The platform
Reputation, measured like any other asset.
Augur measures a company's reputation from the business performance financial analysts expect of it — not from media or social data — and tracks that value weekly against industry peers and the market. The result is a single score out of 100, decomposed by the stakeholders who moved it.
Dot = normalized level, −1 to +1. Trail = this week's move. Source: Steel City Re benchmarking data.
“How much of the drawdown after the inquiry was reputational rather than market-wide?”
Most of it. In the four weeks after disclosure, reputation value fell 9.4 points against peers while the peer median was flat. The investor signal moved −1.16 this week — the only deteriorating audience; customers and employees & creditors are improving. Conviction loosened to −0.32: expectations are being revised, not held.
Sources: RVM weekly series · Stakeholder signals · Industry peer set (n=24)
All screens illustrative and anonymized.
Built for
The people who answer for reputation when it is tested.
General Counsel
Quantify reputational exposure in litigation, investigations and disputes.
Chief Communications Officers
Defend budget and strategy in the language of value.
CEOs and Boards
See in one number whether reputational value is protected or eroded.
CFOs and Investor Relations
Connect reputation to market performance.
Questions Augur answers
“Where does our reputation value stand today — and against whom?”
“Which stakeholders moved it this quarter?”
“How exposed are we if this matter becomes public?”
“Did the response protect value, or merely sentiment?”
“How do we compare with the peers the board watches?”
“What would a bottom-quarter position cost us in a crisis?”
Methodology
Built on the insurance industry's 25-year actuarial standard for reputation value, exclusively licensed from Steel City Re.
Questions about the platform
What buyers ask before a briefing.
We license the core reputation metric from Steel City Re, the insurer that introduced reputation risk insurance roughly twenty-five years ago. The measure was created for underwriting, not for marketing analytics—it exists because someone had to price reputation and then pay out when it was damaged.
Financial analysts' forward expectations of company performance, purchased in bulk from FactSet and refreshed daily. These are professional forecasts of reputation’s impact on business performance, not opinions about how a brand is perceived.
Steel City Re maintains equity portfolios constructed on the reputation value measure, two of them calculated by S&P Dow Jones Indices and one in-house, which have outperformed the S&P 500 and their peer sets consistently for two decades.
Augur’s own research, the Augur Corporate Reputation Report, tested the measure across 139 crisis events at 114 companies. Companies entering a crisis in the bottom quarter of reputation value took a median equity drawdown of 20.1%; the rest took 8.5%. Two event types show no protective effect: mergers and activist or proxy concessions, both transacted directly with investors. The study reports an association, not causation, and the finding is about the depth of the fall: higher-reputation companies fall less, with no evidence that they recover faster.
The RVM correlates with equity value, which is the point—we understand reputation as a slice of enterprise value. But underlying signals map to stakeholder groups, and they often diverge: investors can read negative while customers and employees read positive, or the reverse. That divergence is the actionable part, and it isn't recoverable from a share price.
We ingest the composite RVM and unbundle it into its constituent stakeholder signals—investors, customers, employees, creditors, suppliers, and partners—plus a second-order signal we call conviction: how resilient or fragile each of those positions is. A stakeholder group reading positive but holding that position weakly is a materially different risk from one reading positive and holding firm. That distinction is invisible in a composite score.
Actuarial methods can tell you what a class of event actually costs base rates, severity, time to recover. Behavioral science tells you the mechanism. Reputation damage isn't a feeling; it's enacted by people making decisions: customers switching, employees leaving, creditors repricing risk, investors selling, partners renegotiating.
Each stakeholder signal we measure is an expectation of business performance mapped onto the behavior that expectation tends to produce. That's the fusion—the behavioral layer explains how value moves, the actuarial layer prices how much.
Media analytics can describe a conversation with real sophistication, but it can't tell you what the conversation costs, because nothing about it was ever priced by someone carrying the risk.
No social or media data enters the core reputation value calculation. The MarComms industry has spent decades trying to reconstruct reputation from what stakeholders are saying, which measures the discourse rather than the business consequence. We measure reputation as a component of enterprise value.
Coverage and sentiment remain important context—which is why they're overlaid rather than omitted.
In a standard package, reputation value updates weekly; share price, media, and social update daily.
Daily reputation value is technically available and materially more expensive, and in most cases we don't think it's worth it—a single news cycle rarely moves true reputation value inside twenty-four hours. Volatility is the fast-moving signal, and that's the one that leads.
We don't replace media monitoring and we don't ask you to. Whatever feed a client already runs—Newswhip, Talkwalker, Meltwater, Cision, a bespoke build—pipes into the Narrative view, where our event-labeling engine isolates the individual narrative cycles (the recall, the breach, the layoffs) and maps them against reputation value movement. The output is an answer to the question every monitoring report dodges: did this cycle move the business, or didn't it?