NetNames Brand Risk Index Report 2015

THE DIGITAL
BRAND RISK INDEX
A NETNAMES REPORT
JULY 2015
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION04
CEO GARY MCILRAITH
What others say about your brand speaks volumes
2
05
NETNAMES’ TOP 5 TIPS TO MINIMIZE DIGITAL RISK
06
TECHNOLOGY, COMPUTING AND ELECTRONICS BRANDS RULE THE WEB
08
Does you online reputation measure up?
08
FINANCIAL SERVICES FIRMS NEED TO BALANCE PROMINENCE
WITH SENTIMENT
10
LUXURY BRANDS FAIL TO EMBRACE ONLINE CHANNELS
11
BRAND WARS
12
Keep your digital assets under control
12
The Digital Brand Risk Index
CONCLUSION14
THE DIGITAL BRAND RISK
INDEX METHODOLOGY
15
FINDINGS16
APPENDIX: DEX METHODOLOGY
28
ABOUT NETNAMES
30
REFERENCES30
The Digital Brand Risk Index
3
INTRODUCTION
CEO GARY MCILRAITH
The world has changed. Today, the
average person spends 169 hours
online every month, devoting
more time to surfing the web than
watching television, and browsing
Facebook for longer than they
read a daily newspaper.1
For brands, this digital revolution has had a dramatic
impact. Businesses have rapidly exploited the online
opportunity to reach vast audiences, more effectively
engage followers and harness the lucrative world of
digital commerce, but the same environment also
brings new risks.
Where traditional brand channels such as advertising
or the in-store experience can be carefully controlled,
the online world presents a new frontier that’s
fundamentally open, democratic and unregulated.
Online, brands have the opportunity to build two-way
conversations that harness stakeholder communities,
and user-generated content to increase awareness and
consumer reach dramatically. However, in this liberal
internet ecosystem anyone can register a website,
social channel or domain name, offering an unrestricted
platform to counterfeiters, disgruntled ex-employees
and unauthorized third parties.
The speed, ease and anonymity with which fake websites
can now be created means brand reputations can be
tarnished in front of a global audience at little risk to
the malicious actors willing to infringe on trademarks.
From cybersquatting, typosquatting and SEO manipulation
that diverts genuine traffic to illicit websites, to harnessing
the rise of social media and mobile apps as new avenues
for illegal sales, fraudsters remain ready to exploit the
next online opportunity. They care nothing for the harm
inflicted to brand revenues, reputations and customers.
Meanwhile, the online world also means that bad news
travels everywhere fast, with consumers sharing their
experiences via social media or peer reviews in real time.
NetNames’ own research has discovered that almost
four in five people would shun a brand if they found
themselves on a bogus website and nearly half will
share bad brand experiences on social media.
4
The Digital Brand Risk Index
It is often said that a brand cannot be owned; rather it
exists in the minds of its stakeholders. Nowhere is this
truer than in the online environment, where the wider
community will ultimately determine whether a brand
succeeds or fails. This makes it essential to understand
how your brand is perceived and what is being said
about it, where and by whom. As the internet ecosystem
continues to evolve rapidly, understanding your brand’s
online presence is an essential first step towards
protecting your brand equity, reputation and
customers with a holistic and focused strategy.
This report examines the Interbrand Top 100 – the list
of the world’s leading brands across nine crucial industry
sectors, applying NetNames’ proprietary Discovery Engine
(DEX) methodology to measure their online prominence
and the sentiment of references. Read on to discover
which brands are striding ahead and which have fallen
into online pitfalls, as we pick out the key findings to help
you tread the right path in your own digital journey.
We welcome your views, thoughts and feedback to
[email protected].
Gary McIlraith, CEO NetNames.
WHAT OTHERS SAY ABOUT
YOUR BRAND SPEAKS
VOLUMES.
Consumers will avoid a brand for two years after a
bad experience, 45% will share negative experiences
on social media and 78% trust peer reviews.
Brands cannot be owned; they exist in the minds of
their stakeholders. This is especially true online, where
ongoing conversations have a huge influence on the
ultimate value of modern brands.
Without visibility into those using your brand online,
you have no control. The internet presents an open
and unrestricted environment where anyone can
exploit your reputation at little risk or expense. If
you cannot manage online perception, others will
– spreading damaging messages, selling fraudulent
goods, or cashing in on brand equity at the expense
of loyal customers.
Our market-leading monitoring technology and expert
people empower brands with the ability to measure
and control online perception as part of a holistic
protection strategy – putting brand owners back
in charge of today’s digital opportunity.
Sources: NetNames, Dimensional Research,
Pew Research.
It is often said
that a brand cannot
be owned; rather it
exists in the minds of its
stakeholders. Nowhere
is this truer than in the
online environment.
The Digital Brand Risk Index
5
NETNAMES’ TOP 5
TIPS TO MINIMIZE
DIGITAL RISK
ake centralized control over brand domain
T
names to rapidly respond to cybersquatters,
typosquatters and rogue e-tailers.
ctively monitor online reseller prices. If prices
A
are significantly lower than the brand RRP,
it is a strong indicator of illicit activity.
ngage consumers by developing a proactive
E
gTLD strategy to ensure that your legitimate
brand channels are easy to find.
udit online threats and profile key infringers
A
to make an informed choice about how best to
protect your brand and measure the success of
your efforts. Then take action using tried and
trusted enforcement methodologies.
onsider bringing in outside experts with the
C
experience and advanced technologies to
proactively monitor for threats and rapidly
enforce against brand infringements across
all your online channels, worldwide.
