As a nation we are addicted to publications that measure our economic, social or political standing on a global scale. We lend so much weight to these surveys and research reports that they often lead our national media agenda. This practice is understandable, as a developing country we want to know how we are fairing in comparison to the rest of the world, and more importantly we want to know how the rest of the world is rating us.
Unfortunately many of these surveys and reports, that find their way into the headlines of the national media, are used to show what South Africa does wrong, rather than what the country does right.
“SA’s se reputasie stink”
Two weeks ago the South African media was ablaze with headlines bemoaning the countries poor performance in what was dubbed “an international reputation survey”. Billboards all over the country carried derisive headlines informing the public that South Africa’s status was one of the worst in the world. Beeld ran a set of posters bearing the words “SA’s se reputasie stink”, but was this truly the case?
It was during this period that the Business Day (22 October 2009) carried two very interesting articles, the first (on page 4) was entitled “SA falls short on global survey” and the second (on page 14) ran the headline “Top ranking for SA standards”. What the placing of these articles serves to highlight is that the broader South African media agenda does not lend equal weight to all surveys and reports. Begging the question: are we effectively and objectively informing the South African public?
The first article “SA falls short on global survey” was one of the many that reported on a survey entitled CountryRep Survey 2009, conducted by the Reputation Institute. The second “Top ranking for SA standards” was a long overdue article (the report was released in September) on the Global Competitiveness Report, published by World Economic Forum.
So how are we doing?
Any person, organisation or body can compile a report or a survey. One man could canvas the opinions of 5 other people and declare that South Africans do not believe in dieting, or that all South Africans attend church. What always needs to be established is how the data was compiled, by whom and for what purpose.
The findings of all studies, reports and surveys are not necessarily cast in stone. They must abide by certain research formulas and criteria in order to be deemed statistically valid. The reason for these requirements is to offer the public, the media and other interested parties the opportunity to criticise or query the findings.
Therefore a critical aspect of any research is how that reports information is collected. If it is a survey, how many people took part? How was the survey conducted? What were the questions asked? Who was the target audience? If the information was compiled by a group of experts, who are they? And what weight does their opinion hold in the market place? These are all critical questions that must be posed before a report is given any sort of credibility.
Obviously the reputation of the institution performing the research affects how those reports are received; one cannot ignore the findings of the World Bank, the World Economic Forum (WEF) or the Economist Intelligence Unit. However many reports are released by far less influential and less noteworthy organisations. If as a nation we are judging the potential for our growth through these reports, then we must ask ourselves “which influential business, social and political leaders are reading this?” If the reputation of the institution is negligible would the CEO of Goldman Sachs be using it to advise his clients? Probably not. If the organisation furnishing the information is the WEF? Almost definitely.
Two reports, two different stories
In the CountryRep Survey 2009, conducted by the Reputation Institute, South Africa fairs fairly poorly in all areas. As the Business Day article highlights: SA came 30th out of 34 countries tested for their global reputation.
This is a terrible score, but the goal of the survey was not to canvass the globe and establish the global reputation of a country, it was to query G8 consumers (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States) on 34 country brands, and to rate them in order of preference.
The CountryRep Survey was not extensive; 22,000 consumers were interviewed online, and only 17,000 interviews were conducted through field work. The Reputation Institute therefore investigated the reputations of 34 countries through a total of 37,000 interviews. Without debating the demographic implications around an online survey, 37,000 is still far too low a number of people to actually reflect the reputations of these countries.
Marrie Harris from Ipsos Markinor, a survey-based research company, agreed with this. “We would need to see the method, and the methodology reports, but the coverage is not wide and there are probably validity issues.”
Included in the survey are a number of developing countries: India, Russia, China, Mexico, Brazil, Poland, Chile and others. But what is interesting is that all of these countries fall into the lower half of the 34 countries surveyed. And right in the middle of these countries sits the United States at number 26. China and Russia, who both came last in the survey, are two of the fastest growing economies in the world, does it really matter that 37,000 people don’t like them?
The Global Competitiveness Report on the other hand is an annual report compiled by the World Economic Forum, an organisation that has been in operation since the 1970’s and has built a considerable reputation in the global marketplace for their research and insight.
It is noteworthy that South Africa, despite the global economic downturn, maintained its position at 45, out of 133 countries measured.
The WEF commends South Africa for its performance as the highest ranked country in sub-Saharan Africa. “In this area there has been a notable improvement in the evaluation of the country’s financial markets, which have increased in rank from 24th last year to a very high 5th this year, indicating strong confidence in South Africa’s financial markets at a time when trust has been eroded in many other parts of the world.”
For the record, these were the areas in which South Africa ranked in the top 10, out of the 133 countries covered in the report:
- Strength of auditing and reporting standards: 2nd
- Regulation of securities exchanges: 2nd
- Efficacy of corporate boards: 3rd
- Financing through local equity market: 4th
- accountability of private institutions: 5th
- Soundness of banks: 6th
- Financial market sophistication: 6th
- Strength of investor protection: 9th
The does WEF state that the competitiveness of the country is hampered by ‘enduring weaknesses’. These include labour market efficiency, poor labour-employer relation, university enrolment rate, infrastructure development and the business costs of crime and violence. However these are obstacles of which we, as South Africans, are hyper aware. They are the issues that our media (rightly so) discusses on a daily basis. But what of our victories, or achievements? Must South Africans wait for over a month to read the news“Top ranking for SA standards”, and then have it relegated to the 14th page?
A call for responsible media
It is essential for the media to start properly informing the people of South Africa, without fear or favour, and in so doing allow then to make up their own opinions about the state of the nation. The media leads the national narrative, and at the moment we are failing to offer the balanced view the people of this country not only want, but deserve.
We should not be the only media organisation interrogating these surveys and how they are compiled, and one could argue that there is a moral obligation for the media to perform such research in order to effectively educate the public of South Africa.
It would have been far more encouraging to see “SA’s global competitiveness improves” pasted to our lampposts, instead of “SA’s se reputasie stink”.
By Matthew Choate
