purpose and reputation are they linked?€¦ · may-november 2013: raise €8mln in most successful...

PURPOSE AND REPUTATION –

ARE THEY LINKED?

Prof. dr. Joep CornelissenPresentation 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 HYBRIDIDENTITY AND SOCIAL PURPOSE OF FAIRPHONE

Joep Cornelissen (research in collaboration with Ona Akemu, Jeroen Jonkman and Mirjam Werner)

AN ENTERPRISE EMERGES

8

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

1. Research question

2. Case, method and findings

3. Implications

9

OUTLINE OF SHORT PRESENTATION

How do you develop the social purpose and

identity of a social enterprise over time?

10

QUESTION

11

“AN AWARENESS CAMPAIGN ABOUT CONFLICT MINERALS”

Source: DefenseNews, National Geographic

MILITIA COMPETE FOR CONTROL OF MINES PRODUCING tungsten,

TIN, COLTAN AND GOLD

13

MARCH 2010 : AWARENESS CAMPAIGN TAKES OFF

14

FROM AWARENESS CAMPAIGN TO SOCIAL ENTERPRISE

15

THE CROWD RESPONDS

Number of visits per month to Fairphone website (February 2013—January 2014)

Source: Fairphone

“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

16

“WHAT ARE WE SELLING?”

Source: Fairphone

MAY-NOVEMBER 2013: raise €8mln in most successful crowdfunding in NL

€€

€€

€

THE PRIME MINISTER VISITS

Miquel Ballester

Prime Minister of The

Netherlands, Hon. Mark Rutte

“

19

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

Hybrid movement-led identity

(“social movement”)

Hybrid enterprise-led identity

(“social start-up”)

Hybrid compound identity (“Campaigning

enterprise”)

Definition of

organizational identity

Fairphone as a social movement that triggers

political activism and public debate concerning

social and environmental issues related to the

production and consumption of smartphones

Fairphone as a commercial, high tech enterprise

that designs, manufactures and markets a socially

beneficial, yet in the first place technologically

functional and compatible smartphone

Fairphone as an enterprise-led campaign or

campaigning enterprise, fusing political and

ethical principles of progress and debate into

the production, marketing and distribution of a

symbolic artifact for consumption

Overall objective Create public awareness of issues and mobilize

political support and political activism

Produce and market a sustainable and socially

fair phone, leading to a viable enterprise with a

societal benefit

Produce and market a product whereby the

purchase of the product becomes a conscious

political act, leading individuals to question

how they consume products

Social benefits Indirect: in instigating political action that may

lead to changes in the smartphone market, as a

key consumption category

Direct: by selling a phone, stakeholders

(including suppliers and workers, but also

imagined future generations) will benefit in a

material sense (e.g., less waste, less harmful

residues in production)

Both direct and indirect: by buying a phone,

consumers become politically active and may

besides self-reflection also join the Fairphone

movement or self-organize with others to

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

communication

Issue-led; creation and dissemination of

campaign stories leading to political awareness

and change

Product-led; manufacturing and marketing of a

high tech product, analogous to competing

smartphone brands

Symbol-led; creation of identity narratives of

social progress on a range of environmental,

social and technological causes through the

phone

Key audiences Primary: Politically motivated citizens

Secondary: corporations (as endorsers or

antagonists), opinion leaders, NGOs, media

Primary: Consumers

Secondary: Tech corporations and high tech

ventures (as competitors), opinion leaders,

industry analysts, media

Primary: Politically conscious consumers

Secondary: Tech corporations and high tech

ventures (as competitors and collaborators),

opinion leaders, industry analysts, NGOs ,

media

Primary period 2010-2012 (initial campaign) and January-July

2013

July 2013-June 2014 July 2014-March 2015

21

PHASES IN DEVELOPING THE ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTITY

Articulating a vision

Configuring the product

as a storytelling

object

Configuring the product

as a branded product

Configuring a product-

based thought

leadership position

Surfacing strategic andoperational challenges

Experiencing a meaning void

Experiencing social mission drift

Challenges and opportunities for growth and impact

1. Construing a social movement led hybrid identity at launch

2. Re-framing the hybrid identity as product-led during commercialization

3. Converging on a transformed hybrid identity at the onset of growth

Leader Re-Keying Leader Re-Keying

“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

24

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).