6
The Discovery Engine
(DEX) Prominence score is a
measure of a brand’s visibility on
the internet. DEX Sentiment
is a measure of the positivity
of the comments made
about the brand on
the internet
The Digital Brand Risk Index
OUR ANALYSIS
NetNames used its Discovery Engine (DEX) technology
to identify and classify sector-specific mentions of the
top brands, and has provided measures of the online
prominence of these brands and the sentiment of the
references made. The DEX Prominence score is a measure
of a brand’s visibility on the internet, and DEX Sentiment
is a measure of the positivity of the comments made
about the brand on the internet.
The accompanying analysis allows the production
of two distinct measures:
he DEX Prominence score is a custom metric unique
T
to NetNames that measures the relative extent of
the leading brands’ coverage across the internet by
calculating the number of web pages that feature
each brand in relation to a number of industry-related
keywords, as well as the prominence of the brand in
each occurrence.
he DEX Sentiment score is calculated by detecting
T
each appearance of the brand on the page in conjunction
with a keyword or key phrase deemed to be ‘positive’
scores +1; proximity to a ‘negative’ keyword scores
-1, giving a cumulative total score for the page (with
score of 0 being ‘neutral’). For each brand, an average
score is then calculated across all relevant pages, to
give a DEX Sentiment score, which can be separated
into positive and negative components (where the
overall score is the difference between the positive
and negative scores).
The DEX
Prominence score
is a custom metric unique to
NetNames that measures the
relative extent of the leading
brands’ coverage across
the internet
The DEX
Sentiment score
is calculated by detecting
each appearance of the brand
on the page in conjunction
with a keyword or key
phrase deemed to
be ‘positive’
For full details see page 28
The Digital Brand Risk Index
7
TECHNOLOGY, COMPUTING
AND ELECTRONICS BRANDS
RULE THE WEB
DOES YOUR ONLINE
REPUTATION MEASURE UP?
‘Fake’ Twitter users now number more than
20 million, and 31% of tweets containing company
names don’t include the corporate Twitter handle.
Measurement is critical to whatever you do online,
ensuring you can assess the impact of campaigns and
protect your brand and customers from unauthorized
content.
How you measure your online reputation very
much depends on what you are trying to achieve.
For instance, a retailer might want to track how brand
perception relates to sales during a social media
marketing campaign to evaluate its success.
With robust monitoring and measurement tools
in place, you can understand which individuals and
communities are talking about your brand, and how
this interplays with your wider strategic goals to
make more informed and impactful decisions.
Sources: NetNames, Econsultancy.
As early adopters of the
internet, it’s unsurprising that
technology, computing and
electronics brands dominate
in terms of both online
prominence and sentiment.
Amongst technology brands, the most prominent are
those that we might term ‘digital natives’: Google (36.10)
and Facebook’s (27.24) business models were only made
possible by the internet, and they still focus almost all
of their efforts and expertise online. Additionally, both
of these brands enable platforms for social sharing,
making ‘Like’ and ‘Google+’ buttons ubiquitous across
a great deal of web content. Indeed, Google’s online
prominence is almost four times greater than that of
Apple, the third most mentioned technology brand.
Across all industry sectors, technology brands also lead
the pack, with Google, Facebook and Apple once again
dominating the top three for (normalized) prominence.
Meanwhile, seven of the top ten most positively
referenced brands are also in the technology, computing
and electronics sector – with Sony (15.00), Facebook
(12.39), HP (9.78) and Samsung (9.15) accounting for four
of the top five. The brand with the most positive online
sentiment overall was Amazon (18.18). It’s notable that
Amazon is completely focused on online channels and
has recently expanded into the technology space with
offerings such as Amazon Web Services and the
Kindle e-reader.
8
The Digital Brand Risk Index
With expertise and business models that depend on
harnessing new innovations, the internet is a natural
environment for technology, computing and electronics
brands. This is supported by the fact that automotive and
aerospace companies, working in an equally technical
arena, also see strong online performance – with Ford
(7.39), Nissan (6.71) and Audi (6.59) all placing in the
top 20 for sentiment.
In addition, criminals will seize any opportunity to cash in
on the brand reputation, loyalty and trust established
by these high-profile companies online – for example,
by luring customers into revealing sensitive information
or selling counterfeit products via bogus websites.
Indeed, the higher level of online prominence seen by
technology brands may be due, in part, to this kind of
nefarious activity.
Online infringement can seriously impact brand
reputations and it’s notable that Facebook has the
greatest total volume of negative mentions of all
brands online (-5.63), closely followed by Google (-4.87).
If technology brands are to remain the rulers of the web,
monitoring online channels for infringing content on a
global basis is essential. Only by proactively defending
digital assets can technology brand owners safeguard
their reputations and customers, ultimately protecting
overall brand equity.
If technology
brands are to remain
the rulers of the web,
monitoring online channels
for infringing content
on a global basis
is essential
‘Fake’
Twitter users now
number more than
20 million
The Digital Brand Risk Index
9
FINANCIAL SERVICES
FIRMS NEED TO BALANCE
PROMINENCE WITH SENTIMENT
It is interesting to note that the
top two financial brands for
sentiment and prominence
were both payment facilitators
– Visa and MasterCard.
