PENGARUH PROGRAM KOMUNIKASI TERHADAP REPUTASI PT ADITYA INDRA MENURUT INVESTOR PASCA GO PUBLIC DI JAKARTA OUTLINE SKRIPSI Outline Skripsi Ini Disusun Sebagai Salah Satu Syarat Untuk Memperoleh Gelas Sarjana Strata satu (S1) Ilmu Komunikasi Disusun Oleh : Mega Puspita Sari 44209110058 BIDANG STUDI PUBLIC RELATIONS FAKULTAS ILMU KOMUNIKASI UNIVERSITAS MERCU BUANA JAKARTA 2013 Kata pengantar Daftar Isi Bab I Pendahuluan 1.1. Latar Belakang Masalah o Persaingan yang semakin tajam pada bisnis properti-apartemen di jakarta o Upaya perluasan-pengembangan usaha perusahaan o Upaya-upaya yang dilakukan (salah satunya go public melalui pasar modal/BEJ) o Setelah 3 tahun program komunikasi dan Perubahan dari PT Aditya indra menjadi PT Aditya Indra Tbk o Corporate indentity-citra – reputasi o Program komunikasi o Pentingnya Reputasi o Perbedaan reputasi perusahaan menurut multiple stakeholders 1.2. Perumusan Masalah : ……………….. SEJAUHMANA PENGARUH PROGRAM KOMUNIKASI TERHADAP REPUTASI PT ADITYA INDRA TBK MENURUT INVESTOR PASCA GO PUBLIC DI JAKARTA ? 1.3. Tujuan Penelitian UNTUK MENGETAHUI DAN MENJELASKAN PENGARUH PROGRAM KOMUNIKASI TERHADAP REPUTASI PT ADITYA INDRA MENURUT INVESTOR PASCA GO PUBLIC DI JAKARTA 1.4. Kegunaan Penelitian 1.4.1. Kegunaan Akademis Pengembangan ilmu humas khusunya tentang program komunikasi dan reputasi perusahaan menurut stakeholder yaitu perusahaan jasa investasi. 1.4.2. Kegunaan Praktis Sumbangan pemikiran bagi PT Aditya Indra Tbk untuk menganalisis dampak program komunikasi terhadap reputasi perusahaan Bab II Tinjauan Pustaka 2.1. Corporate Communications 2.1.1. Ruang lingkup Kajian Corporate Communications 2.1.2. Internal dan eksternal Stakeholders 2.1.3. Investor ...dst 2.2. PR 2.2.1. Pengetian PR 2.2.2. Peran dan Fungsi PR dalam membangun reputasi 2.2.3. Peran PR dalam membangun reputasi...dst 2.3 Program komunikasi 2.4. Corporate Indentity 2.3.1. Pengertian Corporate Indentity 2.3.2. Upaya Membangun Corporate Indentity...dst 2.5. Corporate Image 2.3.1. Pengertian Corporate Image 2.3.2. Upaya Membangun Corporate Image 2.3.3. Corporate Indentity dan Corpurate Image....dst 2.6. Reputasi Perusahaan (corporate reputation) 2.5.1. Pengertian Reputasi 2.5.2. Upaya membangun Reputasi 2.5.3. Pentingnya Reputasi bagi Corporate 2.7. Go Public 2.6.1. Pengertian go public 2.6.2. Pasar modal 2.8. Hipotesis Penelitian : ADA PENGARUH PROGRAM KOMUNIKASI TERHADAP REPUTASI PT ADITYA INDRA MENURUT INVESTOR PASCA GO PUBLIC DI JAKARTA Bab III Metodologi Penelitian 3.1. Tipe/Sifat penelitian : kausal 3.2. Metode Penelitian : Kuantitatif - survei 3.3. Populasi dan sampel ; 3.3.1. Populasi Pengambil kebijakan penempatan dana di Perusahaan jasa investasi yang terdaftar di BEJ di Jakarta sebanyak 300 1 3.3.2. Jumlah sampel N n = .n = sampel minimal; N = populasi; d = presisi ...(dalam Rakhmat 1999:82) N.d2 +1 300 n = = 181,429≈182 orang 300(0,05)2 +1 3.3.3. Teknik penarikan sampel......sampel random sampling 3.4. Definisi dan Operasionalisasi konsep 3.4.1. Definisi konsep 1. Program Komunikasi 2. Reputasi ... 3. Investor.... 4. Go Public.... 1 BEJ, Data Perusahaan Jasa Investasi BEJ 2010, halaman 21 3.4.2. Operasionalisasi Konsep Variabel Dimensi Indikator Skala Variabel X : Aksi dan Jenis kegiatan Program komunikasi Thema dan isi Komunikasi Timing Kominikator Media komunikasi Emotional good feeling about the Variabel Y : Appeal company Reputasi PT Aditya - admire and respect the Indra company - trust the company Products and stands behind Services products/services - offers high quality products/services - develops innovative products/services - offers products/services that are good value has excellent leadership - has a clear vision for the future - recognizes/takes Vision and advantage of market Leadership opportunities is well managed - looks like a good Workplace company to work for Environment - looks like it has good employees record of profitability - looks like a low risk investment - strong prospects for future growth Financial - tends to outperform its Performance competitors - supports good causes - environmentally responsible - treats people well Social Responsibility 3.5. Tekhnik Pengumpulan Data 3.5.1. Data Primer Misalnya : Kuesioner Kuesioner yang digunakan yaitu Skala Likert dengan pilihan pernyataan positif atau negatif. Skala Likert ini memiliki kelebihan mudah digunakan untuk mengukur sikap/pendapat individu tentang suatu hal. Sedangkan variasi jawaban tidak selamanya dari sangat setuju – sangat tidak setuju, tetapi