Where the BRICs fall down

Companies from the emerging-market powerhouses of Brazil, Russia, India and China have still to get to grips with building better web estates, David Bowen says.

Featured sites

This year’s FT Bowen Craggs Index includes more companies from emerging markets than ever – though this is a function of their swelling market capitalisation, not emergingly wonderful web estates. Of the 75 companies in the Index, 16 are from the BRIC bloc: three are from Brazil, two are Russian, one Indian and 10 from China or Hong Kong.

At first sight, the picture looks no happier than in the previous three years of the Index. The highest scoring BRIC web estate belongs to Vale of Brazil which, with 158 points, comes equal 47th in the ranking. Of the 15 lowest scorers, 12 are from the emerging markets (the other three are Japanese). With the last of the US corporates having pulled their electronic socks up, the gap between developed- and emerging-market companies looks broader than ever.

Going into the detail, though, uncovers patches of brightness that were not there before. As with the other companies in the Index, some have relaunched, some have been polished. Some, of course, always had areas of excellence.

Will BRIC companies catch up or even pass the West? Many of the issues are certainly those that dogged US and European groups a decade ago and there is a case for saying that, with lower internet penetration in less wealthy countries, massive investment makes no sense. But most of the weaknesses relate to organisation, not resources. There is no excuse for a poorly-built site or weak content, while there is massive potential for improvement without spending a cent.

Bright spots

Two of the biggest jumps in score come from BRIC relaunches. Russia’s Gazprom has gone up 38 points, moving from a site that had an ‘old Soviet’ feel to it, to one that is built well and has several intriguing features – not least ‘Alexey Miller’s diary’, which is the closest thing to a CEO blog anywhere in the Index.

China Shenhua Energy, the coal mining giant, has had a comprehensive makeover, going from a text-based corporate brochure to a colourful and lively site, with animated paintings that set it apart.

Both are companies where senior management has decided (or has been convinced) that online matters enough to reach towards Western standards. That is the most important driver of web effectiveness.

‘Polishers’ are led by Russia’s Rosneft. Its improvements are subtle – for example, the English is much better – but the result is a site that in some areas stands up to the best in the world. It was always well-built, but it has also improved in the company information metric, helped by two neat microsites that complement an existing strong investor relations section.

The companies that have always had pockets of excellence include the Brazilians, Petrobras and Vale. Both present a slick image and have strong media sections, while Vale is also notably good on investor relations. The best of the Chinese are China Construction Bank and Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, which have well-constructed sites, and a newcomer, Ping An Insurance, which looks after its customers well.

Low points

So why are these companies missing from the top half of the Index? Because their websites all have areas of serious weakness – the result, invariably, of a failure to look at the online presence as whole. That, in turn, reflects the unglamorous but important concept of governance – how the web is run.

Two issues affect emerging-market companies in particular. First, their structures can be complex – the relationship between state-owned and quoted companies in China is particularly tricky. We try to behave as users would and take the most obvious routes: if we run into a problem, that is something the company should tackle.

Second, many emerging-market companies do not use the web for recruitment – one of our metrics. This can reflect the way the job market works in a country, so it is important not to declare that they are ‘wrong’. However, we also know that few large companies would not benefit from a good careers section. Some have acknowledged this. Gazprom gets most of its recruits through arrangements with universities, but it has now installed a sophisticated online CV service. Why? Because it saves time harvesting and retyping résumés that are sent in on spec.

Unstable foundations

The real problems relate either to weak content or poor construction. I can picture the discussions about the new Gazprom site: ‘We’re going to put a CEO diary in’ ‘That’s brilliant, but the CEO’s too busy to write anything’ ‘That’s OK, we’ll just use clips from his speeches instead’. Result: tedium where there could be vibrancy. But at least Gazprom has grasped the idea that its site should be interesting – a concept that Western groups are only slowly adopting.

China Shenhua Energy has problems with its English (we look at both language versions); for example, ‘announcement’ is spelt incorrectly on its home page. This is serious for a quoted corporation. But the bigger issue is a continuing ‘print first’ mentality. Its printable corporate social responsibility report is good, the online section mediocre – the lack of any mention of global warming (from the world’s second-biggest coal miner) is striking. A more extreme example comes from Bank of China, where a high quality PDF annual report contrasts with a crude web service for investors. Rosneft has a mixed picture – while serving investors well online, the best responsibility material lies in the Social Programmes PDF file. The ‘print first’ mentality can vary from company to company; it seems to here.

Built to be last

Poor construction next. China Shenhua’s Flash-driven menu has a certain pizazz, but is unnecessary, unnerving and does not work on many devices (including iPhone): a case of failure to overrule ambitious techies. Petrobras has two strong sites – one global and one Brazilian – but to get the most out of them you have to dodge back and forth.

Reliance Industries, the Indian group, is a surprise because at first sight it looks good. But it is riddled with inconsistencies of construction and lacks a search engine. No search engine for Ping An either; a strange omission for a large group.

Most of the companies that crowd the bottom of the Index are the ones where the web has not made it through to the consciousness of senior management. The China Mobile site, which belongs to the quoted Hong Kong company rather than its state-owned majority shareholder, belongs to the 1990s: the contrast with its parent’s site is stark. CNOOC is basic and poorly organised, Sinopec does not pull its group sites together well. Itaú Unibanco has one of the most muddled web estates we have come across.

I could go on, but the message is the same. Get senior management interested, get to work on the site, get the detail right, keep getting the detail right. Then, inevitably, BRIC companies will start to work their way up the Index. Just as they are in the real world.

First published on 02 June, 2010