Clearly, these companies have managed to avoid being
negatively affected by the bad publicity following the
Libor scandal, PPI and so on. It seems that a strong
online presence has helped both companies from being
linked with the wrongdoings that consumers have seen
in offline banking. By comparison, high street brands such
as HSBC and Santander scored highly for prominence in
our sample (1.26 and 1.08 respectively), but were not as
positively referenced.
Although this may sound like good news for Visa and
MasterCard, companies like these still face an extreme
risk from fraudsters given their dominance in the financial
services and banking industries. More than a fifth (22.2%)
of all cyber-attacks against financial institutions now
involve fake websites, and 40% of business managers in
finance are highly concerned about keeping trademarks
protected in the evolving web landscape. Despite these
risks, only 55% of financial services organizations are
able to monitor their brand’s assets online, according
to our research.
overall online sentiment (0.41).
The online channel has proven extremely lucrative for
the financial services market, since access to customers
and understanding consumer behavior has never been so
easy for brands. However, this unprecedented access also
provides a gilt-edged opportunity for criminals to target
genuine customers.
Modern financial services firms are well aware of the
potential threats that cybercriminals like cybersquatters
and typosquatters can pose. The firms that scored highly
in terms of sentiment are likely to be those that promote
the fact that their brand and digital assets are well
protected, and that their customers’ exposure to such
threats are minimized. Of course, the firm’s reputation
must also be upheld across affiliate sites, since partner
businesses can often misuse a company’s name and/or
corporate logo, which can also damage the perception
of the brand.
The long-term fallout from brand reputation damage
is aptly illustrated by the negative sentiment that still
surrounds another financial brand, Goldman Sachs (-1.89),
many years after the 2008 banking crisis. Even today,
Goldman Sachs remains in the bottom ten brands by
10
The Digital Brand Risk Index
22.2%
of all cyber-attacks
against financial
institutions now
involve fake
websites
LUXURY BRANDS FAIL TO
EMBRACE ONLINE CHANNELS
The luxury industry performs
poorly in terms of online
sentiment.
Of the luxury brands surveyed, Cartier (3.47) has the
highest overall sentiment score, but barely stays within
the top half of all the brands analyzed in this report.
Meanwhile Tiffany & Co (-0.65) has the lowest online
sentiment not just among luxury brands, but also among
them all – with both Prada (0.33) and Ralph Lauren
(0.74) appearing in the bottom 15 too.
40%
Interestingly, our analysis reveals that luxury brands that
have both higher online prominence and more positive
sentiment tend to suffer from more negative mentions
as well. As a traditional industry with well-established
target markets, luxury brands have been reluctant to
engage with the online ecosystem. Generally low levels
of online prominence suggest that luxury brands are still
not utilizing these channels enough, while the relatively
high levels of negative sentiment for those that are more
prominent suggests that they are not protecting their
digital domains effectively.
As such, luxury retailers are right to approach online
channels with caution. As some of the most sought-after
brands in the world, fraudsters will exploit consumer
demand wherever possible – as the fake goods now
flooding auction sites and rogue websites demonstrate.
Customers who unknowingly buy fake goods often
attribute the product’s lack of quality and durability
to the brand itself, damaging reputations and creating
negative sentiment online.
However, the online world also offers huge business
advantages, such as global reach and the ability to build
stronger relationships with stakeholders. Therefore,
luxury brands must look to develop and deploy an
effective online strategy that not only boosts their
prominence, but also ensures that they are being
mentioned online only by legitimate sources.
of business managers in
finance are highly concerned
about keeping trademarks
protected in the evolving
web landscape
The Digital Brand Risk Index
11
BRAND WARS
KEEP YOUR DIGITAL
ASSETS UNDER CONTROL
A dropped domain name costs over 50 times
more to re-register from a cybersquatter than to
renew normally.
The importance of having a clear strategy for the
management of digital brand assets has never been
more crucial to success.
From controlling appearances of your brand’s logo
to mapping out an effective domain name strategy,
digital assets are a vital, valuable and extremely
visible part of every brand’s online life.
NetNames advises organizations of all sizes on the
right strategies to protect critical digital assets,
while keeping online spending under control.
Sources: NetNames, Econsultancy.
The most competitive industries
for online brands today are
automotive and aerospace,
financial services and banking
and food and drink.
In all of these industries, there is little separation in
terms of either online prominence or sentiment between
the leading players. For instance, five automotive and
aerospace brands appear inside the top 25 for overall
online sentiment, while the difference between the five
most prominent brands also covers a relatively narrow
spectrum (4.21–2.25).
A strong reputation could not be more crucial for brands
in these industries. While vast sums are often invested
in driving greater online prominence and boosting SEO,
customer trust and loyalty is harder to earn. Brands
in these hyper- competitive industries must carefully
monitor their online presence to ensure that any negative
mentions are legitimate and that fraudulent activity or
IP infringements are rapidly removed. By proactively
defending their online reputations, these brands have
an opportunity to steal a march on the competition.
Meanwhile, other industries are dominated by one or
two brands alone. Disney (1.75) reigns supreme in the
media and entertainment industry, with more than four
times the prominence of the next most mentioned
brand, MTV (0.42). Similarly, Colgate (0.60) stands out
against other FMCG brands online, its closest rivals being
Gillette (0.02) and Johnson & Johnson (0.02). Meanwhile,
Amazon (15.90) has unquestionable online prominence in
the fashion and retail industry, with Adidas (2.51) and Nike
(1.82) being its closest peers.
12
The Digital Brand Risk Index
Unfortunately, the brands in these sectors can become
victims of their own success. Having invested in
establishing a strong online reputation, these brands
are now the clear choice for fraudsters looking to
exploit lucrative brand equity for their own purposes.