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

28

INTERVIEW WITH TESSA WERNINK

29

How had your role as a corporate communicator

prepared you for your experience at a social

enterprise?

What broader take-aways and lessons for the corporate

communication profession do you take away from this experience?

30

31

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?

INTERNATIONAL MUSEUM STUDY 2017:

THE REPUTATION OF ART MUSEUMS

Prof. dr. Cees B.M. van RielPresentation 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?

35

Selection of

10 countries

Selection of

18 art

museums

Target

respondents

Phase 2

Analyses and

Reporting

Data gatheringPhase 1

Preparation

Reputation of

specific art

museums

Overall

evaluation of

museums

Key

Conclusions

Largest art

museums in the

world based on

visitor numbers

All countries where

one of the most

visited art museums

is located

Visitors who can

evaluate specific

museums plus non

visitors who answer

overall questions

about museums

Data were gathered

through an online

survey between 27

April – 12 May 2017

Associations among

visitors and non

visitors

Emotional

assessment +

drivers + supportive

bahvior

Key conclusions

from the study

Developing

survey and

reputation model

A museum specific

version of RepTrak®:

Emotional

assessment + drivers

+ supportive bahvior

Additional

analyses

Determining what

impacts reputation

most, examining

differences per

country and per

museum, corporate

sponsoring etc.

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

National Art Center

Tate Modern

Van Gogh Museum

Centro Cultural Banco do Brasil

Musée National d'Art Moderne

Shanghai Museum

Museum of Modern Art

National Gallery

Reina Sofia Museo del Prado Rijksmuseum

Vatican MuseumsBritish Museum

Musée d'Orsay

Louvre Metropolitan Museum of Art

State Hermitage MuseumNational Gallery of Art

37

EXPLAINING THE SELECTION OF THE 18 ART MUSEUMS

• The specific art museums in the

world were selected based on their

annual visitor numbers*. The higher

on the list, the more visitors the

museum has had.

• In order to get a good overview of

worldwide reputations (while the

mos visited art museums are

concentrated in the Western world),

we imposed the following criteria:

– The list should contain a

maximum of 3 art museums per

country.

– The list should contain art

museums from outside Europe

and USA too.

– Museums should be measured

both in their home country and

abroad.

List of measured art museums

(based on annual visitor numbers)

1 Louvre, Paris

2 British Museum, London

3 Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

4 National Gallery, London

5 Vatican Museums, Vatican City

6 Tate Modern, London

7 National Gallery of Art, Washington D.C.

8 Musée National d'Art Moderne, Paris

9 State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg

10 Musée d'Orsay, Paris

11 Reina Sofia, Madrid

12 Museum of Modern Art, New York

13 Museo del Prado, Madrid

14 Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam

15 Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam

16 National Art Center, Tokyo

17 Centro Cultural Banco do Brasil, Rio de Janeiro

18 Shanghai Museum, Shanghai

38

Brazil

France

Italy

Japan

Netherlands

Russia

Spain

UK

USA

• The selection criteria led to the following list of 18 museums and the 10 corresponding countries to be measured:

* Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_visited_art_museums.

China

• The model for reputation measurement is based on the RepTrak®

model of the Reputation Institute. This is a validated instrument for

measuring the health of an organization’s overall reputation. The

model was adjusted to more closely match the museum sector.

• The beating heart of the model is the RepTrak® Pulse. The

RepTrak® Pulse score is based on four statements regarding the

esteem, good feeling, trust, and admiration that consumers feel

towards an organization. The RepTrak® Pulse (as a proxy for

reputation) is a direct measurement based on the four just

described and interconnected elements.

