PURPOSE AND REPUTATION – ARE THEY LINKED?
Prof. dr. Joep Cornelissen Presentation at MCC Conference October 19, 2017 EVERYBODY (SUDDENLY) HAS A PURPOSE Purpose • True north/Reason for being/Conviction • Broader, systemic and long-term value to society • Multiple goals for multiple stakeholders • Link to UN Sustainable Development Goals
Purpose statement • Substitute for other strategic levers • Close link to organizational identity • Strategic role for corporate communication • Are organisations with a purpose more valuable to stakeholders and society; do they have stronger reputations? • What role do corporate communicators play in formulating and embedding a purpose? • How do you stay the course with a purpose, given commercial, operational or financial challenges?
4 PROGRAMME 1) Between a rock and a hard place: struggles in framing the hybrid identity and social purpose of fairphone – Professor Dr. Joep Cornelissen
2) Interview with Tessa Wernink, former Communication Director, Fairphone
3) Q&A
4) The Reputation of museums – Professor Dr. Cees van Riel
5) Q&A
6) Communicating purpose for a high tech B2B brand – Floor Schmeitz Communication Director Océ , a Canon Company
5 BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE: STRUGGLES IN FRAMING THE HYBRID IDENTITY AND SOCIAL PURPOSE OF FAIRPHONE
Joep Cornelissen (research in collaboration with Ona Akemu, Jeroen Jonkman and Mirjam Werner) 7 AN ENTERPRISE EMERGES
January 2013 March 2016 0 Phones 100,000 Phones 0 Customers 39 mln euro revenue 0 Industry Experience 32 European Countries 2 Employees 47 Employees
8 OUTLINE OF SHORT PRESENTATION 1. Research question 2. Case, method and findings 3. Implications
9 QUESTION
How do you develop the social purpose and identity of a social enterprise over time?
10 “AN AWARENESS CAMPAIGN ABOUT CONFLICT MINERALS”
11 MILITIA COMPETE FOR CONTROL OF MINES PRODUCING tungsten, TIN, COLTAN AND GOLD
Source: DefenseNews, National Geographic MARCH 2010 : AWARENESS CAMPAIGN TAKES OFF
13 FROM AWARENESS CAMPAIGN TO SOCIAL ENTERPRISE
14 THE CROWD RESPONDS
Number of visits per month to Fairphone website (February 2013—January 2014)
Source: Fairphone 15 “WHAT ARE WE SELLING?”
“We had people saying, ‘I don’t care if it’s a brick with numbers drawn on... I will still buy it..’ And that was so amazing …We were selling air for €325.”
Fairphone ex-intern, Jun 2014
Source: Fairphone 16 MAY-NOVEMBER 2013: raise €8mln in most successful crowdfunding in NL
€ € € € € THE PRIME MINISTER VISITS
Prime Minister of The Netherlands, Hon. Mark Rutte Miquel Ballester METHODS: DATA COLLECTION
• Longitudinal study of Fairphone and iterations in its hybrid organizational identity and social purpose between start of enterprise (April 2013)“ and its early growth (early 2015). • Internal data sources: • 47 interviews with 38 informants • Participant observation • Notes of leadership meetings • External data sources: • Facebook and twitter data • Newspaper coverage • Survey of buyers and followers
19 Hybrid movement-led identity Hybrid enterprise-led identity Hybrid compound identity (“Campaigning (“social movement”) (“social start-up”) enterprise”) Definition of Fairphone as a social movement that triggers Fairphone as a commercial, high tech enterprise Fairphone as an enterprise-led campaign or organizational identity political activism and public debate concerning that designs, manufactures and markets a socially campaigning enterprise, fusing political and social and environmental issues related to the beneficial, yet in the first place technologically ethical principles of progress and debate into production and consumption of smartphones functional and compatible smartphone the production, marketing and distribution of a symbolic artifact for consumption Overall objective Create public awareness of issues and mobilize Produce and market a sustainable and socially Produce and market a product whereby the political support and political activism fair phone, leading to a viable enterprise with a purchase of the product becomes a conscious societal benefit political act, leading individuals to question how they consume products
Social benefits Indirect: in instigating political action that may Direct: by selling a phone, stakeholders Both direct and indirect: by buying a phone, lead to changes in the smartphone market, as a (including suppliers and workers, but also consumers become politically active and may key consumption category imagined future generations) will benefit in a besides self-reflection also join the Fairphone material sense (e.g., less waste, less harmful movement or self-organize with others to residues in production) address consumption patterns in other industries and markets
Product Fairphone as storytelling object Fairphone as a branded product Fairphone as a symbol of political consumption
Identity-related Issue-led; creation and dissemination of Product-led; manufacturing and marketing of a Symbol-led; creation of identity narratives of communication campaign stories leading to political awareness high tech product, analogous to competing social progress on a range of environmental, and change smartphone brands social and technological causes through the phone Key audiences Primary: Politically motivated citizens Primary: Consumers Primary: Politically conscious consumers Secondary: corporations (as endorsers or Secondary: Tech corporations and high tech Secondary: Tech corporations and high tech antagonists), opinion leaders, NGOs, media ventures (as competitors), opinion leaders, ventures (as competitors and collaborators), industry analysts, media opinion leaders, industry analysts, NGOs , media Primary period 2010-2012 (initial campaign) and January-July July 2013-June 2014 July 2014-March 2015 2013 PHASES IN DEVELOPING THE ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTITY
Experiencing a Experiencing social meaning void mission drift
Articulating a vision Surfacing strategic and Challenges and opportunities operational challenges for growth and impact
Configuring Configuring Configuring a product- the product the product based as a as a thought storytelling branded leadership object product position
1. Construing a social movement led 2. Re-framing the hybrid identity as 3. Converging on a transformed hybrid identity at launch product-led during commercialization hybrid identity at the onset of growth
Leader Re-Keying Leader Re-Keying
21 “Maybe it is a fundamental identity issue. We don’t know who we are and what we are. Even if we go to the mobile world congress – from what I heard when Tessa and Miguel were there – it is very strange. People have all these phones. It is a different culture and makes us question what our values are because there is just kind of the things you learn about. Like waste when you actually produce a product. Maybe I am in this shift between something conceptual with the [initial campaign] project and then when you make the physical product people expect the product to be on time; that’s how consumerism works and then we have to meet those expectations and become a phone company that answers questions in a reasonable time” (community manager).”
