2017 Most Attractive Global Employers

11 Oct

Each year, Universum surveys students to learn which employers they like best. This post covers the 2017 most attractive global employers for business students. Tomorrow’s post focuses on the 2017 most attractive U.S. employers.

Click below to access information on the prior two surveys:



In sum, these are Universum’s survey goals:

“Universum conducts the largest career survey of its kind. We target 1.6 million students and professionals around the world. We know what students expect from their future career. In order to achieve this, we cooperate with 2,200 of the world’s best academic institutions. This gives us insights on career seeker preferences and expectations.”

“What do the rankings reveal? Basically, students select firms they would consider working for. They then select their five ideal employers. Company ranking depends on how many students choose you as an ideal employer. The most attractive employers rate as top-of-mind. And they excel in talent attraction. In short, it’s a popularity contest.”


2017 Most Attractive Employers for Global Business Students

For the 2017 Most Attractive Global Employers report, Universum surveyed thousands of business students in the 12 largest economies: Brazil,Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, South Korea, U.K., and U.S. We asked students about the company traits they find most attractive in a potential employer:

“When it comes to the business ranking, of the 76 ranked companies, fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) is the most represented industry. Banks and automotive follow. Representation from all industries remain stable since 2016.”


These 15 employers rank highest by college business students.

2017 Most Attractive Global Employers for Business Students. The top 15 employers according to college students.


Click below to access the full 2017 global employer report. Note: A free login is required.


2017 Most Attractive Global Employers for Business Students. Click to download full report.


Closing the Customer Experience Gap

10 Oct
Customer experience includes all interfaces that firms have with people. A great experience leads to  satisfaction and repeat business. Accordingly, closing the customer experience gap is vital.  
In this post, we add to our prior coverage:


Closing the Customer Experience Gap

In sum, the American Marketing Association observes:

“The gap between what customers expect and brands deliver is big. Some brands get part of customer service right. But few connect across the whole journey for seamless conversation. To enhance relations, brands must deliver value. How can firms offer consistent quality service?”

“Brand reputation and success mean treating shoppers well. And offering them all they need, as they need it. To that end, they will use data to enhance the experience. They will grasp customer needs and wants. They will be connected at each stage of the purchase process. Firms cannot market ‘at’ people.”

Despite this, some firms are weak. Jana Barrett writes for Business 2 Community:

“Firms are bad judges of customer experiences. Bain & Company surveyed 362 companies. Eighty percent said they delivered ‘superior customer experience.’ According to customers, 8% did. In the age of hyperconnectivity,  firms should be more in tune. But in reality, a wide gap exists.”
Barrett offers tips. “(1) A great experience is seamless. It works across channels and devices. (2) A great experience is proactive. It anticipates customer needs. (3) A great experience is receptive. the firm seeks feedback. (4) A great experience is human. It’s built on relations. (5) A great experience is dynamic. It adapts to shifting preferences.”

The video is a good summary from Business 2 Business.


Improving the Customer Shopping Journey

McKinsey has a “CEO Guide to Customer Experience.” It includes the customer shopping journey.

“What do my customers want? Savvy executives ask this. And leading firms know they are in the customer-experience business. And they know how they deliver is as vital as what they deliver. This guide taps the expertise of McKinsey and others. It explores customer interactions. In addition, it looks at steps to improve customer-centricity. See the infographic.”


Closing the Customer Experience Gap. This CEO guide explores the basics of customer interaction. It covers steps to be more customer-centric. See the infographic.


AOL Instant Messenger RIP

9 Oct

After 20 years on the market, AOL will discontinue AOL Instant Messenger (AIM) as of December 15, 2017. To that, we  say, AOL Instant Messenger RIP. Rest in Peace.

AOL Instant Messenger RIP. After 20 years, AIM is being shut down on December 15, 2017. There is too much newer technology for it to compete successfully.

Why is AIM being eliminated? One big reason is the growth of chat and other messaging services. As a result, AIM is obsolete. Today, many companies also offer online chat for shoppers.  For example, see this post. Using Live Chat Software to Enhance the Online Experience.


The Hey Day of AIM

In looking back at 1997, keep these factors in mind. The Internet was in its infancy. E-mail was emerging. There was no chat software. People connected with modems, not through broadband. The opportunity for the new service of “instant messaging” was enormous. Enter AIM.

As Josh Constine reports for TechCrunch:

“Initially, the chat experience was built into AOL desktop. AIM launched as a standalone app in 1997. Its iconic Away Messages were the ancestor to modern tweets and status updates. It battled for supremacy with ICQ and messengers from Yahoo and Microsoft MSN.”

And these are Scott Neuman’s observations for NPR:

“For many of us, AIM conjures up memories of dial-up modems, the sound of a ‘handshake’, and the phrase ‘You’ve Got Mail.’ ‘AIM tapped into new digital technologies and ignited a cultural shift, but the way in which we communicate with each other has profoundly changed,’ says Michael Albers, of  Oath Inc., a subsidiary of Verizon that bought AOL.”

