British consumers are increasingly turning to social media sites to 'hashtag' and 'bashtag' brands, rather than calling their customer service centres.

Brands also feel the change, and are starting to work out the best ways to engage and tackle the social media customer.

Echo Research and Fishburn Hedges identified six actionable insights that well-known brands, such as Barclaycard, BT and Sainsbury's often practice, such as 'choosing the right battle - but entering it fast' and 'not letting social media define you'.

But how did we reach this conclusion? To start with, Fishburn Hedges ran an online poll with 2,000 consumers nationwide, followed by in-depth interviews, conducted by Echo Research, with several blue-chip companies, including PepsiCo, HSBC and Oasis.

The social media savvy brands were more than happy to speak to us about topics including: their use of social media, who is responsible for their social media sites, whether they've ever experienced a customer backlash and how they dealt with it, and how they publicise their use of social media sites.

At Echo Research, we often conduct qualitative interviews to get to the heart of an issue, while probing and prompting our way through a series of questions and answers. We find that this traditional - analogue! - method is still one of the best for understanding a customer, stakeholder or opinion former, to ensure that an opportunity or threat is understood in depth, so that clear recommendations can be accurately passed to a client.

However, as our research shows, qualitative research works exceptionally well when hand-in-hand with quantitative research. The findings are more substantive and robust, yet also are rich with ideas and opinions. On this occasion, merging the insights from customers and brands offered a truly holistic picture of the current situation from both sides of the cash till to ensure that the findings are more insightful, powerful and genuinely actionable. We also have the technology to make sense of social media through our Echo Sonar platform, sorting the digital wheat from the chaff, enabling brands and companies to understand whether there is genuinely a storm brewing or whether it's just in a teacup.

As part of Echo Research's Ethics and Environment Programme employees are able to support their chosen charity for a day during the working week, so in order to take full advantage of getting out of the office, I decided to offer my time to the PSP Association!

PSP stands for Progressive Supranucleur Palsy and is a debilitating, terminal illness that leaves the person living with it unable to walk, talk, see, or swallow. There is currently no cure or treatment for the disease. See the infographic for first signs and symptoms of the illness.

My volunteer work for the PSP Association consisted of helping out at a support group meeting, where carers and those living with PSP could meet health care professionals, and more generally have informal discussions with each other. In addition to these goodwill efforts, I also lent a hand last Sunday, on London Marathon Day.

The day's activities consisted of blowing up balloons, precariously balancing on my boyfriend's shoulders to affix directional signs to lampposts to guide the runners to our 'after party', cheering on and congratulating the fabulous athletes, ensuring that food was plentiful and the runners were catered for, and not least, to raise awareness of PSP.

This week is awareness week 2012 for the PSP Association; "A million to beat PSP". Please help us to raise awareness of this cruel disease by 'following' and 'liking' the PSP Association. The disease is often mis-diagnosed and is still relatively unknown, even by health care professionals, so every little bit of increased awareness helps!

Dan Soulas explains how what stakeholders think of your brand is responsible for an average of 31% of US share prices.

Few CEOs would question that corporate reputation ranks amongst their most important assets. However, hardly any would be able to say exactly how much it's worth.

More importantly perhaps, few would be able to say with any confidence that they knew exactly what they should be doing to manage and ultimately maximize the value it represents.

Our research, however, reveals that:

• Corporate reputation was adding close to $3.4bn of shareholder value to companies across the S&P500 as at August 2011.
• The proportion of a company's market capitalization attributable to reputation averages 31% across the S&P500.

In fact, a rise in the value of corporate reputation in the last four years has laid the foundations for the share price recovery that we see today. Although many corporate reputations suffered in the turmoil precipitated by the failure of Lehman Brothers in 2008, reputation has been an important driver of stock price growth since then.

Our analysis shows that in the immediate aftermath of the 2008 market collapse, the average contribution of reputation to company value in the S&P500 fell by 3 percentage points to 13%. Since then, it has grown steadily in absolute terms and now represents 31%.

