reputation Council.

Our fourteenth sitting involves 150 senior communicators from 19 countries - making this a truly international view.

In this report, our Council members explore the newest thinking and practice in corporate reputation management and tell us how they are responding to a changing communications landscape. In a world of constant disruption there has never been a greater need for companies to actively engage with their stakeholders and wider civil society. For many, issues such as climate change, sustainability and social cohesion are no longer climbing the corporate agenda - they have reached its summit.

Indeed, it seems that even ‘hard-headed’ stakeholders such as investors no longer assess the reputation and investment appeal of a company solely through key financial ratios. They want to see evidence of a company’s broader role in society, not least because it is seen as an essential part of any sustainable business model.

We therefore took this opportunity to explore the degree to which Council members felt that the escalation in the importance of sustainability was becoming more pervasive in the corporate environment. We also asked them to highlight industries that were under the sustainability spotlight the most – as well as examples of companies that stood out as being at the cutting edge of best practice.

Many Council members asked us to include a section on communications planning in this year’s report and we were happy to oblige. Our article ‘Communications planning in a disruptive environment’ explores the major elements of the planning process, including timing, key inputs, the degree of distinction between internal and external communications and major challenges the communicator faces – now and in the future.

Part of communications planning is of course setting goals, and the management maxim that if you can’t measure it you can’t manage it, which quickly leads us to the topic of data. We were not only interested in the types of data sources Council members used, but also the way in which they integrated their data sources to provide strategic reputation insights.

We also wanted to understand the range of stakeholders Council members engaged with – if they prioritised distinctive groups, created tailored messaging and whether they were specifically targeting social media influencers: and if so, what techniques they used.

Finally, we decided to retain our popular quick-fire section from last year’s report. We asked Council members questions on a variety of subjects, such as the role businesses play, relative to the government, in fixing society’s problems and whether fake news and disinformation pose a material threat to business.

Our thanks to all members for participating in our fourteenth sitting of the Reputation Council report. We hope you enjoy this edition and please get in touch if you would like to discuss any of the issues we’ve covered, or if you have any questions about your own communications challenges.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE REPORT

 
Milorad Ajder
Global Service Line Leader
Corporate Reputation
milorad.ajder@ipsos.com

The Reputation Council Report 2018: Full Report

Welcome to the latest briefing from the Ipsos Reputation Council.

This – our thirteenth sitting – has been the biggest and most international yet, involving 154 senior communicators from 20 countries.

As Paul Polman, CEO of Unilever, once said: “reputation has a habit of arriving on foot and departing on horseback”. In the past year, a welter of high-profile reputation scandals affecting businesses, their leaders and even whole industry sectors has, once again, focused our minds on the risks and rewards of this powerful but potentially volatile asset.

Some of these scandals have posed a genuine threat to companies’ continued survival or licence to operate. Others have fizzled out. In this edition, we examine how Reputation Council members distinguish between issues which might blow up into a genuine reputation crisis, and others that are just day-to-day turbulence. What indicators or early warning systems can communicators draw on, to help them build resilience?

The technology sector has been wrestling with some unprecedented reputation issues recently. Concerns around privacy, data leaks, advertising practices, AI and automation have come together to create the phenomenon of ‘techlash’. We talk to Council members about the implications for their own businesses and the lessons that communicators can learn from the way in which the technology sector is responding to techlash.

We’re also beginning to see greater scrutiny of the role that CEOs should play in external communications, against a backdrop of issues such as pay ratio reporting, gender inequality, shrinking CEO tenures and the ‘celebrity leader’. In this edition, we explore Council members’ playbook for CEO-led communications, and look at how the CCO can ensure that these communications build, rather than destroy, reputation value.

The opportunities and challenges that come with communicating in a global context is a theme we’ve examined in past editions. In this sitting, we ask Council members how they strike the right balance between global and local messaging and narratives, and how they keep a finger on the pulse of their reputation (or reputations) around the world.

Lastly, we’ve introduced some new, ‘quickfire’ sections, in which we analyse Council members’ views on a number of contentious, topical talking points, such as the death of CSR, the distraction posed by social media, the need to pick a side in a polarising society, and whether consumers will overlook poor corporate behaviour if the price is right

I hope you enjoy this edition of the Reputation Council report. Please do get in touch if you’d like to find out more about any of the issues covered or discuss how they might affect your own business.

Milorad Ajder
Global Service Line Leader
Corporate Reputation
milorad.ajder@ipsos.com

Read more from the Reputation Council...

Read more from the Ipsos Corporate Reputation Team...