Pointofview

Global Reputation of the Financial

Services Industry: 2013 Snapshot
 G L O B A L R E P U TAT I O N O F T H E F I N A N C I A L S E R V I C E S I N D U S T RY: 2 013 S N A P S H O T

On a regular basis, the Ipsos Global Reputation Centre conducts research on the issues impacting various business
sectors and the reputations of companies in those sectors. In this installment, we take a new look at companies
in the financial services sector.
Key findings are:
• The effectiveness of financial services companies’ • Payment processing companies enjoy a stronger and
marketing efforts is boosted by a strong reputation; more resilient reputation than do global banks;
• Trust in financial services companies is driven far more • Local banks generally benefit from a better reputation
by emotional than by functional considerations – even than do global banks – except where local banks are
among investors; associated with the 2008 financial crisis;
• Since early 2012, all leading global banks have showed • Non-card payment companies show very high levels of
a decline in their reputation, often reflecting a drop in customer advocacy;
consumer confidence; • Banks around the world show huge variations when it
• Drops in trust levels are most prevalent in countries that comes to how much their customers are willing to act
had been relatively spared by the 2008 financial crisis as ambassadors, particularly in Europe and Japan,
and the euro crisis – these countries are now regressing where there is a need to address a serious deficit in
toward the rest of the world; customer advocacy.

The Benefits of Trust Marketing efficiency of financial services companies

depending on trust level
Companies with a strong reputation – meaning they have built Believable Ads
96%
up a solid trust equity with their stakeholders – are able to 88% Seen Ads
Pay More
spend less on advertising because their messages are more 73% Consider
68% 70
%
Customer
memorable and credible1. In addition, their products and
52%
services can also warrant a premium. This pattern is found to 45% 44% 45% 45%

be true for the 19 leading financial services institutions 27%

33
%

24%
measured across all 25 countries in the survey, just as it is for 11% 12% 4% 6 5% 12%
%
3 4 3% 12%
%
%

7% 7%
companies in other categories2.
TRUST LEVEL

Well above Slightly above Slightly below Well below

Average
Consumers who trust a financial institution are more likely to average average average average

be customers or to consider using its products and services.

Those who trust a company are also much more likely to be
willing to pay more for its products and services.
An underlying level of trust also heightens the visibility and
credibility of a financial institution’s ads: It is easier to reach
people through advertising if they already trust you and
therefore accord you a baseline level of source credibility.
Interestingly, an “average” level of trust does not provide
financial institutions with any advantage over one that’s
“below average”. However, financial institutions gain a great
deal of marketing clout if their level of trust is just “slightly
above average”. Being “average” is simply not good enough.
Companies need to actively manage their reputations so that
they stand out from the crowd.
In addition to the simple evidence reported above, we also
calculated a composite measure capturing marketing efficiency
at the individual level (seen ads, believable ads, memorable ads,
customer or considering being one, willingness to pay a premium,
and feeling good about using the brand). The variance of this
composite measure of marketing efficiency that can be explained
by reputation is quite high for each of the financial services
institutions measured in the survey. In a simple regression
equation with reputation metrics (familiarity, favorability and
trust) as the independent variables and the composite measure
capturing marketing efficiency as the dependent variable,
reputation is found to explain, on average, 39% of the marketing
efficiency of the six payment companies and 35% of the
marketing efficiency of the 13 banks measured globally.

1 For more information on the relationship between reputation and marketing efficiency, see our white
paper “Corporate Reputation and the Bottom Line”: http://www.ipsos-na.com/knowledge-ideas/
public-affairs/points-of-view/?q=in-search-of-the-holy-grail
2 Thirteen leading global banks were measured in 2013 in 25 countries: Bank of America, Barclays, BNP
Paribas, Citi (Citibank/Citigroup), Crédit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, ING, JPMorgan Chase, RBS
(Royal Bank of Scotland), Santander, Sumitomo Mitsui (SMBC) and Unicredit. In addition, six global
payment processing companies were measured in the same 25 countries: American Express,
MasterCard, PayPal, Union Pay, Visa and Western Union