It’s even more crucial, then, for these brands to pay
careful attention to risks in the unregulated online world.
The dangers are many and varied, from trademark abuse
to fake social media profiles and domain name hijacking.
Brands often find it difficult to assess their exposure
to these problems accurately, making a proactive and
effective brand protection strategy essential
to safeguarding digital success.
A dropped
domain name costs
50 times
more to re-register
from a cybersquatter
than to renew
normally
The Digital Brand Risk Index
13
CONCLUSION
Today’s digital brands must
work harder than ever before to
remain present, protected and
prosperous online. The insightful
and often surprising results of
our Digital Brand Risk Index
reveal just how difficult it can be
to gain a clear understanding of
online exposure in today’s open
and unregulated ecosystem.
As the web continues to evolve and fragment with the
rise of mobile, social and new gTLD addresses, brands
face both huge opportunities and serious risks. Now is
the time to develop and deploy a proactive and effective
digital strategy to safeguard customer confidence,
brand equity, sales and revenues online.
First, brands must work to understand their digital
presence: where they’re being seen, how large their
digital footprint is, how much online activity is authorized
and how much is from third-parties such as customers,
partners and resellers. Next, they must go further:
understand what’s being said, by whom and why.
Only with this insight can brands take the necessary
actions to protect their reputations from illegal and
illicit activity. This will ultimately enable brands to
remain prosperous, squeezing the best possible results
from lucrative online channels, as well as informing
new digital strategies that can drive growth and
outwit competitors.
14
With market-leading monitoring technology and
specialized analysis and enforcement teams, NetNames
has the expert, global capabilities to help brands take
control of their online presence, from the fundamental
things such as domain management and acquisition
services to more damaging issues such as brand
protection, anti-piracy, anti-counterfeiting and
online security.
To learn more about how NetNames can help,
please contact [email protected].
As the web
continues to evolve and
fragment with the rise of
mobile, social and new gTLD
addresses, brands face both
huge opportunities and
serious risks.
The Digital Brand Risk Index
THE DIGITAL BRAND RISK
INDEX METHODOLOGY
This document presents
the results of an analysis by
NetNames into the online
appearances of 100 major brands,
taken from the list of 100 top
brands compiled by Interbrand.
The analysis uses NetNames’ Discovery Engine (‘DEX’)
methodology to provide measures of the online
prominence of, and the sentiment of the references to,
these brands. Before the analysis, the brands were divided
into a set of nine industry sectors (‘automotive and
aerospace’, ‘fashion and retail’, etc).
NetNames used its DEX technology to identify and
classify mentions of the 100 brands. The system crawled
the internet over a period from 26 February to 6 March
2015, during which time the system analyzed a sample of
over 57,000 of the most highly search-engine-ranked web
pages featuring keywords related to the industry sectors
of the brands in question (and identifying mentions of at
least one of the brands of interest on over 19,000 pages).
A reference to a particular brand was deemed to have
been identified on a webpage if a mention of the brand
name was found near to any of a number of ‘relevance
keywords’ relating to the industry sector of that brand.
DISCOVERY ENGINE (DEX)
PROMINENCE SCORE
The DEX Prominence score is a custom metric unique to
NetNames that accurately measures the relative extent
of total brand coverage across the internet by calculating
the number of webpages that feature each brand, as
well as the prominence of the brand on each page. This
statistic provides a measure of the relative likelihood of
the brands being indexed in a set of search-engine results.
The DEX Prominence score is a far more representative
comparison of online prominence than a simple count of
webpage appearances. It combines the following statistics
within a unique algorithm (see Appendix A.1):
he number of webpages and distinct websites
T
(‘hosts’) that feature references to each brand.
he prominence of the mention of the brand within
T
the page (eg higher prominence is granted to brand
appearance in a domain name; lower prominence
for a brief mention in page content).
rand ‘concentration’ on each host (ie the average
B
number of relevant webpages per host).
otal internet coverage of all brands
T
under consideration.
Because the DEX Prominence score is a function of
the total numbers of pages classified, it is also
sometimes desirable to ‘normalize’ the final scores
(by the multiplication of a constant scaling factor),
so that (for example) the mean score across all brands
is the same for consecutive studies, to allow comparison
of relative prominences between the studies.
DISCOVERY ENGINE (DEX)
SENTIMENT SCORE
The DEX Sentiment score provides a measure of the
average sentiment (positive or negative) of the context in
which the brands are mentioned online. This is calculated
by measuring the prevalence (reflecting both volume
and strength) of positive references against negative
references across the internet for each brand, based
on appearances of the brand near to any of a library
of positive or negative keywords and key phrases
(see Appendix A.2).
The Digital Brand Risk Index
15
FINDINGS
The DEX Prominence and Sentiment scores across all 100 brands are shown in the table below.
