PURPOSE AND REPUTATION ARE THEY LINKED? Prof. dr. Joep Cornelissen Presentation at MCC Conference October 19, 2017

Transcription

1 PURPOSE AND REPUTATION ARE THEY LINKED? Prof. dr. Joep Cornelissen Presentation at MCC Conference October 19, 2017

2 EVERYBODY (SUDDENLY) HAS A PURPOSE

3 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

4 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

5 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

6 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 7

8 AN ENTERPRISE EMERGES January 2013 March Phones 100,000 Phones 0 Customers 39 mln euro revenue 0 Industry Experience 32 European Countries 2 Employees 47 Employees 8

9 OUTLINE OF SHORT PRESENTATION 1. Research question 2. Case, method and findings 3. Implications 9

10 QUESTION How do you develop the social purpose and identity of a social enterprise over time? 10

11 11 AN AWARENESS CAMPAIGN ABOUT CONFLICT MINERALS

12 MILITIA COMPETE FOR CONTROL OF MINES PRODUCING tungsten, TIN, COLTAN AND GOLD Source: DefenseNews, National Geographic

13 13 MARCH 2010 : AWARENESS CAMPAIGN TAKES OFF

14 14 FROM AWARENESS CAMPAIGN TO SOCIAL ENTERPRISE

15 THE CROWD RESPONDS Number of visits per month to Fairphone website (February 2013 January 2014) 15 Source: Fairphone

16 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 Source: Fairphone

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

18 THE PRIME MINISTER VISITS Prime Minister of The Netherlands, Hon. Mark Rutte Miquel Ballester

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 19

20 Definition of organizational identity Overall objective Hybrid movement-led identity ( social movement ) 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 Create public awareness of issues and mobilize political support and political activism Hybrid enterprise-led identity ( social start-up ) 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 Produce and market a sustainable and socially fair phone, leading to a viable enterprise with a societal benefit Hybrid compound identity ( Campaigning enterprise ) 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 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 Key audiences Primary period Issue-led; creation and dissemination of campaign stories leading to political awareness and change Primary: Politically motivated citizens Secondary: corporations (as endorsers or antagonists), opinion leaders, NGOs, media (initial campaign) and January-July 2013 Product-led; manufacturing and marketing of a high tech product, analogous to competing smartphone brands Primary: Consumers Secondary: Tech corporations and high tech ventures (as competitors), opinion leaders, industry analysts, media Symbol-led; creation of identity narratives of social progress on a range of environmental, social and technological causes through the phone Primary: Politically conscious consumers Secondary: Tech corporations and high tech ventures (as competitors and collaborators), opinion leaders, industry analysts, NGOs, media July 2013-June 2014 July 2014-March 2015

21 PHASES IN DEVELOPING THE ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTITY Experiencing a meaning void Experiencing social mission drift Articulating a vision Surfacing strategic and operational challenges Challenges and opportunities for growth and impact Configuring the product as a storytelling object Configuring the product as a branded product Configuring a productbased thought leadership position 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 21

22 22 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).

23 23 "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).

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). 24

25 25 Implications

26 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

27 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 28 INTERVIEW WITH TESSA WERNINK

29 29 How had your role as a corporate communicator prepared you for your experience at a social enterprise?

30 30 What broader take-aways and lessons for the corporate communication profession do you take away from this experience?

31 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?

32

33 INTERNATIONAL MUSEUM STUDY 2017: THE REPUTATION OF ART MUSEUMS Prof. dr. Cees B.M. van Riel Presentation at MCC Conference October 19, 2017

34 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

35 HOW AND WHAT DID WE DO? Phase 1 Preparation Target respondents Selection of 18 art museums Selection of 10 countries Developing survey and reputation model Data gathering Visitors who can evaluate specific museums plus non visitors who answer overall questions about museums Largest art museums in the world based on visitor numbers All countries where one of the most visited art museums is located A museum specific version of RepTrak : Emotional assessment + drivers + supportive bahvior Data were gathered through an online survey between 27 April 12 May 2017 Phase 2 Analyses and Reporting Overall evaluation of museums Reputation of specific art museums Additional analyses Key Conclusions Associations among visitors and non visitors Emotional assessment + drivers + supportive bahvior Determining what impacts reputation most, examining differences per country and per museum, corporate sponsoring etc. Key conclusions from the study 35 More information about the survey set-up can be found in Appendix A1.