2
 G L O B A L R E P U TAT I O N O F T H E F I N A N C I A L S E R V I C E S I N D U S T RY: 2 013 S N A P S H O T

Identifying Drivers to Build and Protect Trust

To better understand how trust can be built and protected, One of the key findings from our research is that trust in
we looked at six different drivers of trust and compared how financial companies is most driven by emotional considerations.
consumers rated financial services providers on those drivers, A key driver analysis using Ipsos BayesNet (IBN) 3 shows that,
against how they rated them on trust overall. for both a leading global bank and a leading global payment
company, the #1 driver of trust is feeling good about doing
Compared with trust, financial services companies receive
business with these companies. Analyses for other global
higher ratings on knowing things consumers don’t know
banks and payment companies show very similar patterns. This
about managing money and wealth, which we look at as
clearly suggests that the most trusted financial institutions are
expertise or authority, and on treating their consumers’
those that provide consumers with an opportunity to realize
confidential information as carefully as they would themselves,
their aspirations and to enjoy an experience.
which we look at as transactional care.
Second in importance for the banks is how much consumers
Overall, financial services companies get similar ratings on
believe the bank would always have their best interests in
how much one would feel good about doing business with
mind. It should be noted that banks tend to receive even lower
them (which we look at as an aspirational or experiential
ratings on this attribute than they do on “overall trust”. This
dimension) as they do on trust.
presents an opportunity for banks to improve their overall
However, they get lower ratings when it comes to treating reputation, and possibly to differentiate themselves, by
their customers like a person, not a number (i.e., the personal communicating on a confidence register.
relationship dimension), always having their best interest in
Nearly as important for the bank is the personal or human
mind (i.e., their commitment to customers) and having
dimension of the relationship with customers, as measured with
products and services that consumers would be willing to pay
the attribute “would treat me like a person, not a number”.
more for (i.e., the value of products and services).
For a payment company, more so than for a bank, a key driver
of trust is the perception that they treat their customers’
% “Above Average” Ratings confidential information carefully. It is a dimension on which
(Global average for all 19 companies rated in all 25 countries) financial services companies tend to be rated relatively well
Knows things I don’t about Expertise/
compared to overall trust, likely because confidentiality and
managing money and wealth 32% Authority transactional care are a “cost-of-entry”.
Having products and services one would be willing to pay more
Would treat my confidential Transactional
information as carefully as 28% care for is not as important a driver of trust– and it may be
I would
considered to be as much, if not more, of an outcome of trust
than a driver of it.
Is a company that I trust 24% TRUST
Surprisingly, expertise, as reflected by “knowing things I don’t
about managing money and wealth” is not as much a driver
Would make me feel good for Experience/
doing business with them 23% Aspiration
of trust in banks – at least for the general public.

3 Ipsos BayesNet (IBN) is a Bayesian network analytical tool (or probabilistic graphical model)
Would treat me like a Personal mapping and quantifying the relationships between a dependent variable (e.g., trust) and a variety
person, not a number 21% relationship of drivers. The model factors in not only direct dependencies, but also – and mostly – all indirect
relationships, which tend to follow very diverse and complex pathways.

Would always have my best Commitment

interests in mind 21% to customers

Has products and services Value of products

I would be willing to pay
more for
18% and services

3
 G L O B A L R E P U TAT I O N O F T H E F I N A N C I A L S E R V I C E S I N D U S T RY: 2 013 S N A P S H O T

Drivers of Overall Trust

Would make me feel good for 170

1 Experience/Aspiration
doing business with them 167

Would always have my best 130

2 Commitment to customers
interests in mind 102

Would treat me like a person, 118

3 Personal relationship
not a number 76

Has products and services I would 91

4 Value of products and services
be willing to pay more for 72

Would treat my confidential 58

5 Transactional care
information as carefully as I would 122

Knows things I don’t about 32

6 Expertise/Authority
managing money and wealth 61

Leading Global Bank

Drivers are indexed at 100 – anything above 100 has an above average impact
Leading Global Payment Company

