PENGARUH PROGRAM KOMUNIKASI TERHADAP REPUTASI PT ADITYA INDRA MENURUT ...

14 Pages·2013·0.16 MB·Indonesian

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.”