36

37 OBJECTS OF REPUTATION STUDY: 18 MOST VISITED ART MUSEUMS IN THE WORLD Louvre British Museum Metropolitan Museum of Art National Gallery Vatican Museums Tate Modern National Gallery of Art Musée National d'art Moderne 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

38 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. The selection criteria led to the following list of 18 museums and the 10 corresponding countries to be measured: 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 Brazil France Italy Japan Netherlands Russia Spain UK USA China 38 * Source:

39 THE MODEL FOR MEASURING THE REPUTATION OF THE ART MUSEUMS 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. Tailor-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 Reputation drivers Products Innovation Workplace Governance Citizenship Reputation (Pulse) Supportive behavior Would visit Would recommend Trust them in crisis times Would verbally support Would donate Criteria for evaluating a museum: Respondents had to be somewhat or very familiar with 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. Professional organization Clear vision for her future Leadership Would work Does not throw money down the drain Is interesting for companies to sponsor Performance 39

40 RESPONDENT PROFILES In total 5065 non museum visitors have participated. Non museum visitors Museum visitors 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 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. Age Non museum visitors Museum visitors Income Education Non museum visitors Museum visitors Low education 15% 4% Low 58% Medium 33% High 9% Low 29% Medium 42% High 29% Medium education High education 49% 27% 36% 69% 40 More information about the sample sizes can be found in Appendix A2.

41 41 OVERALL EVALUATION OF MUSEUMS

42 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? Associations with museums For both visitors and non visitors the top 3 associations with a museum are: 1. Informative 2. Expert 3. Prestigious 60% 55% 40% 42% 37% 34% 20% 0% 21% Non museum visitors 10% 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

43 43 REPUTATIONS OF SPECIFIC ART MUSEUMS

44 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: 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. Reputation scores Average of 10 countries 1 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 Excellent Strong / Robust Average Weak / Vulnerable < 40 Poor 44 Note: All scores are adjusted per country to adjust for cultural bias.

45 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% 40.0% 38.9% 46.1% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 15.0% Criticaster (Reputation <60) Neither fan nor criticaster Fan (Reputation >85) 0.0% Criticaster (Reputation <60) Neither fan nor criticaster Fan (Reputation >85) 45 * Significant at 5% level. For more information see Appendix A3.

46 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. Products & Services 1 Louvre 1 Louvre 2 State Hermitage Museum 2 Van Gogh Museum 3 Van Gogh Museum 3 Rijksmuseum Innovation 1 Tate Modern 1 Louvre 2 Museum of Modern Art 2 Tate Modern 3 Musée National d'art Moderne 3 Rijksmuseum Workplace Performance 1 Rijksmuseum 1 Rijksmuseum 2 Tate Modern 2 Tate Modern 3 Van Gogh Museum 3 National Gallery of Art Governance 1 Van Gogh Museum 2 National Art Center 3 Tate Modern Citizenship Leadership 46 For underlying attribute scores see Appendix A4.

47 SUPPORTIVE BEHAVIOR People can support museums in two ways: Most supported museums 1. By helping to stimulate visits 1. Louvre 2. Support in general (e.g. Putting trust in the museum or donating). Would visit Would recommend Stimulating visits 2. Hermitage 3. Vatican Museums 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. Trust them in crisis times Would verbally support Would donate Would work Support in general 1. Centro Cultural Banco do Brasil 2. National Art Center 3. Tate Modern 47

48 TOP 3 OF PULSE, DIMENSIONS & SUPPORTIVE BEHAVIOR Quite an interesting picture emerges when looking at the different elements from the reputation model. Stimulating visits Support in general 48 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. #1 #2 #3 Louvre Tate Modern Louvre Van Gogh Museum Rijksmuseum Rijksmuseum Louvre / Van Gogh Museum State Hermitage Museum Vatican Museums Centro Cultural Banco do Brasil National Art Center Tate Modern

49 49 ADDITIONAL ANALYSES I: REGIONAL DIFFERENCES IN MUSEUM EVALUATIONS

50 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 Americas Louvre, Paris 85.2 Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam 81.4 National Art Center, Tokyo 81.1 Museum of Modern Art, New York 81.0 Tate Modern, London 79.5 National Gallery, London 79.2 Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York 79.1 State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg 78.9 British Museum, London 78.4 National Gallery of Art, Washington D.C Musée National d'art Moderne, Paris 77.8 Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam 77.8 Vatican Museums, Vatican City 77.0 Museo del Prado, Madrid 76.8 Musée d'orsay, Paris 76.6 Reina Sofia, Madrid 76.1 Shanghai Museum, Shanghai 75.7 Centro Cultural Banco do Brasil, Rio Reputation ranking museums Asia Louvre, Paris National Gallery of Art, Washington D.C. Vatican Museums, Vatican City Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York British Museum, London Musée National d'art Moderne, Paris Museo del Prado, Madrid Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam Musée d'orsay, Paris Reina Sofia, Madrid State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg Museum of Modern Art, New York Tate Modern, London National Art Center, Tokyo Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam Centro Cultural Banco do Brasil, Rio Shanghai Museum, Shanghai National Gallery, London Reputation ranking museums Europe Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam 85.8 Louvre, Paris 85.6 Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam 85.2 State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg 84.8 Musée d'orsay, Paris 84.0 British Museum, London 83.4 National Gallery, London 83.1 Museo del Prado, Madrid 82.7 Vatican Museums, Vatican City 82.7 Tate Modern, London 81.1 Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York 80.4 Reina Sofia, Madrid 80.4 National Gallery of Art, Washington D.C Musée National d'art Moderne, Paris 79.7 Museum of Modern Art, New York 79.2 National Art Center, Tokyo 78.2 Shanghai Museum, Shanghai 76.7 Centro Cultural Banco do Brasil, Rio 75.4 * See Appendix A5 for the region rankings per museum.