For the leading global bank in this analysis, the key drivers of
trust among the general public are strongly emotional. These
emotional drivers, especially “feeling good about doing
business” with the bank are fed by functional drivers (expertise,
confidentiality, value of products and services). Willingness to
pay more for products and services is most driven by perceptions
that the bank has the customer’s “best interests in mind” and
would treat them “like a person, not a number”.
For that same leading bank, the drivers of trust among
investors are similar to those among the general public in
terms of their relative importance. However, the functional
measures of “knowing managing money” and “treating
information with confidentiality” are also not only driving
“feeling good” – they are direct drivers of Trust (albeit
secondary). This makes sense coming from an audience that
deals more directly with their banks.
For the leading card payment company on which this analysis
was conducted, trust is primarily driven by a very emotional
benefit: “feeling good about doing business” with it.
However, “feeling good” mostly stems from two more
practical considerations: (1) perceptions of transactional care
(the company would treat one’s “confidential information
carefully”) and (2) perceptions that the company’s products
and services are worth paying more for. Perceptions on
transactional care also drive perceptions about commitment
to customers’ best interests and expertise. The perceived value
of products and services is most driven by perceptions that the
company has its customers’ “best interests in mind” and
would treat them “like a person, not a number”.

4
 G L O B A L R E P U TAT I O N O F T H E F I N A N C I A L S E R V I C E S I N D U S T RY: 2 013 S N A P S H O T

Building Reputation
Our reputation pyramid illustrates the process of building
Positive Middling Negative
reputation through several steps: It starts with awareness, as
there is no reputation without it; next comes familiarity, which Advocacy > 15 0 - 14 <0
is the bedrock of reputation; it usually breeds favorability,
which, in turn, but not always, leads to trust. At Ipsos, we look Trust >25 0 - 24 <0
to trust as the key variable in reputation and its effectiveness.
Favorability > 30 0 - 29 <0

Advocacy Familiarity > 70% 50% - 69% 0% - 49%

End goal with stakeholders/citizens; for
other audiences, e.g., business decision- Awareness >85% 60% - 84% 0% - 59%
makers or consumers, apex would be
recommendation or consideration
Payment processing companies enjoy a much better reputation
Trust than do banks:
Key variable in reputation Among the 19 financial services companies measured globally
and its effectiveness
in 2013*, the five with the best reputation are all payment
processing companies.
Favorability
In general bred by familiarity The reputation of leading global banks among global
consumers has worsened in the past year.
Familiarity
Bedrock of reputation Comparing the views of consumers in 2013 across the same
24 countries that were already surveyed in 2012 about the
same 12 global banks, we see a steep drop in their average
Awareness net trust score (9 points) and smaller drops in their net
No reputation without it
favorability and advocacy scores (4 points each).
This is particularly striking considering that the average
Beyond these “input” variables, we also consider how to
awareness and familiarity of these 12 banks has remained
measure the “output” of Trust whether it is advocacy,
virtually unchanged.
recommendation or purchase consideration. One of our key
tenets is that reputation must mean something – there should
be a tangible business impact as a result of consumers’ feeling Global Average
12 Banks*
trust toward the organization.
In the remainder of this paper, you will see various scores for 4
Advocacy (down 4)
the 19 companies we measured globally, as well as 25 other
companies we measured only their home country. 1
Trust (down 9)
For awareness and familiarity, the scores are percentages of
those aware or familiar with the company. 10
Favorability (down 4)
For favorability, trust and advocacy, we report net scores in
order to factor in both positive and negative views. As we ask 30%
Familiarity (unch.)
questions using a 5-point scale, a net trust score is calculated
by taking the percentage of top 2 box answers (i.e., the
55%
percentage of those who rate a company ABOVE average) Awareness (up 1)
minus the percentage of bottom 2 box answers (those who
rate a company BELOW average). These scores are based only * Bank of America, Barclays, BNP Paribas, Citi (Citibank/Citigroup), Crédit Suisse, Deutsche Bank,
on those who are aware of the company. HSBC, ING, JPMorgan Chase, RBS (Royal Bank of Scotland), Santander, Sumitomo Mitsui (SMBC)

5
 G L O B A L R E P U TAT I O N O F T H E F I N A N C I A L S E R V I C E S I N D U S T RY: 2 013 S N A P S H O T

The average reputation of global banks has deteriorated in
most markets between 2012 and 2013.
The main story here is the steep drop in most of the BRIICS
(with the notable exception of Latin American countries) –
India, China, South Africa, Russia, and Turkey – and in the
Western countries that have been relatively spared by the
2008 financial crisis or the more recent euro crisis – Sweden,
Germany, Australia and Canada. In many ways, the loss of
trust in financial services seen in countries hit hard by the
2008 financial crisis or the euro crisis has finally reached the
rest of the world.
In contrast, countries that were hit hard by the 2008 financial
crisis (e.g., the U.S., the U.K. and France) or the euro crisis
(Italy and Spain), as well as Japan and Korea show only slight
Excluding the three Latin American countries and Saudi Arabia,
which are outliers, there is a clear relationship between the
change in the level of trust in global financial services companies
(which is generally down) and the change in economic
confidence during the same period, as measured monthly by
Ipsos for Reuters (on the same survey instrument, Ipsos’ Global
@dvisor).
The average level of trust in global financial services institutions
has held up in countries like Japan and the U.S., which have
experienced a gain in consumer confidence, while it’s eroded
in countries like India, Turkey, South Africa and China, or
Australia, Germany and Canada, which have all seen a loss in
consumer confidence.
20

