866-997-4948(US-Canada Toll Free)

Premium Brands - UK - November 2016

Published By :

Mintel

Published Date : Nov 2016

Category :

Lifestyle

No. of Pages : N/A

There are different approaches to the perception of premium attributes among consumers. Brands that are considered exclusive by a higher proportion of consumers tend to conform to the traditional idea of luxury, however, brands that benefit from a high-quality image are often everyday brands that people use on a more regular basis. These brands may lack a more aspirational element, but are in a better position to demonstrate their quality than those brands that are out of financial reach for many.

Table of Contents

OVERVIEW
What you need to know
Products covered in this Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Most exclusive brands conform to traditional idea of luxury
Figure 1: Top ranking of scores for “Exclusive”, January 2014-October 2016
Perception of high quality is more influenced by everyday usage
Figure 2: Top ranking of scores for “A brand that is consistently high quality”*, January 2014-October 2016
Proven quality more important than exclusivity for paying a premium
Figure 3: Top ranking of brands, by agreement with “A brand that is worth paying more for”, January 2014-October 2016
Exclusive brands tend to be well known…
Figure 4: Agreement with “exclusive”, by brand awareness, January 2014-October 2016
…but by their very nature lack usage
Figure 5: Agreement with “exclusive”, by proportion of people who have ever used the brand, January 2014-October 2016
Perceived quality leads to positive reviews…
Figure 6: Agreement with “A brand that is consistently high quality”, by proportion of positive endorsements among users (net of “good” and “excellent” experience), January 2014-October 2016
…and can act as a differentiating factor
Figure 7: Agreement with “A brand that is consistently high quality”, by perceived differentiation (net of agreement with “It stands out as being somewhat different from other brands” and “It’s a unique brand which really stands out from other brands”), January 2014-October 2016
Exclusivity limits brand preference
Figure 8: Agreement with “exclusive”, by commitment (net of agreement with “This is a favourite brand” and “I prefer this brand over others”), January 2014-October 2016
Perceived quality also leads to greater preference
Figure 9: Agreement with “A brand that is consistently high quality”, by commitment (net of agreement with “This is a favourite brand” and “I prefer this brand over others”), January 2014-October 2016
Lack of engagement means exclusive brands struggle to generate trust
Figure 10: Agreement with “exclusive”, by agreement with “A brand that I trust”, January 2014-October 2016
What we think

BRAND OVERVIEW – WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW
Brands seen as exclusive conform to traditional idea of luxury
Brands with high-quality image tend to be more accessible
Perception of quality is vital to building a brand worth paying more for
Quality and worth paying more for go hand-in-hand

EXCLUSIVE BRANDS
Exclusive brands defined by high price and low availability
Figure 11: Top ranking of scores for “Exclusive”, January 2014-October 2016

QUALITY BRANDS
Perception of quality is more prevalent among familiar brands
Figure 12: Top ranking of scores for “A brand that is consistently high quality”*, January 2014-October 2016

BRANDS CONSIDERED WORTH PAYING MORE FOR
Brands associated with quality are seen as worth paying more for
Figure 13: Top ranking of brands, by agreement with “A brand that is worth paying more for”, January 2014-October 2016

THE LINK BETWEEN PREMIUM PERCEPTIONS
Brands do not need to be exclusive to be seen as quality
Figure 14: Agreement with “A brand that is consistently high quality”, by agreement with “exclusive”, January 2014- October 2016
Also little link between exclusivity and worth paying more for
Figure 15: Agreement with “A brand that is worth paying more for”, by agreement with “exclusive”, January 2014- October 2016
Quality and worth paying more for go hand-in-hand
Figure 16: Agreement with “A brand that is consistently high quality”, by agreement with “A brand that is worth paying more for”, January 2014-October 2016

SECTOR REVIEW – WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW
Automotive sector lacks exclusivity despite high costs
FMCG brands need to prove quality
Fashion conforms to traditional idea of luxury
Context is everything in retail
Everyday engagement with tech brands means exclusivity is low

AUTOMOTIVE
Big difference between exclusive and non-exclusive automotive brands
Figure 17: Top ranking of brands in the automotive sector, by agreement with “exclusive”, January 2014-October 2016
Glamour and function equally likely to drive quality image
Figure 18: Top ranking of brands in the automotive sector, by agreement with “A brand that is consistently high quality”, January 2014-October 2016
Added glamour of car marques is seen as worth paying more for
Figure 19: Top ranking of brands in the automotive sector, by agreement with “A brand that is worth paying more for”, January 2014-October 2016

BEAUTY AND PERSONAL CARE
Designer brands operating in BPC dominate exclusive list
Figure 20: Top ranking of brands in the BPC sector, by agreement with “exclusive”, January 2014-October 2016
Mainstream BPC brands used on regular basis enjoy image of quality
Figure 21: Top ranking of brands in the BPC sector, by agreement with “A brand that is consistently high quality”, January 2014-October 2016
Professional approval appears to assist Sensodyne and Oral-B
Figure 22: Top ranking of brands in the BPC sector, by agreement with “A brand that is worth paying more for”, January 2014-October 2016

DRINK
Comparative cost and style boost exclusive image in drinks sector
Figure 23: Top ranking of brands in the drink sector, by agreement with “exclusive”, January 2014-October 2016
Difference between exclusivity and quality in drinks sector
Figure 24: Top ranking of brands in the drink sector, by agreement with “A brand that is consistently high quality”, January 2014-October 2016
Twinings combines exclusivity and quality to its advantage
Figure 25: Top ranking of brands in the drink sector, by agreement with “A brand that is worth paying more for”, January 2014-October 2016