dapat bervariasi tergantung dari kuesioner (pertanyaan/pernyataan). Skor Skala Likert Pernyataan Positif Pernyataan Skala Likert (skor) Negatif (skor) Sangat Setuju 5 1 setuju 4 2 Tidak berpendapat/ragu-ragu 3 3 Tidak setuju 2 4 sangat tidak setuju 1 5 3.5.2. Data Sekunder Misalnya : Dokumentasi dsb 3.6. Tekhnik Analisis Data Sugiyono (2006:211) mengemukakan : ...Persamaan regresi dapat digunakan untuk melakukan prediksi seberapa tinggi nilai variabel dependen bila nilai variabel independen dimanipulasi (diubah-ubah)... Y =a+bX (Xi− X)(Y −Y) ∑xy b = i atau...b = (Xi− X)2 ∑x2 a =Y −bX ∑X ∑Y X = dan..Y = n n n = jumlah pasangan pengukuran X = rata-rata nilai X Y = rata-rata Y X = variabel bebas Y = Variabel terikat b = ko-efisien regresi a = nilai konstanta apabila nilai x=0 b2 ∑x2 F = 1 [ ] ∑y2 −b∑xy n−2 Daftar Pustaka Azwar, Saiffudin, 1997, Reliabilitas dan Validitas, Pustaka Pelajar, Yogyakarta. ____________ , 2000, Sikap Manusia, Teori dan Pengukuranya, Pustaka Pelajar, Yogyakarta. Cutlip, Scott. M, Center, Allen. H, and Broom, Glen. M, 2006, Effective Public Relations. Edisi kesembilan, Jakarta: Prentice Hall, Indeks Kelompok Gramedia, Jakarta. Eichhhorn C.K, 2007, Cognitive Communication Competence Within Public Relations Pratitioners : Examining Gender Differences Between Technicians and managers, Public Relations Review 33. p.77-83 Hargie. Owen, Touris. Dennis, Wilson.Noel, Communication Audit and Effect of Increased Information : A Follow-up Study, Jourmal of Business Communication 2002;39;414. from http://job.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/39/4/414 Hendrix, A.Jerry, 2001, Public Relation Case, wadswotrh, Thomson Learning, Belmont,USA. Hogar, Elaine and Ellis,Roger, 2006, Evaluation and Communication: Using a Communication Audit to Evaluated Organizational Communication, Evaluation Review Vol 30 No 2. from http://job.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/30/2/171 John, J.David and Chang, H.Jung, 2000, Internal and External Communication, Boundary Spanning, and Innovation Adoption, Journal of Business Communication, http://job.sagepub.com/cgi/content/37/3/238 Jefkins, Frank, 2003, Public Relations edisi kelima, PT Erlangga, Jakarta Janusik Ann Laura,2004, The Relationship Between Conversational Listening Span and Perceive Communicative Commpetence, Dissertation, Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park. Mueller, J. Daniel, 1986, Measuring Social Attitudes, Teacher College Press, 1234, Amsterdam Avenue, New York. Sriramesh, Krishnamurthy and Lisa B. Hornoman, Public Relations as a Profession, An Analysis of Curricular Content in the United States, Downloaded from http://crc.sagepub.com by aditya indra on November 21, 2007. Uchjana, E. Onong, 2005, Ilmu Komunikasi – Teori dan Praktek, Bandung: PT Remaja Rosdakarya, Bandung http://statistika21.wordpress.com/ Bahan : CONCEPTUALIZATION Defining Reputation To develop a theory of the connections among public relations activities, the behavior of organizations, relationships, and reputation, we begin by examining some current definitions of reputation to understand what that concept means and how it is related to the other concepts. In the lead article of the inaugural issue of Corporate Reputation Review, Fombrun and Van Riel (1997) reviewed how several disciplines (economics, strategy, marketing, organizational theory, sociology, and accounting) have defined and conceptualized reputation. They began with the definition in the American Heritage Dictionary (“reputation is the general estimation in which one is held by the public”) and concluded that a definition developed by Fombrun and Rindova (1996) captured the characteristics of reputation found in the literature: A corporate reputation is a collective representation of a firm’s past actions and results that describes the firm’s ability to deliver valued outcomes to multiple stakeholders. It gauges a firm’s relative standing both internally with employees and externally with its stakeholders, in both its competitive and institutional environments. (Fombrun & Van Riel, 1997, p. 10) In his book on corporate reputation, Fombrun (1996) offered a slightly different definition: …we define a corporate reputation as the overall estimation in which a company is held by its constituents. A corporate reputation represents the “net” affective or emotional reaction—good or bad, weak or strong—of customers, investors, employees, and the general public to the company’s name. (p. 37) On