22 "Here are all these questions…now that you have a product and you still want to deliver a mission. How can you set the balance straight that people still believe that you are an intervention company and still like your product, but also they keep on buying your product to support that intervention? Because you need to have something that’s cool. And it shouldn’t be too exclusive either, I think. If 25,000 people can get it and we are going to sell through operators and we are going to sell to local municipalities –so many business leads now that we’ve had –and they are all waiting for the quality of the phone –so I think it could really go quite fast if we answered all of them. But then do we still retain our credibility as [being] the company on a social mission? Now already there is that tug of war between the two. The bigger you get the harder it is to keep everyone in that balance“ (Tessa, Communication director).
23 RETURN TO A SOCIAL MISSION
“On the previous website we had a product supported by a social story. And now we have a social story that is supported by a product. And I think that that change of focus is, for me it's completely right, because... I don't want to say that we should have done that in the beginning, at the same time, I also know that we would have sold less, in a way. And maybe we wouldn't be who we are if we would have been less product-focused. So I think that it was a good decision in the beginning; that was a period –you know, crowd-funding campaign, very product-centered. Now it's a natural step that we move towards, you know: “This is our story, this is what we do, and by the way, you can buy our product to support us.” (Miquel, founder).
24 Implications
25 • Leader re-keying: activity of reframing by which a common frame “is transformed into something patterned on [itself], but seen by the participants to be something quite else” (Goffman, 1974: 44). – From “either-or” to “both-and”; – Makes a seamless whole out of seemingly contradictory elements; – Crucial to give sense to a social purpose and dual mission; – Essential towards defining a hybrid organizational identity. • Role for corporate communicators as “conscience”, as facilitators of paradoxical thinking (across stakeholder interests), and as architects of (hybrid) organizational identity
26 “I never chose to be an entrepreneur; it just happened…I can tell you it is a lot of pressure. At a certain point, you’ve worked yourself through two or three burnouts because you didn’t have time to have a burnout.”
Fairphone CEO, Bas van Abel, December 2013 INTERVIEW WITH TESSA WERNINK
28 How had your role as a corporate communicator prepared you for your experience at a social enterprise?
29 What broader take-aways and lessons for the corporate communication profession do you take away from this experience?
30 What insights do you have on what leaders and communicators can do to ensure that their organizations run the (purpose) course and avoid social mission drift?
31
INTERNATIONAL MUSEUM STUDY 2017:
THE REPUTATION OF ART MUSEUMS
Prof. dr. Cees B.M. van Riel Presentation at MCC Conference October 19, 2017 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
Studying reputations of companies is a widespread phenomenon. Studying reputations of the cultural sector is less common. Therefore, 3 years ago RSM Erasmus University, in cooperation with the Reputation Institute, started measuring the reputations of the largest art museums in The Netherlands on an annual basis. The question arises whether the (sometimes surprising) results in The Netherlands also apply to a global context.
The goal of the current study is to provide insights into the degree to which art museums are appreciated worldwide and to provide insights into corporate sponsoring of art museums.
The study will provide answers to the following questions: • Do frequent visitors of art museum have different perceptions about museums than non visitors? • What do people think about the fact that art museums are sponsored by companies? • What are the reputations of the most visited art museums in the world? • Do these reputations differ, i.e. per region or per respondent background?
34 HOW AND WHAT DID WE DO?
Selection of Developing Phase 1 Target Selection of 18 art survey and Data gathering Preparation respondents 10 countries museums reputation model
Visitors who can A museum specific Largest art All countries where Data were gathered evaluate specific version of RepTrak®: museums in the one of the most through an online museums plus non Emotional world based on visited art museums survey between 27 visitors who answer assessment + drivers visitor numbers is located April – 12 May 2017 overall questions + supportive bahvior about museums
Phase 2 Overall Reputation of Additional Key Analyses and evaluation of specific art analyses Conclusions Reporting museums museums
Determining what impacts reputation Emotional Associations among most, examining assessment + Key conclusions visitors and non differences per drivers + supportive from the study visitors country and per bahvior museum, corporate sponsoring etc.
