Our methodology

How did we create the list of companies? 

The list of companies surveyed is derived from the PwC Global Top 100 Companies by Market Capitalisation report from March 31st 2016. 

It is worth noting that the 2016 PwC ranking features 9 new companies, and that 9 companies from 2015 are not included in this year’s study – this is entirely a function of their market capitalization and not a result of changing perception strength in FutureBrand’s research. 

This changing list meant it was important when comparing this year to 2015 that we did not just look at the ranked position but also at absolute mean rating scores on the main dimensions measured, and how these compare between the two years. Because the mean ratings are monadic they are directly comparable for the two years and are the purest way to look at trends.

How did we determine our sample?

To test our hypothesis about the difference between perception and financial performance of the Global Top 100 Companies by market capitalization, we surveyed 3,000 members of the informed public in 17 countries around the world* (in the USA, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, UK, Germany, France, Russia, Turkey, South Africa, UAE, India, China, Thailand, Japan and Australia). 

Respondents are not only drawn from an ‘informed public’, in that they know about the companies in question, but that they are in professional jobs, including top leaders and managers. This is critical when we are asking about corporate organizations that sometimes have relatively low general public awareness.

Screening criteria: 

By ‘informed’ we mean aware of and know something about at least 7 or more of the Global Top 100 companies – our aim was to understand strength of perceptions and associations of those people who can show reasonable awareness:

  • By ‘informed’ we mean aware of and know something about at least 7 or more of the Global Top 100 companies – our aim was to understand strength of perceptions and associations of those people who can show reasonable awareness
  • 21-75 years old, balanced between males and females, none were unemployed or students
  • Top professional, Chairman, MD, VP/SVP or other very Senior Manager, top level Civil Servant, or similar
  • Skilled Professional, Departmental or Middle Manager, Senior Executive, Departmental or Head Teacher, or similar
  • Junior Manager, Junior Executive, Shop Owner or Owner of a Small Establishment, Class Teacher, Nurse, or similar

Respondents were asked questions about those companies based on FutureBrand’s proprietary brand associations model, as well as a series of other factors, and provided answers on a multiple choice and qualitative basis. This formed the basis of our quantitative analysis to develop a new ranking of the companies driven by strength of perception across 18 specific attributes within the dimensions of ‘purpose’ and ‘experience’.

This absolute score against those two dimensions also allowed us to classify the organizations according to one of the following four typologies:

“Corporate brands” – Organizations that have weaker perceptions in both purpose and experience and fall into two further categories of ‘indifference’ and ‘admiration’.

“Purpose brands” – Organizations whose perception strength is biased towards attributes relating to Purpose, Inspiration, Authenticity, Innovation, Thought Leadership, Individuality, Indispensability, Resource Management and Price Premium.

“Experience brands” – Organizations whose perception strength is biased towards attributes relating to Personality, Story, Attachment, Consistency, Seamlessness, People, Pleasure, Wellbeing and Respect.

“Future brands” – Organizations that have very strong and balanced perceptions across both the purpose and experience dimensions and can be seen as the most ‘future proof’. 

We used adaptive conjoint analysis to pick out the current and future drivers, patterns, strengths and weaknesses regarding the different regions and industries – driving our findings, industry sector rankings and organizations that informed global professionals believe are the ‘ones to watch’.

The qualitative responses, together with FutureBrand’s expert opinion and knowledge, formed the basis of the sector drivers and the written commentary for each leading sector organization and the broader future drivers of organizational success.

FutureBrand

FutureBrand is the creative future company: a global brand and innovation firm, part of Interpublic Group (NYSE: IPG). By seamlessly combining brand strategy, digital, retail, hospitality, product and service design, we make brand experiences for a more connected future. We work in over 20 markets around the world with clients such as Nestlé, Nespresso, Sony, Merck, Danone, Unilever and Zurich. www.futurebrand.com

QRi

QRi Consulting is FutureBrand’s global research partner for the FutureBrand Index. Working in close collaboration, QRi helped to define the research approach against FutureBrand’s initial hypothesis, as well as managing recruitment, questionnaire development, and providing in-depth analysis of the qualitative and quantitative data underpinning the report. This is informed by QRi’s extensive research, brand and sector knowledge and experience as well as their proprietary QualiQuant®methodologies.

PwC

FutureBrand has worked closely with the Capital Markets division of PwC in the UK, who kindly provided its 2016 Global Top 100 Companies by market capitalisation ranking as the basis for this research and report. The report and its findings have been informed by Capital Markets’ experience and expertise, but FutureBrand is responsible for all views, opinion and data emerging from this research unless otherwise stated.