• The overall reputation (Pulse) is driven by seven elements

(shown on the left side of the Pulse) that people take into

consideration when they assess an organization regarding its

past and expected future performance. The seven drivers of

reputation are: Products and services, innovative capacity,

workplace, governance, citizenship, leadership and financial

performance. Each driver is measured by several attributes that

provide the assessments of respondents on a detailed level.

• On the right side of Pulse, behavioral consequences of reputation

are shown.

THE MODEL FOR MEASURING THE REPUTATION OF THE ART MUSEUMS

Would recommend

Trust them in crisis times

Would verbally support

Would visit

Would donate

Would workLeadership

Products

Workplace

Governance

Citizenship

Performance

Innovation

Reputation driversReputation

(Pulse)

Supportive

behaviorTailor-made museum attributes

Attractive collection

Collection distinguishes itself from other museums

Skilled employees

Inspiring collection

Innovative collections

Collection is shown in an innovative way

Sufficient free exhibition space for upcoming artists

Offers attractive jobs

Provides an appealing work environment

Committed employees

Open about her activities

Behaves ethically

Positive influence on society

Educates about art among different groups in society

Professional organization

Clear vision for her future

Does not throw money down the drain

Is interesting for companies to sponsor

39

Criteria for evaluating a museum:• Respondents had to be

somewhat or very familiarwith a museum.

• If a respondent did not answer at least 3 of the 4 Pulse questions the rating was discarded.

• A respondent was allowed to rate up to two museums.

RESPONDENT PROFILES

• In total 5065 non museum visitors have participated.

• Each of the 18 art museums had to be rated by at

least 150 respondents from its home country and by

50 respondents from any other country. 6419 museum

visitors completed the survey.*

– People that have not visited a museum in the past 3

years are often 45 to 64 years old, with a low income

and/or with a medium education.

– Museum visits are not especially frequent among a

certain age group, nor income category. But museum

visitors are predominantly higher educated.

Non museum visitors Museum visitors

Low58%

Medium33%

High9%

Low29%

Medium42%

High29%

Income

Age

Education

Low education

15% 4%

Medium education

49% 27%

High education

36% 69%

Non museum visitors

Museum visitors


0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

18-24

25-34

35-44

45-64

65-69

70+

40More 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

3 years mostly have favorable notions about

museums, such as that they are reliable, honest

and fun.

“Which of the following properties best describe a museum in general?”

Negative = Elitist, old-fashioned, boring, commercial, stuffy appearance

Functional = Expert, informative

Positive = Reliable, honest, fun, modern, prestigious, sympathetic, friendly

• For both visitors and non visitors the top 3 associations with a museum are:

1. Informative2. Expert3. Prestigious

0%

20%

40%

60%


21%

10%

37% 34%

42%

55%

Associations with museums

Negative Functional Positive

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.

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

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

Average of

10 countriesReputation scores

≥ 80 Excellent

70 - 79 Strong / Robust

60 - 69 Average

40 - 59 Weak / Vulnerable

< 40 Poor

Note: All scores are adjusted per country to adjust for cultural bias. 44

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.

15.0%

38.9%

46.1%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

Criticaster(Reputation <60)

Neither fan norcriticaster

Fan (Reputation>85)

Criticaster (Reputation <60)

Neither fan nor criticaster

Fan (Reputation >85)

* Significant at 5% level. For more information see Appendix A3.45

LEADERS ON THE SEVEN REPUTATION DRIVERS

• The seven reputation drivers

(indication of a more rational

evaluation of the reputation of an

organization) show a different pattern

than the overall reputation (more

emotional driven) ranking:

– The Louvre is again positive

and leads on 3 of the 7 drivers.

– But Tate Modern (#12 in the

ranking) is most present in the

leaderboard of the seven

reputation drivers. It has a top 3

spot with 5 of the drivers.

– The Van Gogh and

Rijksmuseum (#2 and #3

respectively) are both present in

the top 3 in 4 drivers.

• Hence, leadership at rational level

(seven drivers of reputation) does not

automatically imply a top position at

emotional (=Pulse) level.