the website of the Reputation Institute (n.d.a), Fombrun (the founder of the Institute) defined three characteristics of a reputation: • A corporate reputation is a cognitive representation of a company’s ability to meet the expectations of its stakeholders. • A corporate reputation describes the rational and emotional attachments that stakeholders form with a company. • A corporate reputation describes the net image a company develops with all of its stakeholders. (Reputation Institute, n.d.a) In another page on the same web site, Fombrun added: “People often confuse the words reputation, brand, and image. They mean different things. A brand describes the label that a company uses to distinguish itself from rivals with its customers. A company can choose to brand its products and services, or the company as a whole.” An image is the product of each person’s “basic interactive human processes of perceiving, thinking, and feeling” (Reputation Institute, n.d.b). Then, Fombrun concluded, The point is this: A company has many different images and can have many brands. In contrast, a corporate reputation signals the overall attractiveness of the company to all of its constituents, including employees, customers, investors, reporters, and the general public. A corporate reputation therefore reconciles the many images people have of a company, and conveys the relative prestige and status of the company vis-à-vis rivals. (Reputation Institute, n.d.b) In a white paper on Total Reputation Management, Entegra Corporation (n.d.) (a risk, crisis, and issues management company) defined reputation even more broadly than Fombrun: Reputation, by definition, is an intangible asset that encompasses reflections of the past and expectations of the future, reflections and expectations about a firm’s actions, activities, products and services. Reputation is a broad and far-reaching characteristic for a business, incorporating concepts such as corporate image, goodwill, and brand equity. It is a compilation of views held by all the firm’s stakeholders—investors, clients, customers, employees, suppliers, partners, vendors, the media, financial analysts, special interest groups, politicians, labor unions, shareholder activists and regulators. (Part I, para. 1) If we isolate the key components of these definitions, we can see that reputations contain both cognitions (“cognitive representations,” “net images,” “reflections of the past”) and attitudes (i.e., evaluations or valences such as “affective or emotional reaction,” “attachments,” “attractiveness,” “prestige,” and “status”). At the same time, the definitions allow only one reputation for an organization rather than acknowledging that an organization might have different reputations among different stakeholders. Therefore, a reputation consists of a composite of all of the cognitions and attitudes of all stakeholders. This definition of reputation as a single composite concept is consistent with measures of reputation such as those of Fortune magazine and Fombrun’s own measure, Reputation Quotient, developed with the support of the Weber Shandwick Worldwide public relations firm (Genasi, 2001) and the Harris Interactive research firm (Harris Interactive Reputation Quotient, 2001). These measures average the rankings of corporations by several stakeholders or by a sample of the general population on a number of criteria. For the Reputation Quotient, participants in both a telephone and online survey of the general population first are asked to “name two companies that stand out as having the best or worst reputations overall” (Harris Interactive Reputation Quotient, 2001, How Was the Study Conducted? section, para. 1). Organizations with the most nominations, plus those included in previous surveys, are included in the ratings. Participants selected from an established Harris online panel then rate one or two of the companies on the list with which they are very or somewhat familiar—an average of 600 respondents for each of the 60 most visible companies. Participants in the survey rate the companies on “20 attributes in six key dimensions: products and services, financial performance, workplace environment, social responsibility, vision and leadership, and emotional appeal”2 (Harris Interactive Reputation Quotient, 2001, The RQ Ratings Phase, para. 1). These ratings, then, are averaged into a single Reputation Quotient (Genasi, 2001, p. 30). In the 2001 survey, for example, Johnson & Johnson led the list with an RQ of 82.5 and Bridgestone Firestone came in last with an RQ of 46.7. 