Change in Trust in Banks/Payment Co’s*

drops or no change.
10 Trend line excluding Latin
A possible reason why Latin America is bucking the trend and America and Saudi Arabia
banks show gains in Mexico and Argentina is that banks in the 0

region have established partnerships with mass retailers (who

typically have very strong reputations) and have been -10

aggressively marketing consumer loans.

-20
The steep drop in Saudi Arabia likely reflects a return to normal
one year after the Arab Spring, and S&P’s upgrade of the Saudi -30

banking system, which may have caused the average score in

-40
2012 to be exceptionally high; the 2013 average trust score still -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
remains relatively high compared with most other countries. Change in Economic Confidence**

*Net Trust Score, May 2013 vs. February 2012

** Percentage points
Mexico, 12
Argentina, 11
Brazil, 1
U.S., 1
Hungary, 1
Japan, -1
Poland, -1
South Korea, -1
Spain, -2
France, -2
U.K., -3
Indonesia, -3
Italy, -3
Belgium, -4
Canada, -4
Russia, -5
Australia, -6
Germany, -6
South Africa, -7
China, -10
Sweden, -11
Turkey, -12
India, -16
Saudi Arabia, -41

6
 G L O B A L R E P U TAT I O N O F T H E F I N A N C I A L S E R V I C E S I N D U S T RY: 2 013 S N A P S H O T

Globally, every single one of the 12 global banks measured both in 2012 and 2013 saw a drop in its net trust score. Six of the
12 showed a drop in their net trust score of 9 points or more. One U.S.-based bank showed a 19-point drop.

Bank Bank Bank Bank Bank Bank Bank Bank Bank Bank Bank Bank

Advocacy 5 8 5 5 3 4 4 5 6 1 0 -4
(down 6) (down 5) (down 3) (unch.) (unch.) (down 3) (down 4) (down 4) (down2) (down 1) (down 6) (down 8)

Trust 6 6 5 4 2 2 2 2 1 -1 -4 -11
(down 9) (down 11) (down 9) (down 4) (down 4) (down 7) (down 6) (down 7) (down 10) (down 3) (down 14) (down 19)

Favorability 15 16 12 13 7 11 9 11 14 7 6 -4
(down 6) (down 9) (down 4) (up 1) (up 1) (down 2) (down 4) (down 4) (down 6) (up 1) (down 7) (down 10)

Familiarity 41% 42% 33% 25% 31% 30% 20% 15% 32% 21% 47% 21%
(up 10) (unch.) (up 1) (unch.) (down 3) (down 1) (unch.) (up 2) (up 2) (unch.) (down 2) (down 5)

Awareness 64% 63% 65% 46% 66% 57% 47% 29% 51% 44% 77% 45%
(up 9) (down 3) (up 4) (up 2) (down 2) (up 1) (up 3) (up 4) (up 2) (up 1) (down 1) (down 4)