Naturally as reputation has grown its share of company value, some companies have performed better than others. The average contribution of reputation of the largest 20% of companies (by market cap) tracked is 45%. The top performing organizations are Apple and Google with a 58% contribution.

By contrast the contribution of corporate reputation in the bottom 20% of companies analyzed is only 13% and, in many cases, poor reputation is destroying value and reducing market capitalization.

The bottom line is that corporate reputations are now underpinning investor confidence in companies' ability to deliver the economic returns expected.

On the whole, the larger, and arguably more "communications sophisticated" companies, are more successful at creating value through their corporate reputations.

Nevertheless reputational value can be a fickle friend and can, and sometimes does, change quickly. Although the reputation contribution of the companies common to both our 2011 and 2010 studies increased by an average of 11%, individual changes ranged significantly.

The 10 largest risers registered an average increase of 28 percentage points while at the other end of the spectrum the 10 largest fallers declined by 11 percentage points.

What chief executives really want to know, however, is how corporate reputation can grow shareholder value.
Our analysis shows that on average, a 5% improvement in the strength of a corporate reputation of an S&P500 company can be expected to deliver an increase in market capitalization of close to 3%.

Furthermore, a better reputation will also increase the investment community's confidence in a company's ability to deliver the returns it promises.

The bottom line is that investment in building corporate reputation pays dividends and investment in understanding which particular components of reputation offer the greatest returns will enable companies to maximize them.

In the first of Ebiquity's 3 sessions on 'brand optimisation' at BrandMAX, the discussion was about Reputation, more specifically about how social media means that there is an increasing need for Marketing and Corporate Affairs to better align their efforts and activities.

Our panel represented Marketing (Nigel Gilbert, Virgin Media), Corporate Affairs (Dominic Fry, M&S) and brand (Khaled Ismail, Tetrapak) representing both the B2B and B2C sectors. The session chair was Matthew Gwyther, editor of Management Today.

'We boobed' said the ad that M&S ran just 48 hours after the story broke that they were charging shoppers more for larger bra sizes. Dominic described how Marketing and Corporate Affairs worked swiftly and cohesively to minimise the negative impact on the brand's reputation following the story gaining traction in social media and subsequently mainstream media. They engaged the social media groups that were formed, reduced prices, apologised and turned what may have lost them market share into a share gain. "Reputation protection is a key focus for us," he said.

Nigel Gilbert described the relationship between Marketing and Corporate Affairs at Virgin Media as 'unusually close'. He said that the immediacy of the media business necessitates such closeness.

Describing his time at Lloyds Banking Group, he said he witnessed how they went from trusted High Street name to a 'pariah' during the banking crisis in 2008. It was he said a 'salutary lesson' in how to move from 'neutral to negative' in one bound. He went on to describe how 'trust is the key to reputation' and how the name change to Virgin (from NTL:Telewest) improved perceptions of by 30%. "This says a lot about the Virgin brand," he said.

He was very complimentary when asked about Sky in the context of News International and the phone hacking scandal. He knows that the scandal did have a negative impact on the Sky brand because Virgin constantly monitor Virgin and their competitors reputations and social media sentiment.

Khaled described how Tetra Pak go to great lengths to ensure that all areas of their business are aligned and that their staff do things 'the Tetra Pak way'.

He agreed with Nigel that the trust of all stakeholders is the single most important thing, "If the Nestle, Coke or Danone consumer loses trust, we can all go home." He described reputation as the 'cushion' that means stakeholders give you the benefit of the doubt in a crisis.

The panel were asked about the role of CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) in building reputation. Khaled talked about how Tetra Pak had been active in the area for a while but now consumers were demanding that they 'turn up the volume' on it. Dominic was frank about Marks & Spencer's challenge to generate an emotional response from consumers on its 'Plan A' initiative for them to make a commercial gain.

They were asked whether the inevitable cost-cutting drives many businesses are facing, might threaten initiatives that businesses put in place to build and protect reputation. 'Potentially' was the reply. Dominic talked how he manages this threat at an executive level and how risk audits help inform such decisions.