1 Louvre 1 Louvre

2 State Hermitage Museum 2 Van Gogh Museum

3 Van Gogh Museum 3 Rijksmuseum

1 Tate Modern 1 Louvre

2 Museum of Modern Art 2 Tate Modern

3 Musée National d'Art Moderne 3 Rijksmuseum

1 Rijksmuseum 1 Rijksmuseum

2 Tate Modern 2 Tate Modern

3 Van Gogh Museum 3 National Gallery of Art

1 Van Gogh Museum

2 National Art Center

3 Tate Modern

Workplace Performance

Governance

Products & Services Citizenship

Innovation Leadership

46For underlying attribute scores see Appendix A4.

SUPPORTIVE BEHAVIOR

• People can support museums in

two ways:

1. By helping to stimulate visits

2. Support in general (e.g.

Putting trust in the museum

or donating).

• The results show that relatively

large museums are often

supported in terms of more visits,

but when it comes to support in

general of a museum the people

are more willing to help the

relatively smaller museums.

Stimulating visits

Support in general

Most supported museums

1. Louvre

2. Hermitage

3. Vatican Museums

1. Centro Cultural Banco do Brasil

2. National Art Center

3. Tate Modern

47

Would recommend

Trust them in crisis times

Would verbally support

Would visit

Would donate

Would work

TOP 3 OF PULSE, DIMENSIONS & SUPPORTIVE BEHAVIOR

#1

#3

#2

Louvre Tate Modern LouvreCentro Cultural Banco do Brasil

Van Gogh Museum

RijksmuseumState

Hermitage Museum

National Art Center

RijksmuseumLouvre /

Van Gogh Museum

Vatican Museums

Tate Modern

• Quite an interesting

picture emerges

when looking at the

different elements

from the reputation

model.

• The Louvre has the

highest emotional

appeal, expressed in

reputation, and is

most supported when

it comes to

stimulating visits.

• Tate Modern is

evaluated highest on

the rational

reputation drivers

and receives much

support that

decreases their

transaction costs.

Stimulating visits

Support in general

48

ADDITIONAL ANALYSES I: REGIONAL

DIFFERENCES IN MUSEUM EVALUATIONS

49

REPUTATION RANKINGS PER REGION

Americas EuropeAsia

• 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.

50

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

6 National Gallery, London 79.2 6 Musée National d'Art Moderne, Paris 75.1 6 British Museum, London 83.4

7 Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York 79.1 7 Museo del Prado, Madrid 74.9 7 National Gallery, London 83.1

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

18 Centro Cultural Banco do Brasil, Rio 75.6 18 National Gallery, London 69.0 18 Centro Cultural Banco do Brasil, Rio 75.4

Reputation ranking museums 2017 - Americas Reputation ranking museums 2017 - EuropeReputation ranking museums 2017 - Asia

* See Appendix A5 for the region rankings per

museum.

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

Home country

• 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.


2 Louvre, Paris 89.8

















Home country reputation ranking museums 2017

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

degree of appreciation:

– The Louvre is by far the most

familiar museum in the study

(63% of the people indicates

being somewhat familiar or

very familiar with the Louvre)

and it has the best reputation.

– The Cento Cultural Banco

do Brasil is least familiar

(19% is somewhat or very

familiar with this museum)

and it has the lowest

reputation.

– Almost all museums

inbetween follow a similar

pattern.

• Note: Familiarity in itself does not cause a good

reputation; a museum needs to do the right things

and communicate about these. And there is of

course a cycle at work: A good reputation can

increase the familiarity through word-of-mouth.

Louvre

British Museum

Metropolitan Museum of Art National Gallery

Vatican Museums

Tate ModernNational Gallery of Art


State Hermitage Museum

Musée d'Orsay

Reina Sofia


Museo del Prado

Rijksmuseum

Van Gogh Museum

The National Art Center


Shanghai Museum

74.0

76.0

78.0

80.0

82.0

84.0

86.0

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Mu

seu

m r

ep

uta

tio

n

Percentage of people that are somewhat to very familiar with the museum

55

THE IMPACT OF REPUTATION ATTRIBUTES ON A MUSEUM’S REPUTATION

• The table shows the relative impact of 18

attributes on the museums’ reputation scores

in the 10 countries combined.