The 2013 study also looked at these global banks in their Home Domestic Bank’s Net
Non-Local Banks’
Average Net Trust Score Difference
home country (where they would be seen as “local”) and at Country Trust Score in Country
in Country
one major domestic bank in each of the 25 countries. The Russia 73 -3 76
findings point to a clear contrast between domestic banks Saudi Arabia 54 -3 57
South Africa 56 3 53
and global banks in many countries:
Mexico 67 18 49
• In nearly all emerging markets, domestic banks receive Argentina 50 12 38
Indonesia 61 25 36
very high net trust scores – widely larger than do non-
Australia 24 -11 35
local banks on average. Brazil 35 2 33
• Domestic banks in Australia, Poland, Belgium, Canada, India 57 28 29
Poland 19 -9 28
Spain, Japan, Italy, Hungary and Turkey receive somewhat South Korea 35 8 27
positive net trust scores. Belgium 7 -17 24
Canada 13 -9 22
• In contrast, major domestic banks measured in the U.S. Spain 10 -11 21
and the U.K. (although not all), as well as in France, Japan 23 6 17
Germany and Sweden receive negative net trust scores. China 43 26 17
U.K. 0 -14 14
Non-card payment companies Italy 9 -5 14
Sweden -1 -15 14
Looking at global net favorability scores, three types of Japan 19 6 13
financial institutions clearly stand out – two in a positive way, Spain 2 -11 13
and one in a negative way. Italy 8 -5 13
France -3 -15 12
In order to grow their reputation, companies need the support U.K. -3 -14 11
of their customers’ positive word of mouth. Among the 19 Germany -3 -11 8
global financial services institutions measured globally, three U.K. -7 -14 7
Hungary 9 2 7
of the four that can most rely on their global customers’ word
Turkey 17 10 7
of mouth are the non-card payment companies France -9 -15 6
When it comes to customer advocacy, again, the companies that Germany -5 -11 6
U.S. 3 -2 5
hold a clear advantage are the non-card processing companies. U.S. 1 -2 3
U.S. -1 -2 1
U.S. -6 -2 -4
U.K. -21 -14 -7

7
 G L O B A L R E P U TAT I O N O F T H E F I N A N C I A L S E R V I C E S I N D U S T RY: 2 013 S N A P S H O T

Domestic banks in emerging countries Major banks in Europe and Japan

Among the banks measured in their home country only, On the other hand, several banks in Europe and Japan can
the gap in customer advocacy is even larger. Banks in many expect barely more positive than negative word of mouth
emerging countries can count on overwhelmingly positive from their patrons, especially those measured in:
word of mouth from their customers, in particular those
• France • the U.K.
measured in:
• Japan • Norway
• Turkey • Saudi Arabia
• Hungary
• Russia • South Africa
• China • India
Net Advocacy Score among Home Country Customers
Major domestic bank (TR) 76
Net Advocacy Score among Global Customers
(Global average for all 19 companies rated in all 25 countries) Major domestic bank (RU) 71
Major domestic bank (CN) 66
Payment Co. 73 Major domestic bank (SA) 66
Payment Co. 65 Major domestic bank (ZA) 65
Bank 63 Major domestic bank (IN) 64
Major domestic bank (BR) 58
Payment Co. 62
Major domestic bank (IT) 55
Bank 61 Major domestic bank (AU) 51
Payment Co. 57 Major domestic bank (AR) 47
Bank 57 Major domestic bank (BE) 43
Major domestic bank (KR) 43
Bank 52
Major domestic bank (MX) 42
Payment Co. 51 Major domestic bank (IS) 41
Bank 50 Major domestic bank (DE) 41
Bank 50 Major domestic bank (SE) 41
Major domestic bank (CA) 41
Payment Co. 49
Major domestic bank (US) 41
Bank 47 Major domestic bank (PL) 39
Bank 47 Major domestic bank (ES) 29
Bank 46 Major domestic bank (NO) 23
Major domestic bank (UK) 21
Bank 45
Major domestic bank (HU) 15
Bank 43 Major domestic bank (JP) 11
Bank 34 Major domestic bank (FR) 10
Bank 33

8
 Methodology
The 2013 survey on the reputation of leading financial
services companies was conducted on the Ipsos Global
@dvisor in May 2013 among more than 18,000 consumers
from 25 countries, interviewed online. These countries
include: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada,
China, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Italy,
Japan, Mexico, Norway, Poland, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South
Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, the United
Kingdom and the United States. This document contains
tracking from an earlier survey of this sector (see Reputation
Snapshot for the Banking Industry, 2012) conducted via
Global @dvisor in February 2012 in 24 countries (the same
as in 2013 with the exception of Norway).

About the Ipsos Global Reputation Centre

The Ipsos Global Reputation Centre helps its clients to identify the issues and actions that build corporate reputation
and deliver corporate brand equity. Together with our clients we identify and engage with their key stakeholders
including customers and employees as well as influencers such as government and the media – individuals that can
impact business performance, license to operate and market competitiveness.
www.ipsos.com

Copyright ©2013 Ipsos Public Affairs. All rights reserved. 1 3 - 1 1 - 2 2