35 More information about the survey set-up can be found in Appendix A1.
OBJECTS OF REPUTATION STUDY: 18 MOST VISITED ART MUSEUMS IN THE WORLD
Louvre British Museum Metropolitan Museum of Art National Gallery Vatican Museums
Musée National d'Art Moderne Tate Modern National Gallery of Art State Hermitage Museum Musée d'Orsay
Reina Sofia Museum of Modern Art Museo del Prado Rijksmuseum Van Gogh Museum
37 National Art Center Centro Cultural Banco do Brasil Shanghai Museum EXPLAINING THE SELECTION OF THE 18 ART MUSEUMS
• The specific art museums in the • The selection criteria led to the following list of 18 world were selected based on their museums and the 10 corresponding countries to be annual visitor numbers*. The higher measured: on the list, the more visitors the
museum has had. List of measured art museums Brazil (based on annual visitor numbers) • In order to get a good overview of 1 Louvre, Paris France worldwide reputations (while the 2 British Museum, London 3 Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York Italy mos visited art museums are 4 National Gallery, London concentrated in the Western world), 5 Vatican Museums, Vatican City Japan we imposed the following criteria: 6 Tate Modern, London 7 National Gallery of Art, Washington D.C. Netherlands – The list should contain a 8 Musée National d'Art Moderne, Paris 9 State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg Russia maximum of 3 art museums per 10 Musée d'Orsay, Paris country. 11 Reina Sofia, Madrid Spain 12 Museum of Modern Art, New York – The list should contain art 13 Museo del Prado, Madrid UK museums from outside Europe 14 Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam 15 Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam USA and USA too. 16 National Art Center, Tokyo 17 Centro Cultural Banco do Brasil, Rio de Janeiro China – Museums should be measured 18 Shanghai Museum, Shanghai both in their home country and abroad.
38 * Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_visited_art_museums. THE MODEL FOR MEASURING THE REPUTATION OF THE ART MUSEUMS
• The model for reputation measurement is based on the RepTrak® • The overall reputation (Pulse) is driven by seven elements model of the Reputation Institute. This is a validated instrument for (shown on the left side of the Pulse) that people take into measuring the health of an organization’s overall reputation. The consideration when they assess an organization regarding its model was adjusted to more closely match the museum sector. past and expected future performance. The seven drivers of • The beating heart of the model is the RepTrak® Pulse. The reputation are: Products and services, innovative capacity, RepTrak® Pulse score is based on four statements regarding the workplace, governance, citizenship, leadership and financial esteem, good feeling, trust, and admiration that consumers feel performance. Each driver is measured by several attributes that towards an organization. The RepTrak® Pulse (as a proxy for provide the assessments of respondents on a detailed level. reputation) is a direct measurement based on the four just • On the right side of Pulse, behavioral consequences of reputation described and interconnected elements. are shown.
Reputation Supportive Tailor-made museum attributes Reputation drivers (Pulse) behavior Attractive collection Collection distinguishes itself from other museums Products Skilled employees Inspiring collection Would visit Criteria for evaluating a museum:
Innovative collections • Respondents had to be Collection is shown in an innovative way Innovation Would somewhat or very familiar Sufficient free exhibition space for upcoming artists recommend with a museum. Offers attractive jobs Trust them in • If a respondent did not Provides an appealing work environment Workplace crisis times Committed employees answer at least 3 of the 4 Would verbally Pulse questions the rating Open about her activities Governance support Behaves ethically was discarded.
Positive influence on society Would donate • A respondent was allowed to Citizenship Educates about art among different groups in society rate up to two museums. Would work Professional organization Leadership Clear vision for her future
Does not throw money down the drain Performance Is interesting for companies to sponsor
39 RESPONDENT PROFILES
Non museum visitors Museum visitors • In total 5065 non museum visitors have participated. • Each of the 18 art museums had to be rated by at 50.0 45.0 least 150 respondents from its home country and by 40.0 50 respondents from any other country. 6419 museum 35.0 visitors completed the survey.* 18-24 30.0 25-34 35-44 – People that have not visited a museum in the past 3 25.0 years are often 45 to 64 years old, with a low income 45-64 20.0 and/or with a medium education. 65-69 15.0 70+ – Museum visits are not especially frequent among a 10.0 certain age group, nor income category. But museum visitors are predominantly higher educated. 5.0 Age 0.0 Income Education Non museum Museum Non museum visitors Museum visitors visitors visitors Low 15% 4% education Medium 49% 27% education Low Medium High Low Medium High High 58% 33% 9% 29% 42% 29% 36% 69% education
40 More information about the sample sizes can be found in Appendix A2. OVERALL EVALUATION OF MUSEUMS
41 2. GENERAL PERCEPTIONS OF MUSEUMS
• Even people that did not visit a museum in the past • For both visitors and non visitors 3 years mostly have favorable notions about the top 3 associations with a museums, such as that they are reliable, honest museum are: and fun.
