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.”

For centuries men and women (have) had very distinct roles in society and business: men were the ones supposed to make money, women were the ones supposed to take care of the children and the household. Such sexual stereotypes have guided the course of society and even today in some cases (and countries and cultures) they still do.

But things have changed. Women are now able to pursue the same career opportunities as men, however when it comes to the workplace it is more than apparent that even if women are just as capable as men doing the very same job they do not reach the leadership positions.

Some may call such inequality in the boardroom total discrimination and injustice, rooted in misconceptions and prejudices passed down over generations where women are seen as week and sensitive.

It is very difficult to dig into the reasons why there are a lot less women in leadership positions than men. It is a fact, however, that there exist serious gender inequities and massive pay gaps between sexes. According to research, women hold only 14 percent of the board seats at S&P 1500 companies. Female graduates in the same job positions earn a lot less than their male counterparts despite laws designed to ensure equal access to careers and pay.

But why?