Over the past decades companies have gained enormous power – some have become more powerful and resourceful than entire countries. Just think of Nestle or Procter & Gamble; you probably don’t even know that you are using products and brands that belong to one of those organisations. Yesterday I came across a chart I had to share with you – it illustrates just how strong and influential corporations are today.

The chart below shows how exactly 10 (yes, just 10!) global corporations control almost everything we buy; from food to household products to clothes.

Isn’t that fascinating?

Only 10 giant multinationals determine the purchase choices we make through a massive network of parent companies.

Remember my recent blog post about how people do not trust brand messages? There I was explaining that for brands to earn the trust of consumers, they need to develop an authentic and transparent two-way dialogue, which includes honest sharing of information and the more active inclusion of ordinary people into business operations.

A new research by Edelman called brandshare digs into this and other matters and manages to give some interesting insights into the evolving relationship between consumers and brands.

Before I move on to the research results, I just want to say that I love the motto of the new study: “an ethos and framework that puts people at the centre of your brand.” Indeed, people are becoming more closely involved and are dictating more strongly brand decisions. The motto also reminds me of Brian Solis’ latest Conversation Prism, where “You” is in the middle, i.e. in the centre.

So, what did brandshare find?

I don’t think I’ve told you this before, but I am a big fan of Brian Solis. He is a well-known thought leader in the area of social media, communications, technology and business and I have so far learned a lot from him. I follow his blog and I’ve also read all of his books, apart from the latest one, which is on my reading list. I have quoted him a few times in previous posts, but now I thought I’d share with you my favourite Brian Solis quotes.

Here we go:

"Social media is the democratization of information, transforming people from content readers into publishers. It is the shift from a broadcast mechanism, one-to-many, to a many-to-many model, rooted in conversations between authors, people, and peers."

"Social media is less about technology and more about anthropology, sociology, and ethnography."

Yesterday I came across Stephen Waddington’s blog post introducing the findings of the 2013 Ketchum Leadership Communication Monitor (KLCM) and I found them quite interesting and worthwhile discussing, so I decided to share them. (Oh and by the way, Brandzeichen (the agency I work at) is now officially part of the Ketchum network).

Some background first: the annual research explored the perceptions of 6,000 people in 12 countries on five continents “regarding effective leadership, effective communication and the intrinsic link between the two.”

Here’s what got my attention:

• Only 24% of people around the globe believe leaders overall are providing effective leadership.
• Last year astonishing 60% of people boycotted or bought less from a company due to poor leadership behavior.
• For the second year in a row open, transparent communication is the No. 1 characteristic of an effective leader.
• However, 29% point a gap between expectation and delivery on communicating in an open and transparent way and only 16% believe leaders are effective communicators.
• In the rank of credible information sources on a company employees are at the top, CEOs are placed sixth.

One of the main reasons why businesses are still ‘scared’ to jump on the bandwagon and put themselves out there on social media platforms is because of the potential criticism and negative comments they might receive from users. Indeed, such negative reviews can be damaging to a company’s reputation, but hiding behind the scenes is no good either – these conversations are happening with or without the company’s involvement, so businesses might as well start participating in them to potentially change people’s minds, gather ideas how to improve their products and services and so drive the conversations into a positive direction.

Similar applies to negative media coverage. A new academic study coming from the US, Burr Under the Saddle: How Media Coverage Influences Strategic Change (registration required), shows that even though negative press is unpleasant and especially unwelcome by the C-suite, it can also influence strategic decisions to make significant company improvements. As the authors of the paper identify, “the media is neither an enemy nor an ally to upper management... but one of a number of key stakeholders that can significantly shift a firm’s direction, often for the better.”