Table 1: DEX Prominence and Sentiment scores across all 100 brands
DEX
Prominence
DEX
Sentiment
DEX
Sentiment
DEX
Sentiment
(overall)
(+ve)
(-ve)
2.95
4.15
-1.2
3.23
4.36
-1.13
2.51
8.8
9.65
-0.85
1.6
4.76
7.57
-2.81
Brand
Industry
3M
Technology, Computing & Electronics
0.23
Accenture
Financial Services & Banking
0.13
Adidas
Fashion & Retail
Adobe
Technology, Computing & Electronics
Allianz
Financial Services & Banking
0.2
0.87
2.45
-1.58
Amazon
Fashion & Retail
15.9
18.18
20.42
-2.24
American Express
Financial Services & Banking
0.63
1.28
2.76
-1.48
Apple
Technology, Computing & Electronics
10.03
3.3
7.5
-4.19
Audi
Automotive & Aerospace
2.81
6.59
9.96
-3.37
AXA
Financial Services & Banking
0.55
0.04
2.09
-2.05
BMW
Automotive & Aerospace
2.52
4.79
6.77
-1.98
Budweiser
Food & Drink
0.05
1.07
1.85
-0.78
Burberry
Luxury
0.27
2.42
2.9
-0.47
Canon
Technology, Computing & Electronics
1.52
6.98
8.25
-1.27
Cartier
Luxury
0.11
3.47
3.93
-0.46
Caterpillar
Automotive & Aerospace
0.03
2.58
2.58
0.00
Chevrolet
Automotive & Aerospace
0.72
4.59
7.23
-2.64
Cisco
Technology, Computing & Electronics
0.87
3.54
5.4
-1.86
Citi
Financial Services & Banking
0.45
2.96
4.79
-1.83
Coca-Cola
Food & Drink
0.42
2.15
3.1
-0.94
Colgate
FMCG
0.6
3.25
3.25
0.00
Corona
Food & Drink
0.04
1.63
2.83
-1.2
Danone
Food & Drink
0.02
2.18
2.18
0.00
DHL
Other
0.02
3.05
3.05
0.00
Discovery Communications
Media & Entertainment
0.02
-0.07
0.48
-0.55
Disney
Media & Entertainment
1.75
4.95
6.28
-1.33
Duracell
FMCG
0.01
1.89
2.24
-0.35
16
The Digital Brand Risk Index
Brand
DEX
Prominence
Industry
DEX
Sentiment
DEX
Sentiment
DEX
Sentiment
(overall)
(+ve)
(-ve)
eBay
Technology, Computing & Electronics
2.97
7.35
10.57
-3.22
Facebook
Technology, Computing & Electronics
27.24
12.39
18.02
-5.63
Fedex
Other
0.02
0.48
0.85
-0.38
Ford
Automotive & Aerospace
4.21
7.39
10.91
-3.52
Gap
Fashion & Retail
0.49
5.49
7.88
-2.38
General Electric
Other
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
Gillette
FMCG
0.02
1.9
2.19
-0.29
Goldman Sachs
Financial Services & Banking
0.07
0.41
2.3
-1.89
Google
Technology, Computing & Electronics
36.1
8.62
13.49
-4.87
Gucci
Luxury
0.41
1.68
2.55
-0.87
H&M
Fashion & Retail
0.47
2.01
2.44
-0.43
Harley Davidson
Automotive & Aerospace
0.02
1.6
1.9
-0.31
Heineken
Food & Drink
0.07
3.22
3.56
-0.34
Hermès
Luxury
0.04
1.06
1.65
-0.59
Honda
Automotive & Aerospace
2.3
4.03
6.43
-2.41
HP
Technology, Computing & Electronics
5.46
9.78
13.51
-3.74
HSBC
Financial Services & Banking
1.26
1.69
4.33
-2.64
Huawei
Technology, Computing & Electronics
0.65
6.94
7.86
-0.92
Hugo Boss
Luxury
0.95
2.57
5.10
-2.53
Hyundai
Automotive & Aerospace
0.90
4.28
5.70
-1.42
IBM
Technology, Computing & Electronics
1.33
3.49
5.24
-1.75
IKEA
Fashion & Retail
0.10
1.45
1.83
-0.38
Intel
Technology, Computing & Electronics
3.87
7.92
10.99
-3.07
Jack Daniels
Food & Drink
0.01
0.73
1.30
-0.58
John Deere
Automotive & Aerospace
0.01
2.10
2.10
0.00
Johnnie Walker
Food & Drink
0.01
0.51
0.86
-0.35
Johnson & Johnson
FMCG
0.02
1.9
2.20
-0.29
JP Morgan
Financial Services & Banking
0.05
0.82
2.32
-1.5
Kellogg’s
Food & Drink
0.03
0.34
0.93
-0.59
KFC
Food & Drink
0.18
1.41
2.83
-1.42
The Digital Brand Risk Index
17
DEX
Prominence
DEX
Sentiment
DEX
Sentiment
DEX
Sentiment
(overall)
(+ve)
(-ve)
1.00
5.26
6.82
-1.56
0.00
1.88
1.88
0.00
0.77
1.73
-0.96
0.6
0.6
0.00
1.94
2.31
-0.37
5.87
10.61
-4.74
3.55
5.27
-1.72
1.37
1.92
-0.55
5.64
9.75
-4.11
1.94
2.85
-0.9
3.67
5.08
-1.41
Brand
Industry
Kia
Automotive & Aerospace
Kleenex
FMCG
Land Rover
Automotive & Aerospace
0.08
L’Oréal
Fashion & Retail
0.31
Louis Vuitton
Luxury
0.06
MasterCard
Financial Services & Banking
1.83
McDonald’s
Food & Drink
0.30
Mercedes-Benz
Automotive & Aerospace
0.06
Microsoft
Technology, Computing & Electronics
6.82
Morgan Stanley
Financial Services & Banking
0.11
MTV
Media & Entertainment
0.42
Nescafé
Food & Drink
0.01
1.23
1.23
0.00
Nestlé
Food & Drink
0.08
0.68
1.99
