← Back: How do the Top 100 Companies compare?
A ‘future brand’ is a brand that is more likely to succeed in the future, not just one that is strong now. This is because it perfectly balances strong perceptions of its purpose in the world with the experience it delivers. In terms of experience, it ensures that it always has a strong emotional connection, delivers consistency across every touch point and focuses on improving peoples’ lives. In terms of purpose, it is seen to have a strong vision for the future, to drive and redefine its category and deliver sustainable business value in everything from resource management to price differentiation. The balance of these two elements is vital because it attends to the way we make decisions in the 21st century: avoiding a compromise between what we want now and what we need later.
Which companies qualify in 2015?
There are 21 ‘future brands’ in 2015 compared to 22 in 2014. Seven corporations that were not future brands last year have qualified this year, of which five are new to the Top 100.
All of the organizations in the Global Top 100 are extraordinarily successful by most common measures. However, our findings show that whilst most benefit from strong perceptions in some attributes, they often have opportunities to improve the way they are seen in specific areas. We have three further typologies for those organisations that are not classified as ‘future brands’, based on their scores and degree of balance of perceptions across the dimensions. This helps organisations to understand what levers to pull for greater success today and in the future.
“Purpose brands” – Organizations whose perceptions are more biased towards ‘a strong vision for the future’, ‘redefining the category’ and ‘delivering sustainable value’. In this study, these include Biogen, Novo Nordisk, Boeing, Medtronic, SAP and Unilever. Arguably, these organizations would benefit from strengthening perceptions in the ‘experience’ dimensions to drive further competitive advantage.
“Experience brands” – Organizations whose perceptions are more biased towards ‘building strong emotional connections, ‘an engaging experience at every touch point’ and ‘making peoples’ lives better’. In this study, these include AmBev, Nike, Volkswagen, The Coca-Cola Company and Moët Hennessy. Conversely, these organizations would benefit from strengthening perceptions in the ‘purpose’ dimensions to drive further competitive advantage.
“Corporate brands” – Organizations whose perceptions might be more balanced across the dimensions, but are not sufficiently strong to qualify as a ‘future brand’. These are divided into two further classifications in this study – those organizations that are ‘admired’ and those organizations towards which the public feel more indifferent. ‘Admired corporate brands’ are those closest to the top right of the purpose-experience matrix, and therefore the closest to becoming ‘future brands’. These include CVS Health, Amazon, Procter & Gamble, GlaxoSmithKline, BHP Billiton, IBM, Visa, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Oracle, Amgen, United Technologies, United Health Group, Kinder Morgan, General Electric and Mitsubishi Financial.
This can, in some cases, be attributed to particularly weak perceptions in specific attributes. Comcast, for example, is in the bottom five in perceptions of ‘personality’ and ‘trust’, and Bank of America has its weakest perceptions in the attributes of ‘pleasure’ and ‘consistency’. Whereas some organizations like Exxon Mobil and British American Tobacco have weak perception scores more consistently across the bottom ten of every attribute.
Our research shows that this matters for organizations because when people rate a company in the Global Top 100 as a ‘future brand’, 76% strongly agree that they would buy products and services from them, 69% strongly agree that the organization commands a price premium, and nearly two thirds strongly agree that they would work for them. And these preferences are significantly above the average performance across our study. So being a future brand is a driver of choice when it comes to purchase decisions, paying a premium and selecting an employer.
For example, in this year’s research nearly half of all those surveyed say they would like to work for Apple and Google (against an increased average of 25%), and 51% of our respondents say they would buy products and services from Microsoft (against an increased average of 32%). This is compared to organizations with weaker perceptions against our dimensions like Alibaba and Amazon that have below average appeal to our respondents as places to work.
In 2014, we demonstrated that there are a series of key drivers of a ‘future brand’ – things that stand out as major differentiators between organizations with the strongest and weakest perceptions in our research. These most significantly related to the attributes of thought leadership, innovation and authenticity – vital attributes of ‘purpose’. In our model, organizations with strong perceptions of thought leadership are seen to be driven by clear ideas and unafraid to express clear views about their category, market or the broader world. Innovation is best understood as providing new things that are useful. This means the organization is seen to go beyond change or novelty for its own sake, and instead focus on inventing products, services or experiences that are genuinely useful. And finally, when it comes to authenticity, organizations can have a lofty vision, but that vision needs to be seen to connect genuinely to its primary task or the qualities of its products and services.
People are increasingly preoccupied with their general wellbeing – from mental and physical wellness to spiritual health. In addition to bringing us pleasure, brands have an opportunity to contribute to that wellbeing by focusing on human needs and interests and considering what is ‘good’ for people in consumer, organizational and community life. The more a brand is felt to improve wellbeing, the more it will be connected with making peoples’ lives better.
Would the world, or your life, be worse if the brand ceased to exist tomorrow? In what way and would there be a credible alternative? The key to delivering brand value over the long term is to be seen as vital to peoples’ lives today: to be something we cannot live without. This applies to organizations as much as products and services and the stronger the perception of indispensability, the more likely it is that the brand can be seen to address the fundamental needs of its stakeholders or customers.
Does the brand make the best use of available resources – from people to materials and energy? Increasingly, brands are scrutinized for their supply chain and ethical credentials as much as their price, availability and quality. Organisations are expected to consider their environmental, economic and social impact in the normal course of business. And the same considerations are increasingly important drivers of consumer choice in categories as diverse as food, fashion and automotive. It is no longer a matter of ‘green washing’ or environmentalism – the imposed sacrifice of comfort and progress to save the world – but a requirement to make the best use of what we have and consider our impact for the long term.