“Which of the following properties best describe 1. Informative a museum in general?” 2. Expert 3. Prestigious Associations with museums
60% 55%
40% 42% 37% 34%
20% 21% 10% 0% Non museum visitors Museum visitors
Negative Functional Positive
Negative = Elitist, old-fashioned, boring, commercial, stuffy appearance Functional = Expert, informative Positive = Reliable, honest, fun, modern, prestigious, sympathetic, friendly
42 REPUTATIONS OF SPECIFIC ART MUSEUMS
43 GLOBAL REPUTATION RANKING
• All 18 art museums examined have a good reputation. Even the lower ranked museums have a reputation that is well above 74. • The Louvre has the best worldwide reputation: 84.3. The Louvre is quite far ahead of the rest of the pack. The Van Gogh Museum and the Rijksmuseum follow with a score of slightly below 82.
Average of Reputation scores 10 countries
1 Louvre, Paris 84.3 2 Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam 81.9 3 Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam 81.7 4 State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg 81.4 5 British Museum, London 80.8 6 Musée d'Orsay, Paris 80.6 7 Vatican Museums, Vatican City 80.4 8 Museo del Prado, Madrid 80.0 9 National Gallery, London 79.5 10 Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York 79.3 11 National Gallery of Art, Washington D.C. 79.1 12 Tate Modern, London 78.9 13 Museum of Modern Art, New York 78.4 14 Musée National d'Art Moderne, Paris 78.4 ≥ 80 Excellent 15 Reina Sofia, Madrid 78.2 70 - 79 Strong / Robust 16 National Art Center, Tokyo 77.5 60 - 69 Average 17 Shanghai Museum, Shanghai 75.0 40 - 59 Weak / Vulnerable 18 Centro Cultural Banco do Brasil, Rio 74.4 < 40 Poor
44 Note: All scores are adjusted per country to adjust for cultural bias. EVERYBODY LOVES MUSEUMS?
Are there people who are critical? And who are they? • Almost half of the respondents hands out a reputation score of more than 85 to a museum. • Yet, there are some criticasters: 15% of the respondents has given a museum a reputation score below 60. • They are mostly from China and Japan rather than Western Countries*, but do not differ in other demographic characteristics.
50.0% 46.1% 38.9% 40.0%
30.0% Criticaster (Reputation <60) 20.0% 15.0% Neither fan nor criticaster
10.0% Fan (Reputation >85)
0.0% Criticaster Neither fan nor Fan (Reputation (Reputation <60) criticaster >85)
45 * Significant at 5% level. For more information see Appendix A3. LEADERS ON THE SEVEN REPUTATION DRIVERS
• The seven reputation drivers Products & Services Citizenship (indication of a more rational 1 Louvre 1 Louvre evaluation of the reputation of an 2 State Hermitage Museum 2 Van Gogh Museum organization) show a different pattern 3 Van Gogh Museum 3 Rijksmuseum than the overall reputation (more emotional driven) ranking: Innovation Leadership – The Louvre is again positive 1 Tate Modern 1 Louvre and leads on 3 of the 7 drivers. 2 Museum of Modern Art 2 Tate Modern – But Tate Modern (#12 in the 3 Musée National d'Art Moderne 3 Rijksmuseum ranking) is most present in the leaderboard of the seven Workplace Performance reputation drivers. It has a top 3 1 Rijksmuseum 1 Rijksmuseum spot with 5 of the drivers. 2 Tate Modern 2 Tate Modern – The Van Gogh and 3 Van Gogh Museum 3 National Gallery of Art Rijksmuseum (#2 and #3 respectively) are both present in Governance the top 3 in 4 drivers. 1 Van Gogh Museum 2 National Art Center • Hence, leadership at rational level 3 Tate Modern (seven drivers of reputation) does not automatically imply a top position at emotional (=Pulse) level.
46 For underlying attribute scores see Appendix A4. SUPPORTIVE BEHAVIOR
• People can support museums in Most supported two ways: museums 1. By helping to stimulate visits 1. Louvre 2. Support in general (e.g. Would visit Stimulating visits 2. Hermitage Putting trust in the museum Would recommend 3. Vatican Museums or donating). Trust them in • The results show that relatively crisis times 1. Centro Cultural large museums are often Would verbally support Banco do Brasil supported in terms of more visits, Support in general 2. National Art Center but when it comes to support in Would donate general of a museum the people 3. Tate Modern Would work are more willing to help the relatively smaller museums.