The session was hosted by Sandra Macleod of Echo Research, Ebiquity's Reputation & PR arm.

'CR' or 'CSR' or 'corporate sustainability' - whichever name you like best, Echo has a new qualification in it.

Last month I sat with French, Swiss, Greeks, Russians, Lebanese and Chinese in a Brussels hotel debating what good sustainable behaviour means and how to become better guides to our clients and colleagues on best CR practice. We'd come together at the global Centre for Sustainability and Excellence to stay abreast of the latest thinking about living and communicating corporate responsibility (CR). It was a chance to consider companies' greatest lapses into unacceptable behaviour, and their more elevated moments.

What became clear to me as we talked was how important 'due diligence' on reputational risks is. The mistake some companies make is to question stakeholders directly themselves about these things. But if the definition of reputation is "What people say about you when you've left the room", then doing your own investigations may not be the best way of getting at the unvarnished truth.

I was impressed to see how much value the workshop's moderators set by research. They saw it as a big tranche in the cycle of running a good CSR programme. The phases of identifying stakeholders, their needs and expectations, the opportunities and risks that might come from them, were all on the agenda.

Communicating and assessing success were said to be vital too - how the social and mainstream media deliver an echo of CR, as a distorted noise or a perfect sound replica.
CR reports were thought to need a test-bed of reader comment about how unique or transparent they are, or else risk being so much 'white noise'. Numbers alone are not illuminating, people said; measuring even distant 'echoes' and perspectives qualitatively gives important feedback on the journey ahead.

The risks from supply chains, and the need to measure supplier conformity to standards, came over as the 'hottest and hardest' topic. Here again, having access to research teams in remote and culturally disparate territories was important in winning intelligence about risks. It was about knowing how different stakeholders march to the beat of different drums, and comparing and reconciling the drumbeats - and for that, a good understanding of cultural relativity was crucial.

After writing a mini-thesis on the ideal CSR programme, and two hard-working, lively days in Brussels, Echo acquired another accreditation to add to the letterhead. (see above)

It's been said that what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger. Is it time to think about research and evaluation in that context, too?

Measurement has always been the bug-bear of the PR industry, with calls for standard common measures and a pure, golden bullet, to take this 'headache' away from PR practitioners and let them 'get on' with their excellent work. But therein lies the problem. No one measure answers ALL questions or needs. No one approach will do. 'Getting on with the job' depends as much on the insights and data it uses to determine direction and convince others, as the activities that surround it. Measurement depends on where you are and what the need is. Otherwise the real danger is that the wrong exam question is answered really well, with 'E' for effort as the result.

The Barcelona Principles, set by amec and the CIPR rallying other leading industry bodies to common understandings, is an important beginning, with its seven guiding principles on best practice, including that of focusing on outcomes not outputs. This Summer's Measurement Summit in Lisbon took it a stage further in setting the course for the future by building in education and models. These are essential building blocks towards what ultimately matters - getting the thinking and behaviour right.

Research among practitioners, measurement experts and summit delegates keep assuring us that we know what we should do. Like eating our daily allowance of vegetables. We know what's important. We know AVEs (advertising value equivalence) is sugary-sweet and oh-so-tempting, but empty in terms of contributing to organisational results. We also know that the strength and credibility of public relations depends on insight and data. As time goes by, we are learning how to do it and take clients with us. But like our green leafy friends, we don't always embrace it as usefully as we should do,. The healthy, desired outcome - applying measurement meaningfully for the organisation and non-PR colleagues - should be the ultimate measure of success for us all. If the PR industry doesn't rise to this challenge and opportunity, the ringing in our ears may not be wholly welcomed or uncalled for.

Fate, coincidence, alignment of the stars - call it what you want all I know is that last night I had one of those strange experiences where you feel someone out there has an inside track on your life (and I'm not ruling that out by the way as I've just re-read 1984).

Let me fill you in.