-1.31
Nike
Fashion & Retail
1.82
4.59
5.37
-0.78
Nintendo
Technology, Computing & Electronics
0.90
6.91
8.87
-1.96
Nissan
Automotive & Aerospace
1.61
6.71
9.36
-2.65
Nokia
Technology, Computing & Electronics
1.64
6.32
8.66
-2.35
Oracle
Technology, Computing & Electronics
0.53
3.73
5.45
-1.72
Pampers
FMCG
0.01
1.05
1.05
0.00
Panasonic
Technology, Computing & Electronics
1.96
8.86
10.67
-1.81
Pepsi
Food & Drink
0.18
1.98
3.31
-1.32
Philips
Technology, Computing & Electronics
0.11
2.76
4.30
-1.53
Pizza Hut
Food & Drink
0.05
2.54
3.35
-0.82
Porsche
Automotive & Aerospace
0.99
5.19
7.51
-2.31
Prada
Luxury
0.13
0.33
1.28
-0.94
Ralph Lauren
Luxury
0.15
0.74
3.00
-2.25
Samsung
Technology, Computing & Electronics
9.77
9.15
13.13
-3.98
Santander
Financial Services & Banking
1.08
3.22
5.42
-2.2
SAP
Technology, Computing & Electronics
0.37
3.76
4.82
-1.06
Shell
Oil
0.11
1.51
2.92
-1.41
Siemens
Technology, Computing & Electronics
0.12
2.70
3.35
-0.65
Smirnoff
Food & Drink
0.01
1.05
1.41
-0.36
Sony
Technology, Computing & Electronics
6.03
15
18.82
-3.82
Sprite
Food & Drink
0.19
1.74
2.31
-0.57
18
The Digital Brand Risk Index
DEX
Prominence
DEX
Sentiment
DEX
Sentiment
DEX
Sentiment
(overall)
(+ve)
(-ve)
Brand
Industry
Starbucks
Food & Drink
0.52
3.49
5.26
-1.77
Thomson Reuters
Media & Entertainment
0.07
0.81
0.81
0.00
Tiffany & Co
Luxury
0.03
-0.65
0.00
-0.65
Toyota
Automotive & Aerospace
2.18
3.74
5.63
-1.89
UPS
Other
0.55
5.28
7.88
-2.60
Visa
Financial Services & Banking
3.06
4.45
9.21
-4.76
Volkswagen
Automotive & Aerospace
2.25
4.75
6.22
-1.47
Xerox
Technology, Computing & Electronics
0.04
1.93
2.91
-0.98
Zara
Fashion & Retail
0.20
1.22
1.78
0.00
DEX PROMINENCE SCORES
The DEX Prominence scores for the groups of brands within each industry are shown in the graphs below.
Figure 1: DEX Prominence scores for brands within the Automotive & Aerospace industries
0
1
2
3
4
5
Ford
Audi
BMW
Honda
Volkswagen
Toyota
Nissan
Kia
Porsche
Hyundai
Chevrolet
Land Rover
Mercedes-Benz
Caterpillar
Harley Davidson
John Deere
The Digital Brand Risk Index
19
Figure 2: DEX Prominence scores for brands within the Fashion & Retail industry
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Amazon
Adidas
Nike
Gap
H&M
L’Oréal
Zara
IKEA
Figure 3: DEX Prominence scores for brands within the Financial Services & Banking industry
0
1
2
Visa
MasterCard
HSBC
Santander
American Express
AXA
Citi
Allianz
Accenture
Morgan Stanley
Goldman Sachs
JP Morgan
20
The Digital Brand Risk Index
3
4
Figure 4: DEX Prominence scores for brands within the FMCG industry
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Colgate
Gillette
Johnson & Johnson
Duracell
Pampers
Kleenex
Figure 5: DEX Prominence scores for brands within the Food & Drink industry
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Starbucks
Coca-Cola
McDonalds
Sprite
Pepsi
KFC
Nestlé
Heineken
Budweiser
Pizza Hut
Corona
Kelloggs
Danone
Smirnoff
Johnnie Walker
Jack Daniels
Nescafé
The Digital Brand Risk Index
21
Figure 6: DEX Prominence scores for brands within the Luxury industry
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Gucci
Burberry
Ralph Lauren
Prada
Cartier
Louis Vuitton
Hermès
Tiffany & Co
Figure 7: DEX Prominence scores for brands within the Media & Entertainment industry
0
0.5
1
Disney
MTV
Thomson Reuters
Discovery
Communications
22
The Digital Brand Risk Index
1.5
2
Figure 8: DEX Prominence scores for brands within the Technology,
Computing & Electronics industries
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Google
Facebook
Apple
Samsung
Microsoft
Sony
HP
Intel
eBay
Panasonic
Nokia
Adobe
Canon
IBM
Nintendo
Cisco
Huawei
Oracle
SAP
3M
Siemens
Philips
Xerox
The Digital Brand Risk Index
23
DEX SENTIMENT SCORES
The tables and graphs below show the DEX Sentiment scores (including the individual positive and negative
components) for the 30 most positively referenced brands and the 30 least positively referenced brands overall.