47 TOP 3 OF PULSE, DIMENSIONS & SUPPORTIVE BEHAVIOR
• Quite an interesting Stimulating Support in picture emerges visits general when looking at the different elements from the reputation model. • The Louvre has the highest emotional appeal, expressed in Centro Cultural Louvre Tate Modern Louvre reputation, and is #1 Banco do Brasil most supported when it comes to State Van Gogh National Art stimulating visits. Rijksmuseum Hermitage #2 Museum Center • Tate Modern is Museum evaluated highest on the rational Louvre / Vatican reputation drivers Rijksmuseum Van Gogh Tate Modern #3 Museums and receives much Museum support that decreases their transaction costs. 48 ADDITIONAL ANALYSES I: REGIONAL DIFFERENCES IN MUSEUM EVALUATIONS
49 REPUTATION RANKINGS PER REGION
• The Louvre has the best reputation in both Americas and Asia, while being second in Europe. • In Europe, the Van Gogh Museum has the best reputation. In the Americas it is second, but it has a relatively low reputation in Asia (#15)*. Nevertheless, they are still number 2 at a global scale. • Museums are obviously most loved in Europe. None of the museums receive an 80+ score in Asia and only 4 in the Americas. Americas Asia Europe
Reputation ranking museums 2017 - Americas Reputation ranking museums 2017 - Asia Reputation ranking museums 2017 - Europe 1 Louvre, Paris 85.2 1 Louvre, Paris 79.7 1 Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam 85.8 2 Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam 81.4 2 National Gallery of Art, Washington D.C. 77.8 2 Louvre, Paris 85.6 3 National Art Center, Tokyo 81.1 3 Vatican Museums, Vatican City 77.0 3 Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam 85.2 4 Museum of Modern Art, New York 81.0 4 Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York 76.3 4 State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg 84.8 5 Tate Modern, London 79.5 5 British Museum, London 75.2 5 Musée d'Orsay, Paris 84.0 * See Appendix A5 for 6 National Gallery, London 79.2 6 Musée National d'Art Moderne, Paris 75.1 6 British Museum, London 83.4 the region rankings per 7 Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York 79.1 7 Museo del Prado, Madrid 74.9 7 National Gallery, London 83.1 museum. 8 State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg 78.9 8 Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam 74.8 8 Museo del Prado, Madrid 82.7 9 British Museum, London 78.4 9 Musée d'Orsay, Paris 74.5 9 Vatican Museums, Vatican City 82.7 10 National Gallery of Art, Washington D.C. 77.9 10 Reina Sofia, Madrid 73.7 10 Tate Modern, London 81.1 11 Musée National d'Art Moderne, Paris 77.8 11 State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg 73.7 11 Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York 80.4 12 Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam 77.8 12 Museum of Modern Art, New York 73.6 12 Reina Sofia, Madrid 80.4 13 Vatican Museums, Vatican City 77.0 13 Tate Modern, London 71.9 13 National Gallery of Art, Washington D.C. 80.0 14 Museo del Prado, Madrid 76.8 14 National Art Center, Tokyo 71.9 14 Musée National d'Art Moderne, Paris 79.7 15 Musée d'Orsay, Paris 76.6 15 Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam 70.9 15 Museum of Modern Art, New York 79.2 16 Reina Sofia, Madrid 76.1 16 Centro Cultural Banco do Brasil, Rio 70.3 16 National Art Center, Tokyo 78.2 17 Shanghai Museum, Shanghai 75.7 17 Shanghai Museum, Shanghai 69.2 17 Shanghai Museum, Shanghai 76.7 50 18 Centro Cultural Banco do Brasil, Rio 75.6 18 National Gallery, London 69.0 18 Centro Cultural Banco do Brasil, Rio 75.4 TWO DUTCH TOP MUSEUMS
• The Rijksmuseum is by far the most popular museum in the Netherlands (three times number one in our Dutch reputation study). However, in a global context the Van Gogh Museum appears to get a higher evaluation. This is especially the case in Europe, where the Van Gogh Museum even outperforms the Louvre. Both Dutch museums get a low ranking in Asia (Van Gogh Museum even # 15).
• The highest reputation scores are given by visitors from France, the UK and the USA, while Japanese and Chinese people are less positive.
• Both museums score high on the three reputation drivers that evaluate the attractiveness of the collection, but the Van Gogh Museum gets even higher ratings than the Rijksmuseum. They also score high on the other key drivers of reputation: societal relevance and managing the museum professionally.
• Last but not least, they benefit from the spillover effect of having the highest country image among the 10 selected countries.
51 REPUTATION RANKINGS – HOME COUNTRY ONLY
• When only looked at respondents from the home country, it is clear that Russians are very proud of their State Hermitage Museum – it receives an evaluation of 92.5. • Second is the Louvre, which is awarded with almost 90 reputation points by the French. • The British Museum is a close third.
Home country reputation ranking museums 2017 1 State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg 92.5 2 Louvre, Paris 89.8 3 British Museum, London 89.5 Home country 4 Musée d'Orsay, Paris 87.3 5 National Gallery, London 86.5 6 Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam 86.1 7 Vatican Museums, Vatican City 84.4 8 Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York 84.2 9 Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam 83.6 10 Museum of Modern Art, New York 83.4 11 Museo del Prado, Madrid 83.1 12 National Gallery of Art, Washington D.C. 81.8 13 Tate Modern, London 81.8 14 Reina Sofia, Madrid 80.3 15 Musée National d'Art Moderne, Paris 80.1 16 National Art Center, Tokyo 77.7 17 Centro Cultural Banco do Brasil, Rio 72.5 18 Shanghai Museum, Shanghai 72.4
52 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HOME COUNTRY EVALUATIONS AND ABROAD
• You would expect that museums have a higher reputation among people from their own country than from other countries, due to reasons of patriotism. • This is certainly true for the Hermitage and the British Museum which are evaluated much higher in their own country than in the 9 countries abroad. • However, it is not true for all museums in our study. For example, the Shanghai Museum and the Centro Cultural Banco do Brasil receive higher evaluations abroad than within their own country.
