BRANDINTIMACYSTUDY2019
USA
Are you leveraging thescience of emotion?
Table of contents
Leverage the science of emotion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Why Brand Intimacy? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Financial performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
USA Top 10 Most Intimate Brands 2019 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
The smartphone ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Millennial findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Global findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Brand Intimacy Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
More on Brand Intimacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Brands matter. Emotion counts. Every year, we produce the largest
study of brands based on emotion. The proprietary methodology
we have developed over the past decade is based on 20,000
qualitative brand stories, 1,000 hours of insights, and more than
18,000 quantitative interviews and 156,000 brand evaluations. This
year we examined how 6,200 consumers across three countries
bond with the brands they use and love. We also showcased how
brands based on emotion continue to outperform top brands in
financial indices such as Fortune 500 and S&P, demonstrating the
clear business advantages of leveraging emotional science.
This document features only the top 10 ranking brands, and from
them we gain key insights or lessons on how they build successful
bonds with their customers. By exploring our data dashboard, you can
broaden your understanding of nearly 400 brands. If your brand is in
our study, consider how you can deepen and enhance the character
and intensity of its bonds with consumers. If your brand is not in
our study, examine whether you are measuring and leveraging your
brand’s emotional power. We can be the partner to help you get there.
All brands have the potential to be intimate with their
users. Are you doing everything possible to
ensure your brand is building strong bonds?
2 3
BRAND INTIMACY 2019BRAND INTIMACY 2019
• Provides greater price resilience
• Centers on emotion, which drives decision and willingness to purchase
• Creates strong sense of loyalty
• Is customer-centric and based on reciprocity
• Leverages technology to establish an ecosystem for building bonds
Advantages
Top intimate brands have double the number of consumers willing to pay 20 percent moreWe continue to see that consumers are more
willing to pay a premium for highly intimate
brands than they are for brands with lower
levels of intimacy.
Price Resilience
Why Brand Intimacy?
As has been the case over the past 10 years,
intimate brands continue to outperform
established financial indices for both
revenue and profit.
We compiled the top 10 companies from
the Brand Intimacy Rankings, Standard &
Poor’s 500, and the Fortune 500 lists. For
each brand, our teams gathered the reported
revenue and profit/loss for 2008–2017 from
their annual reports and form 10-Ks. From the
data, we then calculated the average year-
over-year growth rates for both revenue and
profit for the 10-year period. Top intimate
brands deliver superior results in relation to
revenue and profit growth, suggesting the
importance of emotion in driving the world’s
leading brands.
Outperforming leading financial indices
0 .500
0 .250
0 .375
0 .125
0 6 .37% 44.98%
38 .60%
20 .45%
24 .52%
Average profit growth 2008–2017
4 .75% 3 .66% 8.68%
3 .93% 5 .01%
0 .090
0 .045
0 .068
0 .023
0
Average revenue growth 2008–2017Brand can be a key asset, helping facilitate demand, encourage growth, ensure consistency of users,
and create advantage. Although the world around us has changed dramatically and shaped the way we
consume, buy, and sell, approaches to marketing and brand building have largely stagnated. Most feature
models and structures from decades ago that tend to focus on the importance of rational, hierarchal
thinking and create constructs designed to mimic a deliberate decision-making process.
With advances in behavioral science and neuroscience, we now understand that humans process
information and make decisions based on emotion. This suggests that to influence and affect decision-
making, you have to appeal and connect to people’s emotions. We focus on decoding this emotional
science to build strong brands.
4 5
BRAND INTIMACY 2019BRAND INTIMACY 2019
U .S . Top 10 Most Intimate Brands 2019
QUOTIENT
77.9
1
QUOTIENT
70.9
2
QUOTIENT
69.8
3
QUOTIENT
62.5
4
QUOTIENT
61.4
5
QUOTIENT
58.4
6
QUOTIENT
57.7
7
QUOTIENT
56.2
8
QUOTIENT
54.8
9
QUOTIENT
54.7
10
U .S . Rankings
This year’s rankings are the latest findings in nearly a decade of
research and analysis related to Brand Intimacy. In last year’s U.S. Top
10 Most Intimate Brands, we saw the growing dominance of media &
entertainment, and that trend continues in 2019. After three years of
leading our study, Apple has been dethroned by Disney, and the top 10
has become increasingly saturated with media & entertainment brands
(four out of ten, up from three last year). Automotive has also increased
its presence at the top of the rankings. Although it has slid from its #2
spot last year, Amazon maintains a strong position in the rankings. We
also have a fast-rising new entrant in fast food brand Chick-fil-A.
6 7
BRAND INTIMACY 2019BRAND INTIMACY 2019
Brand Industry Average
BRAND RANK
1INDUSTRY RANK
1QUOTIENT
77.9ARCHETYPES
FULFILLMENT
45IDENTITY
40
27ENHANCEMENT
38RITUAL
68NOSTALGIA
INDULGENCE
52
STAGES
18SHARING
12BONDING
17FUSING
CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT
26%OF DISNEY USERS CAN'T LIVE
WITHOUT THE BRAND
PERFORMANCE OVER TIME
QU
OTI
ENT
60.560.560.5
2017 2018 201950
90
HEAD TO HEAD
77.977.977.9
47.547.547.5
0
90
BRAND INTIMACYQUOTIENT
15%15%15%
0
40
WILLING TO PAY20% MORE
77.977.977.9
73.173.173.1
21%21%21%
8 9
BRAND INTIMACY 2019BRAND INTIMACY 2019
Brand Industry Average
BRAND RANK
2INDUSTRY RANK
1QUOTIENT
70.9ARCHETYPES
FULFILLMENT
47IDENTITY
36
57ENHANCEMENT
52RITUAL
18NOSTALGIA
INDULGENCE
37
STAGES
22SHARING
14BONDING
11FUSING
CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT
38%OF APPLE USERS CAN'T LIVE
WITHOUT THE BRAND
PERFORMANCE OVER TIME
QU
OTI
ENT
2017 2018 201960
100
HEAD TO HEAD
70.970.970.9
53.553.553.5
0
90
BRAND INTIMACYQUOTIENT
23%23%23%19%19%19%
0
40
WILLING TO PAY20% MORE
77.077.077.083.483.483.4
70.970.970.9
10 11
BRAND INTIMACY 2019BRAND INTIMACY 2019
Brand Industry Average
BRAND RANK
3INDUSTRY RANK
1QUOTIENT
69.8ARCHETYPES
FULFILLMENT
46IDENTITY
30
53ENHANCEMENT
41RITUAL
17NOSTALGIA
INDULGENCE
29
STAGES
19SHARING
16BONDING
13FUSING
CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT
32%OF AMAZON USERS CAN'T LIVE
WITHOUT THE BRAND
PERFORMANCE OVER TIME
QU
OTI
ENT
2017 2018 201950
90
HEAD TO HEAD
69.869.869.8
46.346.346.3
0
80
BRAND INTIMACYQUOTIENT
14%14%14% 12%12%12%
0
30
WILLING TO PAY20% MORE
69.869.869.866.566.566.5
71.071.071.0
12 13
BRAND INTIMACY 2019BRAND INTIMACY 2019
Brand Industry Average
BRAND RANK
4INDUSTRY RANK
1QUOTIENT
62.5ARCHETYPES
FULFILLMENT
46IDENTITY
37
36ENHANCEMENT
42RITUAL
50NOSTALGIA
INDULGENCE
29
STAGES
30SHARING
9BONDING
9FUSING
CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT
22%OF CHEVROLET USERS CAN'T
LIVE WITHOUT THE BRAND
PERFORMANCE OVER TIME
QU
OTI
ENT
2017 2018 201930
90
HEAD TO HEAD
62.562.562.554.854.854.8
0
80
BRAND INTIMACYQUOTIENT
16%16%16%12%12%12%
0
30
WILLING TO PAY20% MORE
50.450.450.4 48.548.548.5
62.562.562.5
14 15
BRAND INTIMACY 2019BRAND INTIMACY 2019
Brand Industry Average
BRAND RANK
5INDUSTRY RANK
3QUOTIENT
61.4ARCHETYPES
FULFILLMENT
39IDENTITY
24
41ENHANCEMENT
48RITUAL
20NOSTALGIA
INDULGENCE
37
STAGES
22SHARING
16BONDING
9FUSING
CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT
27%OF NETFLIX USERS CAN'T LIVE
WITHOUT THE BRAND
PERFORMANCE OVER TIME
QU
OTI
ENT
2017 2018 201940
80
HEAD TO HEAD
61.461.461.4
37.537.537.5
0
80
BRAND INTIMACYQUOTIENT
22%22%22%16%16%16%
0
40
WILLING TO PAY20% MORE
61.461.461.457.257.257.2
61.261.261.2
16 17
BRAND INTIMACY 2019BRAND INTIMACY 2019
Brand Industry Average
BRAND RANK
6INDUSTRY RANK
2QUOTIENT
58.4ARCHETYPES
FULFILLMENT
45IDENTITY
42
26ENHANCEMENT
39RITUAL
54NOSTALGIA
INDULGENCE
43
STAGES
16SHARING
9BONDING
10FUSING
CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT
21%OF HARLEY- DAVIDSON USERS
CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT THE
BRAND
PERFORMANCE OVER TIME
QU
OTI
ENT
2017 2018 201940
80
HEAD TO HEAD
58.458.458.447.847.847.8
0
70
BRAND INTIMACYQUOTIENT
10%10%10% 10%10%10%
0
20
WILLING TO PAY20% MORE
58.458.458.4
51.151.151.1
64.864.864.8
18 19
BRAND INTIMACY 2019BRAND INTIMACY 2019
Brand Industry Average
BRAND RANK
7INDUSTRY RANK
4QUOTIENT
57.7ARCHETYPES
FULFILLMENT
37IDENTITY
33
36ENHANCEMENT
39RITUAL
44NOSTALGIA
INDULGENCE
42
STAGES
17SHARING
7BONDING
12FUSING
CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT
28%OF PLAYSTATION USERS CAN'T
LIVE WITHOUT THE BRAND
PERFORMANCE OVER TIME
QU
OTI
ENT
2017 2018 201915
75
HEAD TO HEAD
57.757.757.749.849.849.8
0
70
BRAND INTIMACYQUOTIENT
23%23%23%18%18%18%
0
40
WILLING TO PAY20% MORE
57.757.757.7
49.849.849.839.839.839.8
20 21
BRAND INTIMACY 2019BRAND INTIMACY 2019
Brand Industry Average
BRAND RANK
8INDUSTRY RANK
5QUOTIENT
56.2ARCHETYPES
FULFILLMENT
34IDENTITY
28
52ENHANCEMENT
50RITUAL
29NOSTALGIA
INDULGENCE
39
STAGES
22SHARING
5BONDING
10FUSING
CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT
28%OF YOUTUBE USERS CAN'T LIVE
WITHOUT THE BRAND
PERFORMANCE OVER TIME
QU
OTI
ENT
2017 2018 201930
70
HEAD TO HEAD
56.256.256.2
37.537.537.5
0
70
BRAND INTIMACYQUOTIENT
N/AN/AN/A
16%16%16%
0
30
WILLING TO PAY20% MORE
56.256.256.258.858.858.8
44.844.844.8
22 23
BRAND INTIMACY 2019BRAND INTIMACY 2019
Brand Industry Average
BRAND RANK
9INDUSTRY RANK
3QUOTIENT
54.8ARCHETYPES
FULFILLMENT
43IDENTITY
32
37ENHANCEMENT
39RITUAL
39NOSTALGIA
INDULGENCE
22
STAGES
21SHARING
6BONDING
10FUSING
CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT
21%OF FORD USERS CAN'T LIVE
WITHOUT THE BRAND
PERFORMANCE OVER TIME
QU
OTI
ENT
2017 2018 201930
70
HEAD TO HEAD
54.854.854.8
28.428.428.4
0
70
BRAND INTIMACYQUOTIENT
12%12%12%
5%5%5%
0
30
WILLING TO PAY20% MORE
54.854.854.8
48.548.548.550.050.050.0
24 25
BRAND INTIMACY 2019BRAND INTIMACY 2019
Brand Industry Average
BRAND RANK
10INDUSTRY RANK
1QUOTIENT
54.7ARCHETYPES
FULFILLMENT
48IDENTITY
34
36ENHANCEMENT
38RITUAL
30NOSTALGIA
INDULGENCE
55
STAGES
12SHARING
7BONDING
10FUSING
CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT
24%OF CHICK-FIL-A USERS CAN'T
LIVE WITHOUT THE BRAND
PERFORMANCE OVER TIME
QU
OTI
ENT
2018 201915
75
HEAD TO HEAD
54.754.754.7
24.324.324.3
0
70
BRAND INTIMACYQUOTIENT
27%27%27%
11%11%11%
0
40
WILLING TO PAY20% MORE
54.754.754.7
35.735.735.7
26 27
BRAND INTIMACY 2019BRAND INTIMACY 2019
AGE
Rank 18–34 35–54 55–64
1
2
3
4
5
GENDER
Rank Male Female
1
2
3
4
5
Users experiencing intimacy 23% 23%
INCOME
Rank $35–$100K $100–$200K
1
2
3
4
5
Income demonstrates a varied view of
intimacy, with only Apple making it in the
top five of both groups shown here. Those
making under $100K seem more attached to
media & entertainment brands, whereas those
with higher incomes prefer brands from the
technology & telecommunications and retail
industries.
No one brand appears in the top five for all three
age groups. Apple and Disney build strong bonds
with users under 55, whereas Amazon has more
success with older users. It’s also worth noting
that millennials and users aged 35–54 are more
intimate with media & entertainment brands,
whereas older consumers don’t have any brands
from this category in their top five.
Demographics
Interestingly, women and men share many of the
same industries among their top five brands: each
group includes two media & entertainment brands,
one technology & telecommunications brand, and
one retail brand. We’ve seen more movement in
men’s top brands, with Google, BMW, and Amazon
dropping from the top five, and Disney catapulting
from the #19 spot in 2018 to #1 this year. The women’s
top five includes almost all the same brands it did last
year, with the exception of Chick-fil-A replacing Jeep.
28 29
BRAND INTIMACY 2019BRAND INTIMACY 2019
BRAND RANK
1INDUSTRY RANK
1ARCHETYPES
IDENTITY
32
58ENHANCEMENT
58RITUAL
43NOSTALGIA
INDULGENCE
49
STAGES
18SHARING
7BONDING
16FUSING
QUOTIENT
74.2
BRAND RANK
2INDUSTRY RANK
1ARCHETYPES
FULFILLMENT
45IDENTITY
34
55ENHANCEMENT
47RITUAL
20NOSTALGIA
INDULGENCE
41
STAGES
23SHARING
14BONDING
12FUSING
QUOTIENT
70.5
39FULFILLMENT
1st.DEVICES
AVERAGECOMPOSITE
SCORE
2nd.CONTENT/INFO
3rd.ACCESS
4th.APPS
47.7 46.9 39.6 25.4
The smartphone ecosystem Millennial findings
Over the past several years, we’ve noticed a
Brand Intimacy insight that centers on possibly
the most intimate device of the 21st century so far:
the smartphone. We’ve found that brands that are
a part of the smartphone ecosystem generally
outperform those that aren’t. The average Brand
Intimacy Quotient for those in the ecosystem is
38.8, which is significantly higher than the overall
study average (31.0). This suggests that if a brand
has a strong presence on these devices, it can
expand its capacity for fostering emotional
connections with users.
The smartphone ecosystem is divided into four
groups: apps, access, content/info services, and
devices. The last two groups (content/info services
and devices) tend to have higher Brand Intimacy
averages than the first two. This is likely because
access brands and apps can easily be seen as utilities
or built-in aspects of the smartphone experience.
Although these brands enable and enhance the
smartphone experience, they can get less credit
than they deserve, whereas the devices themselves
become the ultimate targets of the users’ affection.
YouTube and Apple are the top two brands among
millennials. The two brands, although quite different
from each other, have similar Brand Intimacy profiles
among this age group: they share the same top
archetypes (enhancement and ritual), and they both
have the highest percentage of their users in the
sharing stage, although YouTube distinguishes itself
with an impressive 16 percent in the fusing stage.
It’s worth noting that YouTube scores much higher
among millennials than it does with consumers
overall (74.2 vs. 56.2), whereas Apple’s score among
millennials is relatively consistent with its overall
average (70.5 vs. 70.9).
30 31
BRAND INTIMACY 2019BRAND INTIMACY 2019
CONSUMERS WHO ARE INTIMATE WITH BRANDS
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
21%
31%
35%
47 .8
30 .9
41 .8
25 .4
19 .0
46 .4
29 .6
39 .0
24 .4
18 .7
42 .3
28 .5
33 .2
23 .2
15 .2
AVERAGE 31.0
MEDIA & ENTERTAINMENT
AUTOMOTIVE
TECHNOLOGY & TELECOMMUNICATIONS
RETAIL
CONSUMER GOODS
FAST FOOD
APPAREL
HEALTH & HYGIENE
BEVERAGES
APPS & SOCIAL PLATFORMS
FINANCIAL SERVICES
HOSPITALITY & THEME PARKS
APPLIANCES
LUXURY
TRAVEL
0 10 20 30 40 50
EXPLORE DETAILED INDUSTRY FINDINGS AS WE RELEASE THEM OVER THE YEAR
TOP INDUSTRIES BY COUNTRY
Rank
1MEDIA & ENTERTAINMENT
TECHNOLOGY & TELECOMMUNICATIONS
AUTOMOTIVE
2 AUTOMOTIVE FINANCIAL SERVICESTECHNOLOGY & TELECOMMUNICATIONS
3TECHNOLOGY & TELECOMMUNICATIONS
CONSUMER GOODSMEDIA & ENTERTAINMENT
Industries Global findings
MARCH
JUNE
MAY
SEPTEMBER
APRIL
JULYJUNE
OCTOBER
MARCH
JULYMAY
OCTOBER
APRIL
AUGUST
MEDIA & ENTERTAINMENT
CONSUMER GOODS
HOSPITALITY & THEME PARKS
RETAIL
APPS & SOCIAL PLATFORMS
APPLIANCES
TECHNOLOGY & TELECOMMUNICATIONS
BEVERAGES
FINANCIAL SERVICES
FAST FOOD
TRAVEL
AUTOMOTIVE
HEALTH & HYGIENE
APPAREL
NOVEMBER
LUXURY
Overall percentages of intimate users across the three countries of our study show
that the United States has significantly lower levels of Brand Intimacy than those of
the UAE and Mexico, and that gap has increased since last year. The UAE’s percentage
of intimate consumers is the same as last year’s, whereas Mexico’s has increased from
33 percent to 35 percent.
32 33
BRAND INTIMACY 2019BRAND INTIMACY 2019
1
4
2
3
6
5
1
2
3
Nearly a decade of research has helped determine our Brand Intimacy Model, which comprises five key components that contribute toward building intimate brand relationships . The model culminates in a Brand Intimacy Quotient, which is a score each brand receives that indicates its performance .
The Brand Intimacy Model
The score assigned to each brand that ranges from 1 to 100. The Quotient is based on prevalence (the
percentage of users who are intimate), intensity (where the relationship is on the spectrum of three stages:
sharing, bonding, and fusing), and character (performance on key archetypes).
It is a shorthand score that demonstrates how a brand is performing relative to its ability to create ultimate
brand relationships and enables comparisons to other brands in the same category or to the industry average.
V. BRAND INTIMACY QUOTIENT
1. SHARING When the person and the brand engage and interact . There is knowledge being shared, and the person is informed about what the brand is all about, and vice versa . At this stage, attraction occurs through reciprocity and assurance . Should the relationship advance, it would evolve to bonding . Should it decline, it would likely cause disengagement fueled by indifference .
2. BONDING When an attachment is created and the relationship between a person and a brand becomes more significant and committed . This is a stage of acceptance and the establishment of trust . Should this stage advance, it would move to fusing .
3. FUSING
When a person and a brand are inexorably linked and co-identified . In this stage, the identities of the person and the brand begin to merge and become a form of mutual realization and expression .
The user is the first part in our model because you cannot be intimate with a brand you have not engaged with
or repeatedly tried. Think of this as similar to human relationships; you cannot be intimate with someone you
are not already involved with.
A strong emotional connection is a key requirement and the foundation of intimacy. The greater the
emotional connection between a brand and a consumer, the more powerful the relationship. This connection
is determined by the degree of overall positive feelings a user has toward a brand and the extent to which a
person associates the brand with key attributes.
I. USER
II. STRONG EMOTIONAL CONNECTION
The following six patterns or markers are consistently present among intimate brands. They
identify the character and nature of ultimate brand relationships and help determine their strength.
III. ARCHETYPES
1. FULFILLMENT Exceeds expectations, delivering superior service, quality, and efficacy .
2. IDENTITY Reflects an aspirational image or admired values and beliefs that resonate deeply .
3. ENHANCEMENT Customers become better through use of the brand—smarter, more capable, and more connected .
4. RITUAL When a person ingrains a brand into his or her daily actions . It is more than just habitual behavior . It becomes a vitally important part of daily existence .
5. NOSTALGIA Focuses on memories of the past and the warm feelings associated with them . These are often brands a customer has grown up with .
6. INDULGENCE Creates a close relationship centered around moments of pampering and gratification that can be occasional or frequent .
Stages reveal and measure the depth and degree of intensity of an intimate brand relationship.
IV. STAGES
34 35
BRAND INTIMACY 2019BRAND INTIMACY 2019
Data DashboardIndustry findings, webinars, and articles
Explore 400 ranked intimate brands with
the ability to review findings by age, income,
gender, and geography.
Custom Reports
Learn all about your brand’s intimate performance.
Order a custom report to uncover unique category
insights, trends, archetypes/stages/quotient scores,
demographic findings, economic equity, usage,
frequency, immediacy of emotional connection, and
can’t live without measures. We can also compare
historic and geographic data, as available.
Explore findings and insights across 15 industries. Watch our industry
webinars for detailed trends and unique category perspectives and read
our expanding collection of articles to further understand how brands
are connecting with consumers today.
Resources
Review a rich array of information, insights, materials,
and ways you can further your understanding of
Brand Intimacy.
EXPLORE
EXPLORE
EXPLOREEXPLORE
BRAND RANK
1INDUSTRY RANK
1ARCHETYPES
IDENTITY
32
58ENHANCEMENT
58RITUAL
43NOSTALGIA
INDULGENCE
49
STAGES
18SHARING
7BONDING
16FUSING
QUOTIENT
74.2
BRAND RANK
2INDUSTRY RANK
1ARCHETYPES
FULFILLMENT
45IDENTITY
34
55ENHANCEMENT
47RITUAL
20NOSTALGIA
INDULGENCE
41
STAGES
23SHARING
14BONDING
12FUSING
QUOTIENT
70.5
39FULFILLMENT
36 37
BRAND INTIMACY 2019BRAND INTIMACY 2019
METHODOLOGY MORE ON BRAND INTIMACY
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
SOURCES To review the sources cited in this report, please visit our Sources page.
During 2018, MBLM with Praxis Research Partners conducted an online quantitative survey among 6,200 consumers in the U.S. (3,000), Mexico (2,000), and the United Arab Emirates (1,200). Participants were respondents who were screened for age (18 to 64 years of age) and annual household income ($35,000 or more) in the U.S. and socioeconomic levels in Mexico and the UAE (A, B, and C socioeconomic levels). Quotas were established to ensure that the sample mirrored census data for age, gender, income/socioeconomic level, and region. The survey was designed primarily to understand the extent to which consumers have relationships with brands and the strength of those relationships from fairly detached to highly intimate. It is important to note that this research provides more than a mere ranking of brand performance and was specifically designed to provide prescriptive guidance to marketers. We modeled data from over 6,200 interviews and approximately 56,000 brand evaluations to quantify the mechanisms that drive intimacy. Through factor analysis, structural equation modeling, and other sophisticated analytic techniques, the research allows marketers to better understand which levers need to be pulled to build intimacy between their brand and consumers. Thus, marketers will understand not only where their brand falls in the hierarchy of performance but also how to strengthen performance in the future.
To read a more detailed description of our approach, visit our Methodology page.
EXPLORE
To learn more about Brand Intimacy, in both theory and
practice, and how to measure, build, and manage your own
intimate brand, order a copy of our international bestseller.
A new paradigm in marketing
The Brand Intimacy Study is a comprehensive effort requiring collaboration among researchers, strategists, writers, designers, programmers, and coordinators. MBLM would like to thank Mario Natarelli and Rina Plapler for directing, shaping, and driving this new marketing paradigm every day and throughout each year. Without support from the other partners at MBLM, the study could not have been realized. Our thanks to Amy Clausi, Claude Salzberger, David Clover, Demetri Mihalakakos, Eduardo Calderón, John Diefenbach, Juan Carlos Arias, Kristiane Blomqvist, María Gabriela Pulido, Sidney Blank,and William Shintani for their support and leadership.
A very special thanks to our dedicated, hardworking, multidisciplinary team whose brilliance brought the study to life: Arcangelo Anthony, Ashwin Kulothungun, Cecilia Rodríguez, Deyan Iolov, Ehab Almassrey, Frank Alcock, Geron Sorsogon, Heitor Piffer, Huimin Lee, James Rivas, Joe Jian, Kate Conrad, Lourice Simeon, Lyutha Al-Habsy, Marc Stevenson, Melisa Agúndez, Michael Conybeare, Rodrigo Diez, Sandy Tran, Saneesh Sukesan, Santiago Espinosa, Tom Weick, Vera Kasper, Will Biondi, Youcef Haouatis, and Ziwar Majeed.
38 39
BRAND INTIMACY 2019BRAND INTIMACY 2019
BRANDINTIMACYSTUDY2019
USA
©2019 All rights reserved
+1 212 979 8200
Top Related