Just last week, Echo Research - the global leader in communication and reputation measurement - was acquired by Ebiquity plc, the global leader in media and marketing measurement. Put simply it means that together we can now measure and analyse how effectively a company's communication is working together to achieve its goals - are their PR, advertising, marketing, sponsorship, online etc all aligned and on message and if not why not?

Yesterday was our 'getting to know you' day, as our two teams shared ideas, approaches and were introduced to their new colleagues - an inspiring day all round. So imagine my surprise when on the way home I read Gideon Spanier's excellent article in The Evening Standard, where he very neatly outlined the breaking down of the barriers between content and advertising.

We have reached the point when neither can be seen in isolation, or as standalone components of the communications mix. Now all communications must be joined up, working together to tell the story, to tell it clearly and show that it means what it says.

So no wonder I felt like Winston Smith for a split second - this is exactly the space that Echo and Ebiquity operate in - Gideon was talking to me, about me. Then the paranoia wore off and reality set in. This convergence of media, communications and marketing and their collective impact on reputation were the precise reason that our two companies had come together. This is the direction our world is moving.

Clients have been telling us for some time now that they want to link the various strands of their communications mix across the business, to understand what the common voice is and that all are working to the same ends - but this comes with a realisation that it's far easier said than done. Gone are the days of marketing, advertising, sponsorship and communications departments working in silos - now the opposite is true - so how do they work together?

Of course social media is to blame; it always is, no matter what the subject.

To me, it's simply about authenticity. Think back to the bad old days where the consumer's voice was a letter to faceless bods in a company that didn't even know you existed. A one-way (if you're lucky two-way) conversation to share your grievances and that was it - nobody else knew about it apart from close friends, family and anyone else you cared to tell about it and ok, they may have sympathised with you but the point is it didn't change anything - we all just carried on being a bit disgruntled - that's how it worked.

Through the power of one way media they could tell you they were the most customer-friendly company in the world or had your best interests at heart but the reality could have been quite different - authenticity was undermined.

Social media has put paid to that! Nothing is secret in social media, nothing is personal and nothing can be ignored. If you let someone down, you'll hear about it on social media (ask Dave Carroll) So if you're claiming one thing in your communications and you're delivering something else - you'll know what to expect.
Okay, that's been the established model for a while now but it's brought about a subtle change whereby authenticity is now placed at the heart of everything leading companies must do - there is nowhere to hide so you might as well be up front about it and you MUST be consistent about it.

Mix your message, confuse your stakeholders or worse, fail to deliver against your promises and you'll be found out. So, no, it's not about how good your advertising is any more or how well your PR is working for you - it's about how well they're working together, how clearly they are delivering your message and how well they are instilling trust.
For those that get it right then that social media machine will shout it from the rooftops and the word will spread like wildfire - get it wrong and Room 101 awaits.

As a contemporary anthropologist of sorts working as a CCO in technology-based companies, I often felt like a Muggle - a person without magical abilities - among the Wizards.

Once in Shell, I was talking with a team of senior executives about stakeholder concerns and how we could shape our narrative to connect better. I said that we had no choice. Even Shell had to play by Muggles' rules. Because the Muggles actually rule the world. Not the Wizards.

And, sadly, there was no Platform 9 ¾ (where Harry Potter took the train to Hogwarts) where we could transit from our own energy wizardry to the Muggledom around us.

That episode came back to me recently at an event in London. It was hosted by Echo Research, Arthur W. Page Society trustee Sandra Macleod's company, to launch a new way to calculate the contribution of reputation to a company's market capitalization, called the Reputation Dividend.

Bottom line: The good news is that a value on reputation and its share in the value of a company can now be calculated! CCOs can now put a valuation on the intangible asset they help manage in discussions about resources with the C Suite, including the numbers wizards.

As the press release said, few CEOs would deny that corporate reputation is a key asset, but there has been little appreciation of its true value.

Echo Research, where I'm proud to hold an advisory role, worked with Bestra Brand Consultants for five years to create the underlying diagnostic tool "Reputation Dividend" - an objective way to monitor corporate reputation based on four factors:

• Reputation Contribution - the financial value and proportion of market cap attributable to corporate reputation.