53 ADDITIONAL ANALYSES II: FACTORS THAT INFUENCE A MUSEUM’S REPUTATION
54 IMPACT OF FAMILIARITY ON A MUSEUM’S REPUTATION
• For museums, a larger degree of familiarity is coupled with a higher 86.0 degree of appreciation: – The Louvre is by far the most Louvre familiar museum in the study 84.0 (63% of the people indicates
being somewhat familiar or Van Gogh Museum 82.0 very familiar with the Louvre) Rijksmuseum and it has the best reputation. State Hermitage Museum Musée d'Orsay British Museum – The Cento Cultural Banco Vatican Museums 80.0 Museo del Prado
do Brasil is least familiar Metropolitan Museum of Art National Gallery Museumreputation National Gallery of Art (19% is somewhat or very Tate Modern familiar with this museum) Museum of Modern Art Reina Sofia Musée National d'Art 78.0 and it has the lowest Moderne The National Art Center reputation. – Almost all museums inbetween follow a similar 76.0 pattern. Shanghai Museum Centro Cultural Banco do Brasil 74.0 • Note: Familiarity in itself does not cause a good 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% reputation; a museum needs to do the right things Percentage of people that are somewhat to very familiar with the museum and communicate about these. And there is of course a cycle at work: A good reputation can 55 increase the familiarity through word-of-mouth. THE IMPACT OF REPUTATION ATTRIBUTES ON A MUSEUM’S REPUTATION
Impact on reputation of • The table shows the relative impact of 18 museums in attributes on the museums’ reputation scores general Products & Services in the 10 countries combined. Attractive collection 8.1% • Clear is that the core product of the museum, Collection distinguishes itself from other museums 6.4% Skilled employees 5.8% the collection, has the largest impact on the Inspiring collection 6.9% reputation of a museum. Innovation Innovative collections 4.8% Collection is shown in an innovative way 5.3% Sufficient exhibition space for upcoming artists 4.0% – The largest impact on the museum reputation Workplace comes from the attractiveness of the collection Offers attractive jobs 4.3% and how inspiring the collection is. But also if Provides an appealing work environment 4.9% the collection is different from the collection of Committed employees 5.1% Governance other museums is a key determinant of the Open about her activities 5.3% museum’s reputation. Behaves ethically 5.7% Citizenship – Another important aspect is the positive Positive influence on society 6.4% influence on society of a museum. Educates about art among different groups in society 5.5% – People also look for a large part to how Leadership Professional organization 6.3% professional the organization is when judging Clear vision for her future 5.1% the museum’s reputation. Performance Does not throw money down the drain 4.5% Is interesting for companies to sponsor 5.7%
56 See Appendix A6 and A7 for the impact analyses per museum and per country. HIGHEST PERFORMER ON THE MOST IMPORTANT ATTRIBUTES
• When looked at the 5 factors that have most impact on a museum’s reputation world-wide, we see that the Louvre is evaluated highest on all of those 5 factors. • Therefore, the Louvre may not be ranked highest among all reputation drivers, but they are ranked highest among those that matter the most.
Key attributes Impact Highest ranked museum Attractive collection 8.1% Louvre Inspiring collection 6.9% Louvre Collection distinguishes itself from other museums 6.4% Louvre Positive influence on society 6.4% Louvre Professional organization 6.3% Louvre
57 DO PEOPLE KNOW WHICH ART WORKS ARE IN WHICH MUSEUM…? DO PEOPLE KNOW WHICH ART WORKS ARE IN WHICH MUSEUM…?
Jean Dubuffet - Vincent van Gogh - De zaaier Rembrandt van Rijn - Pieter Bruegel – Jardin d'email De Nachtwacht Piet Mondriaan - De toren van Victory Boogie Babel Woogie
El Lissitzsky - Jan Wiegers - Proun Interieur bohemien
Jheronimus Bosch - Johannes Vermeer - Aanbidding der koningen Karel Appel – Meisje met de parel Schildering foyer en scherm Marlene Dumas - The First People DO PEOPLE KNOW WHICH ART WORKS ARE IN WHICH MUSEUM…?
