Does your IR section sell your firm short?

Corporate giants can learn a thing or two from smaller firms when it comes to presenting an investment case online, argues Scott Payton.

 

I recently spent a week judging more than 50 candidates for two online investors relations awards – best digital reporting and best overall digital communications. 

Quoted companies of all sizes entered, from global giants to small-caps. I learned a lot from the exercise, and found plenty of interesting examples of good practice. 

But one thing stood out above all else: when it comes to using the web to make a compelling investment case, smaller firms have much to teach their multinational counterparts. 

FTSE 250 firm William Hill is an example. The UK-based bookmaker’s corporate site has a clear, detailed and engagingly presented Investment case sub-section of ‘Investors’. 

Intuitive click-to-expand panels contain cogent details of the firm’s strategy, market and performance. Informative graphics illustrate the firm’s business model and market share. Clear charts show key indicators covering the past year. A neat table summarises performance over the past five years. Simple, effective traffic-light graphics are used to show the likelihood and potential impact of various business risks. 

UDG Healthcare, another FTSE 250 company, takes a simpler and less detailed approach – but its Reasons to invest sub-section of ‘Investors’ still does a good job of clearly conveying overview information about the company’s financial and non-financial performance, as well as the market in which it operates.  

Compare this to the investor relations sections of the world's biggest companies’ websites – which often don't have an ‘investment case’ sub-section at all, or any kind of equivalent. 

There are some noble exceptions. BASF’s Investor Relations section includes a detailed BASF at a glance sub-section, for instance. It doesn’t explicitly try to ‘sell’ the chemicals company as an investment proposition, but it explains the company’s activities and strategy well. Similarly, Shell’s Investor Highlights sub-section is a treasure trove for financial professionals researching the company. 

But why is such material not more common in the IR sections of the world’s biggest companies? Perhaps many big-name large-caps think they simply don’t need to explain to investors who they are, what they do, what their strategy is, or why all this makes them a particularly sound long-term investment. 

Maybe their IR teams think such material is better off elsewhere on the website (in the About section)  – or tucked away in the annual report. 

If they do think this, I'd urge them to look at what the likes of William Hill are doing and think again about whether similar investment case sub-sections would work on their sites. I think that they would – very well. 

Does 'what you do' drive your visitors to Wikipedia?

Here is a challenge: read the following description of a mystery company (identified below), which is taken from the About Us section of its corporate website, and then try to guess any facts about it - name, industry or what it does to make money:

‘Information revolution – happiness for everyone. Becoming the corporate group needed by most people around the world.’

Does that clear it up? The section continues:

‘We're looking to the next thirty years and beyond with a vision for innovation and growth. Since its establishment, (company x) has consistently operated under the vision of becoming a company contributing to people's happiness and joy, and to the future of the world, not only pursuing the profit of the company. This vision is a driving force for (company x) as we continue to pursue growth.

Still stumped?

It’s SoftBank, a company that may indeed provide happiness and joy, but the main thing it does is run mobile and broadband networks. I learned this not from their website but from Wikipedia: ‘SoftBank Group Corp. is a Japanese multinational telecommunications and Internet corporation… It has operations in broadband, fixed-line telecommunications, e-ecommerce, internet, technology services, finance, media and marketing, semiconductor design, and other businesses.’

I often find myself on Wikipedia, frustrated at how bad some corporate websites are at answering the simple question, ‘Who are you and what do you do?’ The case of SoftBank is doubly awful because the clearer Wikipedia description actually cites the SoftBank website as one of its sources. Wikipedia manages to cobble together a useful description from facts scattered around the site, something the company was unable to do for itself.

If I’m frustrated, how many more audiences – actually important ones such as journalists, jobseekers, investors – are getting a bad first impression and grumbling as they leave the site to get a meaningful overview elsewhere?

Few company descriptions match SoftBank for sheer impenetrability. Most bad ones fail less spectacularly – being merely vague or using too much marketing speak.

