The imc² Brand Sustainability Map™
The imc² Brand Sustainability Map explores the territory of relationships between brands and people.
The ‘X’ axis reflects the level of spending (or transactions) with a given brand relative to what might make sense for them to spend in that category.
The ‘Y’ axis reflects the level of trust in a relationship, as measured by the three distinct components of trust that imc² has identified – credibility (Does the brand deliver on its promises?), care (Does the brand understand my needs?) and congruency (Does the brand resonate with my values?).
Brands in the ‘sustainable relationships’ quadrant of this map win big. They save money – spending less on advertising and discounting to attract new customers and replace dissatisfied ones. And, they benefit financially from having earned the trust and loyalty of customers who align with the brand’s values.
Roll over a quadrant to learn more:
To see where some well-known brands fall:*
Automobile
Toyota stands out from the others with a higher level of trust and a spot in the Sustainable Relationship quadrant. Infused with a culture of constant innovation, Toyota has outperformed its American competitors for years. While Ford and GM were investing in gas-guzzling SUVs, Toyota launched cars such as the Prius that better met consumer preferences. When consumers had money to spend on cars as a result of the “Cash for Clunkers” program in the summer of 2009, it’s no surprise that Toyotas were big sellers.
Quick Serve Restaurant (QSR)/Mass Merchandisers
The map displays the superior position that McDonald’s has in market share, but SUBWAY demonstrates a higher level of trust among consumers. Perhaps because of its focus on health, which shows up in its menu choices and advertising, consumers think of SUBWAY as caring more about people and holding more congruent values than McDonald’s.
For mass merchandisers, Walmart has the highest transactions. Perhaps given its notoriously antagonistic relationships with suppliers and employees and negative impact on local business, the level of trust among consumers is low. Costco and Target have lower levels of transactions, but they have higher trust compared to Walmart and thus map into the Sustainable Relationship quadrant. Costco provides higher pay and better benefits to employees than other mass merchandisers and offers its customers a more educated and more consistent workforce, and Target has distinguished itself by providing customers with affordable, well-designed products.
Wireless Carriers/Commercial Banks/Grocery
The wireless carriers are all low on trust and in the Reluctant Relationship quadrant. Customer service typically involves an automated labyrinth of punching in numbers and waiting, and service contracts – laden with fine print, hidden fees and penalties for termination – leave consumers feeling more imprisoned than trusted by carriers.
Commercial banks currently have the lowest level of trust among all of the categories that we reviewed. The Wall Street bailout and the exorbitant compensation of executives at bailed-out companies leave U.S. consumers with a clear sense that these firms are looking out for their own profit rather than mutually beneficial customer relationships.
Whole Foods Market's values-centric approach is felt by people who rate the company highly on trust. Whole Foods Market, previously a specialty grocer that now competes in the general grocery category, is smaller than competitors such as Walmart, Kroger and Safeway and now faces the challenge of growing its transactions among the general population in order to move into the Sustainable Relationship quadrant.
Emotional Relationships
Brands are in relationships that are typically not sustainable financially. However, these brands have built a foundation of trust that could propel them to that level.
Sustainable Relationships
Brands here enjoy both financial success and a trusting, loyal base of brand advocates. These brands will outperform their competitors both in good times and in downturns.
Limited Relationships
Brands suffering from both low trust and low transactions may be just entering a market or may just be struggling to gain traction. Clearly, Limited Relationships are not sustainable.
Reluctant Relationships
Brands here experience two major downsides: 1) RISK, as people buy more out of habit or lack of choice than out of brand affinity and are quick to jump ship; and 2) COST, as they spend precious funds to advertise heavily, discount or continually invent low-value new products to maintain mindshare.
Emotional Relationships
Brands are in relationships that are typically not sustainable financially. However, these brands have built a foundation of trust that could propel them to that level.
Sustainable Relationships
Brands here enjoy both financial success and a trusting, loyal base of brand advocates. These brands will outperform their competitors both in good times and in downturns.
Limited Relationships
Brands suffering from both low trust and low transactions may be just entering a market or may just be struggling to gain traction. Clearly, Limited Relationships are not sustainable.
Reluctant Relationships
Brands here experience two major downsides: 1) RISK, as people buy more out of habit or lack of choice than out of brand affinity and are quick to jump ship; and 2) COST, as they spend precious funds to advertise heavily, discount or continually invent low-value new products to maintain mindshare.
*Methodology based on more than 250,000 brand relationship surveys.
Follow imc2.com
Fan imc2.com