• Clear is that the core product of the museum,

the collection, has the largest impact on the

reputation of a museum.

– The largest impact on the museum reputation

comes from the attractiveness of the collection

and how inspiring the collection is. But also if

the collection is different from the collection of

other museums is a key determinant of the

museum’s reputation.

– Another important aspect is the positive

influence on society of a museum.

– People also look for a large part to how

professional the organization is when judging

the museum’s reputation.

56

Impact on

reputation of

museums in

general

Products & Services

Attractive collection 8.1%

Collection distinguishes itself from other museums 6.4%

Skilled employees 5.8%

Inspiring collection 6.9%

Innovation

Innovative collections 4.8%

Collection is shown in an innovative way 5.3%

Sufficient exhibition space for upcoming artists 4.0%

Workplace

Offers attractive jobs 4.3%

Provides an appealing work environment 4.9%

Committed employees 5.1%

Governance

Open about her activities 5.3%

Behaves ethically 5.7%

Citizenship

Positive influence on society 6.4%

Educates about art among different groups in society 5.5%

Leadership

Professional organization 6.3%

Clear vision for her future 5.1%

Performance

Does not throw money down the drain 4.5%

Is interesting for companies to sponsor 5.7%

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.

57

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

DO PEOPLE KNOW WHICH ART WORKS ARE IN WHICH MUSEUM…?


Rembrandt van Rijn -De Nachtwacht

Vincent van Gogh - De zaaier

Johannes Vermeer -Meisje met de parel

Piet Mondriaan -Victory Boogie

Woogie

Jean Dubuffet -Jardin d'email

Jheronimus Bosch -Aanbidding der koningen

Pieter Bruegel –De toren van

Babel

Marlene Dumas - The First People

Karel Appel –Schildering foyer en scherm

El Lissitzsky -Proun

Jan Wiegers -Interieur bohemien

Rijksmuseum: Rembrandt van Rijn - De Nachtwacht

Van Gogh Museum: Vincent van Gogh - De zaaier

Mauritshuis: Johannes Vermeer - Meisje met de parel

Gemeentemuseum Den Haag: Piet Mondriaan - Victory boogiewoogie

Kröller-Müller Museum: Jean Dubuffet - Jardin d'email

Noordbrabants Museum: Jheronimus Bosch - Aanbidding der koningen

Boijmans Van Beuningen: Pieter Bruegel - De toren van Babel

De Pont Museum: Marlene Dumas - The First People

Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam: Karel Appel - Schildering foyer en scherm

Van Abbemuseum: El Lissitzsky – Proun

Groninger Museum: Jan Wiegers - Interieur bohemien

88%

72%

41%

37%

30%

25%

18%

13%

13%

9%

7%

9%

16%

49%

42%

16%

34%

35%

39%

28%

34%

31%

3%

13%

11%

21%

55%

41%

47%

48%

60%

56%

63%

0% 50% 100%

Right Wrong Don't know


COUNTRY REPUTATION VERSUS MUSEUM REPUTATION

Louvre

Van Gogh MuseumRijksmuseum

State Hermitage Museum

British Museum

Musée d'Orsay

Vatican Museums

Museo del Prado

National Gallery

Metropolitan Museum of Art

National Gallery of Art

Tate Modern



Reina Sofia

National Art Center

Shanghai Museum


35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

73.0 75.0 77.0 79.0 81.0 83.0 85.0

Co

un

try

rep

uta

tio

n*

Museum reputation

• The reputation of all museums

is always higher than the

reputation of the country they

are located in.

• In general, we see that the

better the country reputation,

the better the museum

reputation.

• Strikingly deviant is the

Hermitage’s reputation (81.4)

which is double the reputation of

Russia (39.8).