0% 50% 100%
Rijksmuseum: Rembrandt van Rijn - De Nachtwacht 88% 9% 3%
Van Gogh Museum: Vincent van Gogh - De zaaier 72% 16% 13%
Mauritshuis: Johannes Vermeer - Meisje met de parel 41% 49% 11%
Gemeentemuseum Den Haag: Piet Mondriaan - Victory boogiewoogie 37% 42% 21%
Kröller-Müller Museum: Jean Dubuffet - Jardin d'email 30% 16% 55%
Noordbrabants Museum: Jheronimus Bosch - Aanbidding der koningen 25% 34% 41%
Boijmans Van Beuningen: Pieter Bruegel - De toren van Babel 18% 35% 47%
De Pont Museum: Marlene Dumas - The First People 13% 39% 48%
Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam: Karel Appel - Schildering foyer en scherm 13% 28% 60%
Van Abbemuseum: El Lissitzsky – Proun 9% 34% 56%
Groninger Museum: Jan Wiegers - Interieur bohemien 7% 31% 63%
Right Wrong Don't know COUNTRY REPUTATION VERSUS MUSEUM REPUTATION
• The reputation of all museums 80 is always higher than the reputation of the country they 75 Rijksmuseum Van Gogh Museum are located in. Vatican Museums National Art Center National Gallery • In general, we see that the British Museum Louvre 70 Tate Modern Musée National d'Art Moderne better the country reputation, Musée d'Orsay
the better the museum Reina Sofia Museo del Prado reputation. 65 • Strikingly deviant is the
Hermitage’s reputation (81.4) 60 which is double the reputation of Centro Cultural Banco do Brasil National Gallery of Art Russia (39.8). Museum of Modern Art Metropolitan Museum of Art
55 Country reputation*
50
Shanghai Museum 45
State Hermitage Museum 40
35 73.0 75.0 77.0 79.0 81.0 83.0 85.0 Museum reputation
61 * Scores are taken from Reputation Institute’s Country RepTrak® study 2016. CITY REPUTATION VERSUS MUSEUM REPUTATION
• The reputations of the 82 museums are quite similar to Vatican Museums, the reputation of the city they Vatican City
are located in. 78 Reina Sofia, Museo del Prado, Rijksmuseum, Van Gogh Museum, Madrid Madrid Amsterdam Amsterdam • Although also here (similar with National Art Center, Tokyo Louvre, National Gallery, London British Museum, London Paris country reputation) the Musée National d'Art Tate Modern, London Moderne, Paris Musée d'Orsay, Paris museum reputations are often 74 higher than the city reputation. Museum of Modern Art, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York New York
• The museums that stand out National Gallery of Art, Washington D.C. most in comparison to their city 70 State Hermitage Museum, reputation are Centro Cultural St. Petersburg Shanghai Museum, Banco do Brasil (19.8 points Shanghai
above the reputation of Rio de City reputation* 66 Janeiro) and the Hermitage (13.6 points above the reputation of St. Petersburg). 62
58
Centro Cultural Banco do Brasil, Rio de Janeiro
54 73.0 75.0 77.0 79.0 81.0 83.0 85.0 Museum reputation 62 * Scores are taken from Reputation Institute’s City RepTrak® study 2016. ADDITIONAL ANALYSES III: THE MUSEUM SECTOR VERSUS THE CORPORATE SECTOR
63 MUSEUMS REPUTATIONS VERSUS CORPORATE REPUTATIONS
• Museums have a reputation that is comparable to the best-in-class in the corporate sector. • About half of the museums have a reputation that is similar to or above the reputation of the most- reputed company worldwide: Rolex (with a score of 80.4).
Average of Reputation scores Comparison with 2017 Global RepTrak® 100 10 countries selected corporate 1 Louvre, Paris 84.3 reputations 2 Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam 81.9 3 Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam 81.7 4 State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg 81.4 5 British Museum, London 80.8 6 Musée d'Orsay, Paris 80.6 7 Vatican Museums, Vatican City 80.4 8 Museo del Prado, Madrid 80.0 9 National Gallery, London 79.5 10 Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York 79.3 11 National Gallery of Art, Washington D.C. 79.1 12 Tate Modern, London 78.9 13 Museum of Modern Art, New York 78.4 14 Musée National d'Art Moderne, Paris 78.4 15 Reina Sofia, Madrid 78.2 16 National Art Center, Tokyo 77.5 17 Shanghai Museum, Shanghai 75.0 18 Centro Cultural Banco do Brasil, Rio 74.4
64 CORPORATE SPONSORING: MOTIVES AND IMPACT ON EVALUATIONS
• We asked respondents why companies would sponsor a museum. We gave them four options to choose from. Two were more “altruistic” (for the common good or to protect the cultural heritage of the country) and two were more company-oriented (a platform for entertaining clients or creating a more favorable image). • In general we see that if someone thinks that the motive is more “altruistic” he/she is more positive about corporate sponsoring. – Non museum visitors mostly feel that companies sponsor museums to create a more favorable image for the company. The non museum visitors that mention this motive evaluate corporate sponsoring with a 76. – Museum visitors think that companies mainly engage in museum sponsoring to contribute to the protection of the cultural heritage of country, although this is closely followed by creating a more favorable image for the company. Regardless of the perceived motive of companies the museum visitors have a very positive attitude towards this type of corporate sponsoring.
Evaluation of corporate sponsoring if “Why do you think that companies would sponsor a museum?” Number of times mentioned mentioned
65 GENERAL PERCEPTIONS OF CORPORATE SPONSORING
• Most people find it positive that companies are sponsoring museums. Although non museum visitors are less positive than museum visitors, they still think positively about corporate sponsoring.
“Companies sometimes sponsor museums. To what extent do you assess this sponsoring as positive or negative?” 100.0
90.0
80.0 85.0 70.0 76.2
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0 Non museum visitors Museum visitors
66 See Appendix A8 for the evaluation per country. BENEFITING FROM CORPORATE SPONSORING
• Most people feel that the company is the one who benefits most from the sponsor relationship. • Especially museum visitors think that corporate sponsoring has a positive impact on the reputation of the company. • The museum’s reputation will not gain much from the corporate sponsoring according to the respondents.