2 The specific items, as listed by Genasi (2001), are products and services: high quality, innovative, value for money, stands behind; social responsibility: supports good causes, environmental responsibility, treats people well; work environment: well-managed, good place to work, good employees; financial performance: outperforms competitors, record of profitability, low risk investment, growth prospects; vision and leadership: market opportunities, excellent leadership, clear vision for the future; emotional appeal: feel good about, admire and respect, trust. Jeffries-Fox Associates (2000a) identified similar components of reputation in their content analysis of literature on corporate reputation. They found four components in more than 50% of the articles in which corporate reputation was mentioned: marketing, products and services, management, and personality. Two other secondary components were mentioned in 30% to 49% of the articles: financial performance and customer service. Jeffries-Fox Associates (2000b) also studied nine systems used to measure reputation, including the Fortune system and Fombrun’s Reputation Quotient, to identify how these systems implicitly define reputation. They isolated “10 components used in a majority of systems” (p. 7): ethical behavior, treatment of employees and workplace conditions, financial performance, leadership, management, social responsibility, customer focus, quality, reliability, and emotional appeal. Although the definition of a reputation as a single composite concept is consistent with most of the popular measurement systems that are available, these systems seem to be adaptations of standard survey research tools that commercial research firms have used for years to measure attitudes about (evaluations of) organizations. Composite ratings and rankings of organizations are popular and easy to understand, although they generally are misleading because of the large amount of averaging needed to develop a single score across many criteria for several stakeholders. It also seems doubtful that most participants in the research, especially members of the general population, would have the information needed to evaluate a company on all of the items included in these scales (e.g., the items in the Reputation Quotient listed in footnote 4)—even those who say they are familiar with the company. Reputational rankings, therefore, are second-order ratings of companies—i.e., ratings that are based more on hearsay, overall impressions, or guesses than on direct experience with or substantial knowledge of a company.3 Participants in the research also are likely to generalize from the attributes for which they do have knowledge to those for which they have little knowledge. For example, as we said before, financial analysts seem to generalize financial performance to other attributes measured in the Fortune index. Participants who use the products of a company most likely generalize their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with those products to other criteria such as social responsibility or the quality of management. As a result, we believe it is necessary to develop a better definition of reputation than those used to justify current measurement systems. Walker Information (1998), a research firm, defined reputation in more limited terms as “the reflection of an organization over time as seen through the eyes of its stakeholders and expressed through their thoughts and words” (p. 1). This definition comes close to one offered by the psychologist Bromley (1993) in his book, Reputation, Image, and Impression Management, which is perhaps the most thorough scholarly analysis of reputation and its similarities to images and impressions. Bromley (1993), like Fombrun, began with a dictionary definition of reputation— his taken from The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English—that a reputation is 3 As an example, the senior author recently was called in an attitudinal survey about telephone yellow pages directories. After several questions about satisfaction with two competing directories, the interviewer began a series of questions asking for ratings of the companies that produced the directories. When the senior author told the interviewer that he had no idea what company produced one of the directories, the interviewer said: “That’s all right. We’re just looking for your impressions.”