51 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

52 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 Second is the Louvre, which is awarded with almost 90 reputation points by the French. The British Museum is a close third. Home country Home country reputation ranking museums State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg Louvre, Paris British Museum, London Musée d'orsay, Paris National Gallery, London Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam Vatican Museums, Vatican City Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam Museum of Modern Art, New York Museo del Prado, Madrid National Gallery of Art, Washington D.C Tate Modern, London Reina Sofia, Madrid Musée National d'art Moderne, Paris National Art Center, Tokyo Centro Cultural Banco do Brasil, Rio Shanghai Museum, Shanghai

53 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

54 54 ADDITIONAL ANALYSES II: FACTORS THAT INFUENCE A MUSEUM S REPUTATION

55 Museum reputation IMPACT OF FAMILIARITY ON A MUSEUM S REPUTATION 55 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 The National Art Center State Hermitage Museum National Gallery of Art Reina Sofia Shanghai Museum Rijksmuseum Museo del Prado Van Gogh Museum Musée d'orsay Metropolitan Museum of Art Vatican Museums National Gallery Tate Modern Museum of Modern Art Musée National d'art Moderne British Museum Centro Cultural Banco do Brasil % 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Percentage of people that are somewhat to very familiar with the museum Louvre

56 THE IMPACT OF REPUTATION ATTRIBUTES ON A MUSEUM S REPUTATION 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% 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 See Appendix A6 and A7 for the impact analyses per museum and per country.

57 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

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

59 DO PEOPLE KNOW WHICH ART WORKS ARE IN WHICH MUSEUM? Vincent van Gogh - De zaaier Rembrandt van Rijn - De Nachtwacht Piet Mondriaan - Victory Boogie Woogie Pieter Bruegel De toren van Babel Jean Dubuffet - Jardin d' Jan Wiegers - Interieur bohemien El Lissitzsky - Proun Johannes Vermeer - Meisje met de parel Jheronimus Bosch - Aanbidding der koningen Karel Appel Schildering foyer en scherm Marlene Dumas - The First People

60 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' 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

61 Country reputation* COUNTRY REPUTATION VERSUS 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) Rijksmuseum Van Gogh Museum Vatican Museums National Art Center National Gallery British Museum Tate Modern Musée National d'art Moderne Musée d'orsay Reina Sofia Museo del Prado Centro Cultural Banco do Brasil National Gallery of Art Museum of Modern Art Metropolitan Museum of Art Louvre Shanghai Museum 40 State Hermitage Museum Museum reputation 61 * Scores are taken from Reputation Institute s Country RepTrak study 2016.

62 City reputation* 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) Shanghai Museum, Shanghai National Art Center, Tokyo Reina Sofia, Madrid Musée National d'art Moderne, Paris Museum of Modern Art, New York Museo del Prado, Madrid Vatican Museums, Vatican City National Gallery, London Tate Modern, London National Gallery of Art, Washington D.C. Rijksmuseum, Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam Amsterdam British Museum, London Musée d'orsay, Paris Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg Louvre, Paris 58 Centro Cultural Banco do Brasil, Rio de Janeiro 62 * Scores are taken from Reputation Institute s City RepTrak study Museum reputation

63 63 ADDITIONAL ANALYSES III: THE MUSEUM SECTOR VERSUS THE CORPORATE SECTOR

64 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 mostreputed company worldwide: Rolex (with a score of 80.4). Average of Comparison with 2017 Global RepTrak 100 Reputation scores 10 countries selected corporate reputations 1 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

65 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. Why do you think that companies would sponsor a museum? <multiple answers possible> Number of times mentioned Evaluation of corporate sponsoring if mentioned Non museum visitors Museum visitors Non museum visitors Museum visitors In order to contribute to the common good 28.0% 39.3% To contribute to the protection of the cultural heritage of the country 47.8% 58.7% Because it gives them a platform to entertain their clients 16.0% 23.3% To create a more favorable image for the company 50.4% 58.0%

66 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? Non museum visitors 85.0 Museum visitors 66 See Appendix A8 for the evaluation per country.

67 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 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. Companies and museums benefit equally Excellent Strong / Robust Average Weak / Vulnerable < 40 Poor 69.2 Non museum visitors Museum visitors Non museum visitors Museum visitors Non museum visitors Museum visitors

68 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. Non museum visitors Museum visitors Tying a company name to the museum is good for the reputation of the museum. Non museum visitors Museum visitors Brazil France Italy Japan Netherlands Russia Excellent Strong / Robust Average Weak / Vulnerable < 40 Poor Spain UK USA

69 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? Donating money to the museum Helping with increasing the visibility of the museum Helping by sharing knowledge about business processes such as IT Donating products to the museum Don t know Non museum visitors Museum visitors 69

70 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

71 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

72 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

73 73 Questions?