“We would like to know your opinion about who benefits from companies sponsoring museums.”
Tying the company Tying a company name Companies and name to a museum is to the museum is good museums benefit good for the reputation for the reputation of equally. of the company. the museum.
≥ 80 Excellent 70 - 79 Strong / Robust 69.2 77.9 53.2 58.6 62.0 69.2 60 - 69 Average 40 - 59 Weak / Vulnerable < 40 Poor Non museum Museum Non museum Museum Non museum Museum visitors visitors visitors visitors visitors visitors 67 BENEFITING FROM CORPORATE SPONSORING: CULTURAL DIFFERENCES
• In Russia, non museum visitors are most convinced that companies benefit from Tying the Tying a company corporate sponsoring. But they company name name to the to a museum is are also least convinced that the museum is good good for the museums will gain reputational for the reputation reputation of the of the museum. benefits from this sponsoring. company.
• Italian museum visitors are most Non Non Museum Museum museum museum positive about the effects for visitors visitors visitors visitors companies. Brazil 66.1 73.4 53.7 56.4 • US museum visitors are most positive about the reputation France 63.2 75.0 51.7 58.2 benefits for museums. Italy 73.2 83.9 52.2 61.9
Japan 65.4 72.6 53.3 57.4
Netherlands 70.6 78.4 55.5 59.4
Russia 74.6 80.1 47.1 50.5
≥ 80 Excellent 70 - 79 Strong / Robust Spain 73.6 78.5 50.0 55.4 60 - 69 Average 40 - 59 Weak / Vulnerable UK 73.3 80.6 57.1 62.0 < 40 Poor
USA 69.5 78.8 54.4 65.3 68 CORPORATE SPONSORING: BEST FORMAT
• Both museum visitors and non visitors feel that the best way that a company can help a museum is by simply donating money to the museum. • Increasing the visibility of the museum is second among both groups.
“What is the best way for a company to help a museum?”
2.3 Donating money to the museum 15.0 10.7 Helping with increasing the visibility of the museum 8.7 41.7 11.1 44.8 Helping by sharing knowledge about business 6.7 processes such as IT Donating products to the museum 31.2 27.9 Don’t know
Non museum visitors Museum visitors
69 ARE THERE NO REPUTATIONAL ISSUES IN THE MUSEUM WORLD? There are three vital challenges (large) museums will be faced with the coming years:
• Crowd management – Museums are key in attracting tourists. The amount of tourists grow year by year. Museums can’t handle the stream of visitors properly and struggle in finding solutions.
• Distribution of sponsor income – The top (art) museum can easily find sponsors in the corporate world. The smaller museums have a much bigger challenge in attracting substantial monetary support. It is to be expected that in the future a percentage of sponsor money to the big museums will have to be shared with the smaller ones.
• Education – Museums have a key role in education (in addition to maintaining and protecting the national heritage). This educational task should be spread equally among all layers in society in order to avoid over emphasizing the interest of the higher educated and higher income groups. However, museums, logically see this as a very complicated task.
70 CONCLUSIONS
• Familiarity matters and is strongly linked with heritage. That is why US museums and above all European museums get a more positive evaluation. • The following key drivers of reputation matter most: attractive collections, positive influence on society, and well-managed institutions. • Positive image at country/city level, interacts strongly with high-reputed museums. • Big is not automatically being seen as best. Big means, many visitors. However, too many people at the same time in a museum does not evoke the feeling of elevation. Maybe, large numbers of visitors evoke arrogance and lack of customer focus that the relative smaller museums still can provide to their visitors. • Sponsoring can be highly helpful in getting a better reputation. Professional sponsoring is based on a win-win situation. Unfortunately, museums do not always sufficiently express the added value of the sponsor in their communication with visitors. This results – as we have seen in this study – in an assessment by the majority of museum visitors that business benefits more from sponsoring than the museums.
71 WHAT CAN COMPANIES LEARN FROM MUSEUMS IN THE AREA OF REPUTATION MANAGEMENT?
• Museums have already applied purpose-driven strategies before the word was even discovered in the business world. Museums are rooted in a tradition of serving the public by protecting the national heritage and enthusiastically promoting the enjoyment of seeing these treasures. The authentic way in which museums express their role in society in combination with taking the educational and protection of national heritage role seriously should be a source of inspiration for the business world. • Joining forces with a museum in a typical win-win situation can add tremendous value to a company as it opens up two types of opportunities. First, it enables a firm to share knowledge (both in sharing experiences and in giving products that create a more attractive museum) that can be showcased in internal (increasing organisational pride) and external platforms. This way they can illustrate the relevance of their products and underlying knowledge in a non-commercial context. Second, it enables a firm to test the application of insights and products in a market that opens up avenues in other market segments. This is not only relevant from a PR point-of-view. It also acts as an important catalyser in the learning processes in preparing employees to deal with different market demands they experience now in the museum context. This will enable them to be better prepared for new challenges they
72 Questions?
73