A Case Study - ORM: Keeping Your Ears to the Ground

The Findings

Throughout the initial tracking period, the public's opinion of the 4 banks in question remained fairly constant, albeit at different reputation levels - that is until January.

Bank 1

Towards the end of January, Bank 1 experienced a backlash from local government when attempting to launch a public-service campaign. The offline media coverage was far-reaching, loud and venomous, and within a short while the effects on the bank's reputation were expected to be seen online.

On the contrary - what actually happened was quite surprising. While the ORM tool picked up a number of negative mentions, these were in fact directed at local government for seemingly coercing the bank into withdrawing their campaign.

With a temporary dip in reputation score, the result was that throughout February, Bank 1's online reputation grew stronger and stronger. Having their hand forced created a sense of empathy with the public, with the majority of criticism deflected away from the bank itself. Furthermore, when critics of the bank's withdrawal voiced their opinions, a number of respondents actually jumped to its defence.

With an already high online reputation score achieved through superior customer service levels, not only did Bank 1 survive what could have potentially been a major crisis, but their reputation thrived from doing so. However, with all eyes on the bank's upcoming actions, it cannot afford any major slip-ups in the near future or this episode may come back to haunt it.

Bank 2

Bank 2 on the other hand had the lowest reputation score throughout the investigation although tending to the positive towards the end of the test period. Their poor customer service levels, as perceived by their online customers, were negatively affecting their online reputation.

One of South Africa's most prolific online forums in fact had an established tradition of using Bank 2 as an example of what was wrong with the industry in general. A comment by one forumite went, "Bank 2 is evil! Evil! Evil! Evil!"

The majority of Bank 2's negative mentions originated from this particular forum, and interestingly, where it was criticised, Bank 1 was offered as a suitable alternative.

Bank 3

While Bank 3 reflected a higher reputation score compared to Bank 1, data showed that there was very little online noise relating to this brand. It was expected that with similar sized markets, there would have been more related mentions. The more online mentions, the more relative your reputation score becomes, and further tracking and monitoring would need to be conducted to deduce the actual strength of this brand online.

Bank 4

Around Christmas 2006, Bank 4's acquisition of an Argentinean financial institution drew a lot of praise for its financial performance and caused a spike in its online reputation score.

However, events surrounding the 10th of January conspired to pull the bank's reputation score back down. Online, the conversation started to reflect concern over the lack of security after the robbery of a branch and damage of ATM's. Whilst none of these mentions were particularly severe, the sheer quantity of negative publicity the news generated caused the graph to fall considerably. Further contributing factors to a mediocre reputation score were their practices of spam, and the launch of a new website which was not viewed favourably by the public.

Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next