Table 2: DEX Sentiment scores for the 30 most positively referenced brands overall
Brand
Amazon
DEX
Sentiment
Industry
Fashion & Retail
DEX
Sentiment
DEX
Sentiment
(overall)
(+ve)
(-ve)
18.18
20.42
-2.24
Sony
Technology, Computing & Electronics
15
18.82
-3.82
Facebook
Technology, Computing & Electronics
12.39
18.02
-5.63
HP
Technology, Computing & Electronics
9.78
13.51
-3.74
Samsung
Technology, Computing & Electronics
9.15
13.13
-3.98
Panasonic
Technology, Computing & Electronics
8.86
10.67
-1.81
Adidas
Fashion & Retail
8.8
9.65
-0.85
Google
Technology, Computing & Electronics
8.62
13.49
-4.87
Intel
Technology, Computing & Electronics
7.92
10.99
-3.07
Ford
Automotive & Aerospace
7.39
10.91
-3.52
eBay
Technology, Computing & Electronics
7.35
10.57
-3.22
Canon
Technology, Computing & Electronics
6.98
8.25
-1.27
Huawei
Technology, Computing & Electronics
6.94
7.86
-0.92
Nintendo
Technology, Computing & Electronics
6.91
8.87
-1.96
Nissan
Automotive & Aerospace
6.71
9.36
-2.65
Audi
Automotive & Aerospace
6.59
9.96
-3.37
Nokia
Technology, Computing & Electronics
6.32
8.66
-2.35
MasterCard
Financial Services & Banking
5.87
10.61
-4.74
Microsoft
Technology, Computing & Electronics
5.64
9.75
-4.11
Gap
Fashion & Retail
5.49
7.88
-2.38
UPS
Other
5.28
7.88
-2.6
Kia
Automotive & Aerospace
5.26
6.82
-1.56
Porsche
Automotive & Aerospace
5.19
7.51
-2.31
Disney
Media & Entertainment
4.95
6.28
-1.33
BMW
Automotive & Aerospace
4.79
6.77
-1.98
Adobe
Technology, Computing & Electronics
4.76
7.57
-2.81
Volkswagen
Automotive & Aerospace
4.75
6.22
-1.47
Chevrolet
Automotive & Aerospace
4.59
7.23
-2.64
Nike
Fashion & Retail
4.59
5.37
-0.78
Visa
Financial Services & Banking
4.45
9.21
-4.76
24
The Digital Brand Risk Index
Figure 9: DEX Sentiment scores for the 30 most positively referenced brands overall
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
Amazon
Sony
Facebook
HP
Samsung
Panasonic
Adidas
Google
Intel
Ford
eBay
Canon
Huawei
Nintendo
Nissan
Audi
Nokia
MasterCard
Microsoft
Gap
UPS
Kia
Porsche
Disney
BMW
Adobe
Volkswagen
DEX Sentiment (+ve)
Chevrolet
Nike
DEX Sentiment (-ve)
Visa
DEX Sentiment (overall)
The Digital Brand Risk Index
25
Table 3: DEX Sentiment scores for the 30 least positively referenced brands overall
Brand
Industry
DEX
Sentiment
DEX
Sentiment
DEX
Sentiment
(overall)
(+ve)
(-ve)
Gucci
Luxury
1.68
2.55
-0.87
Corona
Food & Drink
1.63
2.83
-1.20
Harley Davidson
Automotive & Aerospace
1.60
1.90
-0.31
Shell
Oil
1.51
2.92
-1.41
IKEA
Fashion & Retail
1.45
1.83
-0.38
KFC
Food & Drink
1.41
2.83
-1.42
Mercedes-Benz
Automotive & Aerospace
1.37
1.92
-0.55
American Express
Financial Services & Banking
1.28
2.76
-1.48
Nescafé
Food & Drink
1.23
1.23
0.00
Zara
Fashion & Retail
1.22
1.78
-0.56
Budweiser
Food & Drink
1.07
1.85
-0.78
Hermès
Luxury
1.06
1.65
-0.59
Pampers
FMCG
1.05
1.05
0.00
Smirnoff
Food & Drink
1.05
1.41
-0.36
Allianz
Financial Services & Banking
0.87
2.45
-1.58
JP Morgan
Financial Services & Banking
0.82
2.32
-1.50
Thomson Reuters
Media & Entertainment
0.81
0.81
0.00
Land Rover
Automotive & Aerospace
0.77
1.73
-0.96
Ralph Lauren
Luxury
0.74
3.00
-2.25
Jack Daniels
Food & Drink
0.73
1.3
-0.58
Nestlé
Food & Drink
0.68
1.99
-1.31
L'Oréal
Fashion & Retail
0.60
0.60
0.00
Johnnie Walker
Food & Drink
0.51
0.86
-0.35
FedEx
Other
0.48
0.85
-0.38
Goldman Sachs
Financial Services & Banking
0.41
2.30
-1.89
Kellogg’s
Food & Drink
0.34
0.93
-0.59
Prada
Luxury
0.33
1.28
-0.94
AXA
Financial Services & Banking
0.04
2.09
-2.05
Discovery Communications
Media & Entertainment
-0.07
0.48
-0.55
Tiffany & Co
Luxury
-0.65
0.00
-0.65
26
The Digital Brand Risk Index
Figure 10: DEX Sentiment scores for the 30 least positively referenced brands overall
-4
-2
0
2
4
Gucci
Corona
Harley Davidson
Shell
IKEA
KFC
Mercedes-Benz
American Express
Nescafé
Zara
Budweiser
Hermès
Pampers
Smirnoff
Allianz
JP Morgan
Thomson Reuters
Land Rover
Ralph Lauren
Jack Daniels
Nestlé
L’Oréal
Johnnie Walker
FedEx
Goldman Sachs
Kelloggs
Prada
AXA
Discovery
Communications
Tiffany & Co
DEX Sentiment (+ve)
DEX Sentiment (-ve)
DEX Sentiment (overall)
The Digital Brand Risk Index
27
APPENDIX:
DEX METHODOLOGY
A.1 DISCOVERY ENGINE
(DEX) PROMINENCE SCORE
A.2 DISCOVERY ENGINE
(DEX) SENTIMENT SCORE
From the total sample of identified webpages, a simple
measure of prominence (the ‘Simple Prominence score’),
S , for each brand B can be determined using the
P B
following data:
For each page on which a mention of a brand is
identified, a sentiment score for that brand is calculated.