* Scores are taken from Reputation Institute’s Country RepTrak® study 2016.61

CITY REPUTATION VERSUS MUSEUM REPUTATION

• The reputations of the

museums are quite similar to

the reputation of the city they

are located in.

• Although also here (similar with

country reputation) the

museum reputations are often

higher than the city reputation.

• The museums that stand out

most in comparison to their city

reputation are Centro Cultural

Banco do Brasil (19.8 points

above the reputation of Rio de

Janeiro) and the Hermitage

(13.6 points above the

reputation of St. Petersburg).

* Scores are taken from Reputation Institute’s City RepTrak® study 2016.

Louvre, Paris

Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam

Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam

State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg

British Museum, London

Musée d'Orsay, Paris

Vatican Museums, Vatican City

Museo del Prado, Madrid

National Gallery, London

Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

National Gallery of Art, Washington D.C.

Tate Modern, London

Museum of Modern Art, New York

Musée National d'Art Moderne, Paris

Reina Sofia, Madrid

National Art Center, Tokyo

Shanghai Museum, Shanghai

Centro Cultural Banco do Brasil,

Rio de Janeiro

54

58

62

66

70

74

78

82

73.0 75.0 77.0 79.0 81.0 83.0 85.0

Cit

y re

pu

tati

on

*

Museum reputation

62

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).

Comparison with selected corporate

reputations1 Louvre, Paris 84.3


















Average of

10 countriesReputation scores

2017 Global RepTrak® 100

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.

Non museum visitors Museum visitors Non museum visitors Museum visitors

In order to contribute to the common good 28.0% 39.3% 80.0 88.0

To contribute to the protection of the cultural heritage of the country 47.8% 58.7% 81.0 87.7

Because it gives them a platform to entertain their clients 16.0% 23.3% 74.5 85.3

To create a more favorable image for the company 50.4% 58.0% 76.0 85.0

“Why do you think that companies would sponsor a museum?”

<multiple answers possible>

Number of times mentionedEvaluation of corporate sponsoring if

mentioned

65

GENERAL PERCEPTIONS OF CORPORATE SPONSORING

“Companies sometimes sponsor museums. To what extent do you assess this sponsoring as positive or

negative?”

76.2

85.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0


• 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.

66See 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.

Tying the company name to a museum is

good for the reputation of the company.

Companies and museums benefit

equally.

Tying a company name to the museum is good

for the reputation of the museum.

77.9 58.6 69.269.2

“We would like to know your opinion about who benefits from companies sponsoring museums.”

53.2 62.0

Non museum visitors

Museum visitors

Non museum visitors

Museum visitors

Non museum visitors

Museum visitors

67

≥ 80 Excellent


60 - 69 Average


< 40 Poor

BENEFITING FROM CORPORATE SPONSORING: CULTURAL DIFFERENCES

• In Russia, non museum visitors

are most convinced that

companies benefit from

corporate sponsoring. But they

are also least convinced that the

museums will gain reputational

benefits from this sponsoring.

• Italian museum visitors are most

positive about the effects for

companies.

• US museum visitors are most

positive about the reputation

benefits for museums.

Tying the company name to a museum is

good for the reputation of the

company.

Tying a company name to the

museum is good for the reputation of the museum.

68

≥ 80 Excellent


60 - 69 Average


< 40 Poor

Non

museum

visitors

Museum

visitors

Non

museum

visitors

Museum

visitors

Brazil 66.1 73.4 53.7 56.4

France 63.2 75.0 51.7 58.2

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

Spain 73.6 78.5 50.0 55.4

UK 73.3 80.6 57.1 62.0

USA 69.5 78.8 54.4 65.3

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.

69

41.7

27.9

6.7

8.7

15.0

44.8

31.2

11.1

10.7

2.3Donating money to themuseum

Helping with increasing thevisibility of the museum

Helping by sharingknowledge about businessprocesses such as IT

Donating products to themuseum

Don’t know


“What is the best way for a company to help a museum?”

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

purpose and reputation are they linked?€¦ · may-november 2013: raise €8mln in most successful...

Documents