• The comparison of the relative value of a company's corporate reputation to that of its peers and competitors.

• Isolation of nine principal components of reputation value - the individual levers of a company's reputation that do and/or could contribute most.

• Reputation Leverage - a measurement of the return on investment in corporate brand communication. The study measures the growth in market cap due to past investment or what can reasonably be expected from any future investment in corporate reputation.

So what was the worry that buzzed through my mind? And what's with the magical connection?

The worry is simple. The reputation dividend calculates the value that the corporation reputation contributes to a company's market capitalization.

And since the reputation dividend is such a neat calculation, in a CCO's discussion with the C-suite colleagues this could lead to a narrowing of the field of vision. Whereas, if used well, it will provide more breadth, depth and clarity of vision on an important component of reputation

So, it will be critical that CCOs continue using other reputation metrics in order to get to a rounded reflection of how all stakeholders see the firm and its economic, social and environmental performance.

Otherwise, a line from Gandalf, the wizard and sage in The Lord of The Rings, could be applicable, and that would be a pity: "And he who breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom."

Or am I the only one who prefers to see reputation as the sum of what ALL stakeholders think of a company, as an unbreakable construct whose total sum is greater than the sum of its parts?

In the early days of corporate social responsibility (CSR), it was enough to plant a few trees and attend the odd ribbon-cutting junket or photo opportunity. Companies could continue to support lax labour practices, and make few - if any - inquiries into the environmental conduct of their suppliers. So long as profits rolled in, customers - and shareholders - were satisfied. CSR-associated activities were seen as 'bolt-on', rather than critical to business. Indeed, our research shows that in 2000, only 11% of CEO's believed CSR to be integral to improving commercial success. Occasional CSR activity was enough, in a world where sustainable practices were seen as just another PR-related function.

Fast-forward to 2010: Global media attention has skyrocketed, trust and reputation are directly linked to sustainable practices, and both have an immediate, measurable impact on the bottom line. Clearly, the days of superficial 'greenwashing' are behind us, as evidenced by Echo's recent study 'A World in Trust,' analysing trends and practices in global CSR.
Working with the International Business Leaders Forum (IBLF), Echo's survey of over 50 global business leaders included Diageo's Paul Walsh, Coca-Cola's John Brock, and Whitbread's Alan Parker CBE among others, to analyse the latest thinking and insights in CSR. The qualitative data was complemented by business media content collected by media search engine Echo Sonar, and then scrutinised by Echo's analysts.

Our findings tell the story of a shifting landscape. Stakeholder research, feedback and co-creation are seen as key elements, while stand-alone CSR departments are in steady decline.

Indeed, an astonishing 96% of those surveyed told us that sustainability efforts needed to be integrated into their respective strategies and operations. Furthermore, 88% believe that businesses should demand similar commitments from suppliers.

This recognition comes at a critical point in time. Following BP's 'summer of the spill' and the more recent - and scarcely less devastating - toxic sludge in Hungary, companies recognise the increased global scrutiny that is upon them.

Importantly, as resources and raw materials are subject to increasing scarcity and price pressure, companies must not only improve conservation, but also drive innovation. An overwhelming 91% of interviewees believed that their companies would need to employ new technologies to address sustainability issues in the next five years in order to remain competitive. This is a clear example of sustainable practices powering business growth, and of these practices playing a greater role in long-term strategy.

Despite the fact that there has been recent doubt as to the business value of CSR, 69% of those surveyed believed that companies dedicated to long-term sustainability would see better financial results. Indeed, many organisations are holding fast in their commitment to sustainability as a business imperative, despite the decelerating effect of the recession.

The challenge is clear, the rewards evident: those companies that best integrate CSR into overall business practices will reap the rewards born of increased consumer confidence. Indeed, it was one of our interviewees who put it best, tying business and CSR together, as he said "Sustainability is conducting your business in such a way that future generations can do the same".