Each appearance on the page of the brand in conjunction
with a keyword or key phrase deemed to be ‘positive’
scores +1; proximity to a ‘negative’ keyword scores -1,
giving a cumulative total score for the page (with score
of 0 being ‘neutral’). For each brand, an average score is
then calculated across all relevant pages, after first taking
the cube root of the raw page scores (to remove the
effect of outliers). This average score is then multiplied
by the square root of the number of relevant pages;
this gives a measure of significance, by upweighting the
score for brands where the mentions are consistently
positive or negative, and downweighting the score for
brands whose results would otherwise be skewed due to
the fact that only a few pages have been identified. The
DEX Sentiment score can be separated into positive and
negative components; the overall score is the difference
between the positive and negative scores.
The number of webpages, Nl, on which the brand is
mentioned in location l (where a ‘location’ on the page
can be the URL, page title, link text, etc).
‘weighting’, Al, for each location, for which the value
A
is greater for those locations on the page deemed to
have greater prominence.
S
P B
=
∑ A ×N
l
l
l
From this, the overall Discovery Engine (DEX)
Prominence score for brand B, PDB, is calculated using the
expression below, in which Nc is the number of identified
pages featuring any mention of the brand (anywhere in
the page content), Hc is the number of distinct websites
(‘hosts’) on which the mentions were identified and R
is a scaling/normalization factor that is constant across
all brands.
D = R×
P B
28
S
Nc
× P B
Hc ∑B PSB
The Digital Brand Risk Index
Formally, the DEX Sentiment score for brand B, SDB,
(and its constituent positive and negative components,
denoted by a ‘+’ and a ‘-‘, respectively) is given by the
expressions below, in which i is the sentiment score and
Ni is the number of pages achieving the sentiment score i.
+
The Digital Brand Risk Index
29
ABOUT
NETNAMES
NetNames is one of the world’s
leading online brand protection
and domain name management
specialists, helping organizations
be present, protected and
prosperous on the internet.
Through its industry-leading brand protection, domain
name management, online security, anti-piracy and
domain acquisition services, the company is responsible
for keeping organizations and brands one step ahead
of online threats across the globe.
The company is headquartered in London (UK),
with offices in Australia, Denmark, France, Germany,
Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland and the USA.
NetNames can be found at www.netnames.com
and on Twitter @NetNamesDomains.
REFERENCES
1.
e Marketer, US Adults Spend 5.5 Hours with Video Content Each
Day, 2015: http://www.emarketer.com/Article/US-Adults-Spend-55Hours-with-Video-Content-Each-Day/1012362
2.
etNames, Internet 2020: an analysis of how new gTLDs will
N
transform the internet, 2014.
3.
imensional Research, Customer Service And Business Results,
D
2013: https://d16cvnquvjw7pr.cloudfront.net/resources/
whitepapers/Zendesk_WP_Customer_Service_and_Business_
Results.pdf
4.
etNames, Internet 2020: an analysis of how new gTLDs will
N
transform the internet, Background research, 2014.
30
The Digital Brand Risk Index
The Digital Brand Risk Index
31
NetNames UK
NetNames France
NetNames Sweden
25 Canada Square
London E14 5LQ
Tel: +44 207 015 9200
Fax: +44 207 015 9365
124-126, rue de Provence
75008 Paris
Tel: +33 (0) 1 48 01 83 60
Fax: +33 (0)1 48 01 67 73
NetNames UK - Cambridge
NetNames Denmark
Sveavägen 33
3rd floor
111 34 Stockholm
Tel: +46 8 5050 1450
Fax: +46 8 5050 1451
Betjeman House
104 Hills Road
Cambridge CB2 1LQ
Tel: +44 1223 372 400
Fax: +44 1223 372 401
Arne Jacobsens Allé 15
2300 København
Tel: + 45 33 88 63 00
Fax: + 45 33 88 61 01
NetNames USA - East Coast
Landshuter Allee 12-14
4. OG Nord
80637 München
Tel: +49 89 20 400 78 0
Fax: +49 89 20 400 78 10
55 Broad Street
11th Floor
New York
NY 10004
Tel: +1 212 627 4599
Fax: +1 212 627 5744
NetNames USA - West Coast
Suite 104
1700 Montgomery St
San Francisco CA 94133
NetNames Germany
NetNames Switzerland
Staffelstrasse 10
CH-8045 Zürich
Tel: +41 44 204 16 80
Fax: +41 44 204 16 81
NetNames Australia
Suite 309
546 Collins St
Melbourne
VIC 3000
Tel: +61 3 8610 4600
Fax: +61 3 9820 5834
NetNames Singapore
750A Chai Chee Road #07-10
Technopark@ChaiChee
Singapore 469001
Tel: +65 6441 8863
Fax: +65 6441 9902
www.netnames.domains
www.netnames.com
[email protected]

Download Report