At its peak in 2001, AIM attracted 100 million subscribers. In 2017 terms, that number may seem small. Think Facebook. But in 2001, this figure was huge. And as late as 2006, AIM accounted for a 52 percent market share for instant messaging market in the United States.

Nostalgic? Watch this YouTube video.



AOL Instant Messenger RIP

In sum, Neuman notes:

“Eventually text messaging, Google’s GChat, and Facebook took over. At the same time, AIM never fully figured out the shift to mobile. That led to AOL’s fall from grace, going from being valued at $224 billion in today’s money to $4.4 billion when sold to Verizon in 2015. For context on the business AOL let slip away, WhatsApp sold that same year to Facebook for more than $19 billion.”

How low has AIM fallen? As Rani Molli reports for Recode“As of August 2017, AIM had about 500,000 unique monthly visitors in the U.S., according to data from measurement company comScore. That doesn’t tell us exactly how many users AIM has, but it gives us a good idea of its audience.”



Best and Worst Workplaces for Women Executives

6 Oct

Earlier this week, we reported on research by Great Place to Work. Its 100 best firms for women were cited. Today’s post cites other research. It is broader in scope. And it is global. Best and Worst Workplaces for Women Executives.



For 2017, 24/7 Wall St. conducted its own research on women in leadership positions. 24/7 Wall St. is a financial news and opinion company. In sum:

“Despite strides made by women, stereotypes persist and gender equality is slow coming. In 2016, a woman earned 80 cents for every dollar a man received. This was 20 cents more than in the 1960s. Yet , this is still not equitable. The gender gap is greater in senior leadership positions at large firms. Some firms do not have any female executives or board members.”

“To identify companies with the best and worst female representation, 24/7 Wall St. examined data from LedBetter. The latter, created an index of the share of women on the board and the share of women in executive leadership positions at 237 global corporations.”


Best Workplaces for Women Executives

According to 24/7 Wall St., “Chico’s FAS Inc. leads the group with the most representation of females in senior management positions. At Chico’s, women hold 73% of executive positions and are 56% of the board.”

These are the top 10 of the 237 firms reviewed:

  1. Chico’s FAS Inc.  Women in leadership roles: 56% (board), 73% (executive).
  2. Etsy.  Women in leadership roles: 50% (board), 63% (executive).
  3. H&M Group.  Women in leadership roles: 64% (board), 35% (executive).
  4. Kering.  Women in leadership roles: 64% (board), 29% (executive).
  5. Best Buy.  Women in leadership roles: 40% (board), 40% (executive).
  6. L’Oreal.   Women in leadership roles: 47% (board), 33% (executive).
  7. Diageo.  Women in leadership roles: 40% (board), 40% (executive).
  8. Target.  Women in leadership roles: 33% (board), 42% (executive).
  9. Gap, Inc.  Women in leadership roles: 30% (board), 43% (executive).
  10. Prada Group.  Women in leadership roles: 22% (board), 50% (executive).


Best and Worst Workplaces for Women Executives. Number one best company. Chico's has the greatest female representation among board and executive positions is women’s retailer Chico’s FAS, Inc., at 56% and 73%, respectively. CEO Shelley Broader is one of the few female chief executives among the largest global corporations.

Source: John Fowler / Wikimedia Commons


Worst Workplaces for Women Executives

With regard to worst workplaces, 24/7 Wall St. says: “Women are inadequately represented in several positions worldwide, most notably within the managerial sector. Only 16 of the 237 companies assessed by LedBetter have female CEOs. Seven of the companies do not have any females in executive positions or on their boards of directors.”

These are the bottom 10 of the 237 firms reviewed:

  1. Icahn Enterprises.  Women in leadership roles: 0% (board), 0% (executive).
  2. Nissan Motor Corporation.  Women in leadership roles: 0% (board), 0% (executive).
  3. Nintendo.  Women in leadership roles: 0% (board), 0% (executive).
  4. Kia Motors.  Women in leadership roles: 0% (board), 0% (executive).
  5. Energy Transfer Equity.  Women in leadership roles: 0% (board), 0% (executive).
  6. Plains GP Holdings.  Women in leadership roles: 0% (board), 0% (executive).
  7. Samsung Electronics.  Women in leadership roles: 0% (board), 0% (executive).
  8. Toyota.  Women in leadership roles: 7% (board), 0% (executive).
  9. Newell Brands.  Women in leadership roles: 8% (board), 0% executive.
  10. Panasonic.  Women in leadership roles: 8% (board), 2% executive.


Best and Worst Workplaces for Women Executives. Ranked as worst, Icahn Enterprises is a relatively small investment firm with just seven different people in its senior management and board of directors — yet not one is a woman. Icahn Enterprises has also been the subject of a lawsuit related to the company’s treatment of women.

Carl Icahn. Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/134783492@N06/


%d bloggers like this: