BRAND INTIMACY STUDY - Amazon S3 · Why Brand Intimacy? As has been the case over the past 10 years, intimate brands continue to outperform established financial indices for both

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


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 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 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


QU

OTI

ENT

2017 2018 201960

100

HEAD TO HEAD

70.970.970.9

53.553.553.5

0

90


23%23%23%19%19%19%

0

40


77.077.077.083.483.483.4

70.970.970.9

10 11



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


QU

OTI

ENT

2017 2018 201950

90

HEAD TO HEAD

69.869.869.8

46.346.346.3

0

80


14%14%14% 12%12%12%

0

30


69.869.869.866.566.566.5

71.071.071.0

12 13



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


QU

OTI

ENT

2017 2018 201930

90

HEAD TO HEAD

62.562.562.554.854.854.8

0

80


16%16%16%12%12%12%

0

30


50.450.450.4 48.548.548.5

62.562.562.5

14 15



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


QU

OTI

ENT

2017 2018 201940

80

HEAD TO HEAD

61.461.461.4

37.537.537.5

0

80


22%22%22%16%16%16%

0

40


61.461.461.457.257.257.2

61.261.261.2

16 17



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


QU

OTI

ENT

2017 2018 201940

80

HEAD TO HEAD

58.458.458.447.847.847.8

0

70


10%10%10% 10%10%10%

0

20


58.458.458.4

51.151.151.1

64.864.864.8

18 19



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



QU

OTI

ENT

2017 2018 201915

75

HEAD TO HEAD

57.757.757.749.849.849.8

0

70


23%23%23%18%18%18%

0

40


57.757.757.7

49.849.849.839.839.839.8

20 21



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


QU

OTI

ENT

2017 2018 201930

70

HEAD TO HEAD

56.256.256.2

37.537.537.5

0

70


N/AN/AN/A

16%16%16%

0

30


56.256.256.258.858.858.8

44.844.844.8

22 23



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


QU

OTI

ENT

2017 2018 201930

70

HEAD TO HEAD

54.854.854.8

28.428.428.4

0

70


12%12%12%

5%5%5%

0

30


54.854.854.8

48.548.548.550.050.050.0

24 25



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



QU

OTI

ENT

2018 201915

75

HEAD TO HEAD

54.754.754.7

24.324.324.3

0

70


27%27%27%

11%11%11%

0

40


54.754.754.7

35.735.735.7

26 27


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 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


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


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


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


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


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


http://content.mblm.com/bis-customized-report-2019

https://mblm.com/lab/resources/

https://mblm.com/lab/industries/

https://mblm.com/lab/stories/

https://mblm.com/lab/webinar-series/

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


https://mblm.com/lab/book/

https://mblm.com/lab/book/

BRANDINTIMACYSTUDY2019

USA

©2019 All rights reserved

+1 212 979 8200

[email protected]

https://mblm.com/lab/brandintimacy-study/

[email protected]

Documents

BRAND INTIMACY STUDY - Amazon S3 · Why Brand Intimacy? As has been the case over the past 10 years, intimate brands continue to outperform established financial indices for both