For example, AbbVie: ‘At AbbVie, we have the expertise of a proven pharmaceutical leader and the focus and passion of an entrepreneur and innovator. The result is something rare in health care today – a global biopharmaceutical company that has the ability to discover and advance innovative therapies and meet the health needs of people and societies around the globe.’

OK, but if I were a journalist I would probably head to Wikipedia to fill in a few details.

The word ‘leading’ crops up a lot. Meaningless without context, it almost always begs the question, leading what? And according to what criteria? For example, on Schlumberger’s site, ‘leading’ mars an otherwise clear description – ‘Schlumberger is the world's leading provider of technology for reservoir characterization, drilling, production, and processing to the oil and gas industry.’

Or AB InBev, ‘We are the leading global brewer and one of the world's top 5 consumer product companies.’

Better to just state exactly what the company is ‘leading’ (if it actually is leading anything) – biggest market share, highest market cap, most revenues, etc. Such as ExxonMobil: ‘ExxonMobil, the largest publicly traded international oil and gas company, uses technology and innovation to help meet the world’s growing energy needs.’ Specific and clear.

Some companies make the mistake of letting an internal change - a reorganization, strategy reset or the dreaded brand refresh – dictate how the company describes itself to the outside world. These can result in descriptions steeped in mystery, and not in a good way.

The GE corporate website, for example, on its home page, says it is ‘The world’s premier digital industrial company: Transforming industry by connecting the physical and digital.

Sensing, predicting, and responding to make the world work better.’

Clicking around, I could not find a simple overview of the business – sector, lines of business, revenues, market position, number of employees, number of countries of operation, a sense of the competitive landscape, etc.

Meanwhile, on Wikipedia: ‘General Electric (GE) is an American multinational conglomerate corporation incorporated in New York, and headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. As of 2016, the company operates through the following segments: Power & Water, Oil and Gas, Aviation, Healthcare, Transportation and Capital which cater to the needs of Financial services, Medical devices, Life Sciences, Pharmaceutical, Automotive, Software Development and Engineering industries.’

There is a ‘Who we are’ section hidden away under the ‘Digital’ section of the GE website, but this turns out to be a description of GE Digital, which is a parody of corporate waffle, starting with a quote from the CEO: ‘If you went to bed last night as an industrial company, you’re going to wake up this morning as a software and analytics company’ and gets worse as you scroll down the page.

Maybe GE thought it was too complex to describe succinctly and factually?

Except that Siemens and BASF, two companies of similar complexity, manage it.

Here is Siemens: ‘Siemens is a global powerhouse focusing on the areas of electrification, automation and digitalization. One of the world’s largest producers of energy-efficient, resource-saving technologies, Siemens is a leading supplier of systems for power generation and transmission as well as medical diagnosis. In infrastructure and industry solutions the company plays a pioneering role. As of September 30, 2015, we had around 348,000 employees in more than 200 countries. In fiscal 2015, they generated revenues of €75.6 billion.

No need to elsewhere after that.

BASF starts unpromisingly with a slogan but then moves quickly into useful facts and detail, and succeeds in staying on the right side of the line between useful facts and sloganeering.

‘We create chemistry for a sustainable future: In line with our corporate purpose, around 112,000 employees contribute to the success of our customers in nearly all sectors and almost every country in the world. Our broad portfolio ranges from chemicals, plastics, performance products and crop protection products to oil and gas. In 2015, BASF posted sales of €70 billion and income from operations before special items of approximately €6.7 billion…’

One of the rules of political campaigning is ‘don’t let your opponent define you’. A similar principle applies to corporate online messaging – describing who you are and what you do should be a fundamental task. The most effective descriptions will be immediately clear to someone who does not work at the company and may have only just heard of it. Forcing visitors to go elsewhere needlessly surrenders control of the message and diminishes a company’s credibility.

Jason Sumner