FASHION
Fashion designers dominate list of exclusive brands
Figure 26: Top ranking of brands in the fashion sector, by agreement with “exclusive”, January 2014-October 2016
Exclusivity and quality interlinked in fashion
Figure 27: Top ranking of brands in the fashion sector, by agreement with “A brand that is consistently high quality”, January 2014-October 2016
Casual society benefits sportswear brands
Fashion brands with potential as they increase awareness
Figure 28: Top ranking of brands in the fashion sector, by agreement with “A brand that is worth paying more for”, January 2014-October 2016

FINANCE
Certain financial services brands are literally exclusive
Figure 29: Top ranking of brands in the finance sector, by agreement with “exclusive”, January 2014-October 2016
More mainstream brands seen as quality
Figure 30: Top ranking of brands in the finance sector, by agreement with “A brand that is consistently high quality”, January 2014-October 2016
Background in other categories benefits brands
Disillusionment with financial services sector still present
Figure 31: Top ranking of brands in the finance sector, by agreement with “A brand that is worth paying more for”, January 2014-October 2016

FOOD
Comparative cost key to exclusivity in food sector
Figure 32: Top ranking of brands in the food sector, by agreement with “exclusive”, January 2014-October 2016
Household favourites associated with quality
Figure 33: Top ranking of brands in the food sector, by agreement with “A brand that is consistently high quality”, January 2014-October 2016
Balance between premium and accessible
Figure 34: Top ranking of brands in the food sector, by agreement with “A brand that is worth paying more for”, January 2014-October 2016

FOODSERVICE
Boom in premium burger chains evident in foodservice sector
Figure 35: Top ranking of brands in the foodservice sector, by agreement with “exclusive”, January 2014-October 2016
Success of coffee chains underpinned by perception of quality
Figure 36: Top ranking of brands in the foodservice sector, by agreement with “A brand that is consistently high quality”, January 2014-October 2016
Particular advantage for certain foodservice brands
Figure 37: Top ranking of brands in the foodservice sector, by agreement with “A brand that is worth paying more for”, January 2014-October 2016

HOUSEHOLD CARE
Household care generally lacks exclusivity
Figure 38: Top ranking of brands in the household care sector, by agreement with “exclusive”, January 2014-October 2016
Household staples seen as quality
Figure 39: Top ranking of brands in the household care sector, by agreement with “A brand that is consistently high quality”, January 2014-October 2016
Premium attributes considered worth paying more for in household
Figure 40: Top ranking of brands in the household care sector, by agreement with “A brand that is worth paying more for”, January 2014-October 2016

MEDIA
Highbrow content = exclusive image…
Figure 41: Top ranking of brands in the media sector, by agreement with “exclusive”, January 2014-October 2016
…and also leads to perception of quality
Figure 42: Top ranking of brands in the media sector, by agreement with “A brand that is consistently high quality”, January 2014-October 2016
Media brands struggle to create image of worth paying more for
Figure 43: Top ranking of brands in the media sector, by agreement with “A brand that is worth paying more for”, January 2014-October 2016

RETAIL
Comparative price and location impacts retailer exclusivity
Figure 44: Top ranking of brands in the retail sector, by agreement with “exclusive”, January 2014-October 2016
Competitive context changes perceptions
Exclusivity does not necessarily determine willingness to pay more
Figure 45: Top ranking of brands in the retail sector, by agreement with “A brand that is worth paying more for”, January 2014-October 2016

TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS
Few tech brands seen as exclusive
Figure 46: Top ranking of brands in the technology product sector, by agreement with “exclusive”, January 2014-October 2016
Quality linked to more active usage
Figure 47: Top ranking of brands in the technology product sector, by agreement with “A brand that is consistently high quality”, January 2014-October 2016
Proven quality leads to willingness to pay more
Figure 48: Top ranking of brands in the technology product sector, by agreement with “A brand that is worth paying more for”, January 2014-October 2016

TECHNOLOGY SERVICE PROVIDERS
Few technology service providers considered exclusive
Figure 49: Top ranking of brands in the technology service provider sector, by agreement with “exclusive”, January 2014-October 2016
Streaming services shift perceptions
Figure 50: Top ranking of brands in the technology service provider sector, by agreement with “A brand that is consistently high quality”, January 2014-October 2016
Exclusive content helps Sky to maintain desirable status
Figure 51: Top ranking of brands in the technology service provider sector, by agreement with “A brand that is worth paying more for”, January 2014-October 2016

TRAVEL
Travel sector correlates with traditional luxury traits
Figure 52: Top ranking of brands in the travel sector, by agreement with “exclusive”, January 2014-October 2016
Crossover between exclusivity and quality
Figure 53: Top ranking of brands in the travel sector, by agreement with “A brand that is consistently high quality”, January 2014-October 2016
Same brands considered worth paying more for
Figure 54: Top ranking of brands in the travel sector, by agreement with “A brand that is worth paying more for”, January 2014-October 2016

IMPACT OF PREMIUM PERCEPTIONS – WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW
Exclusive brands have high awareness but low usage
Quality as a USP
Little link between exclusivity and satisfaction
Exclusive brands lack the engagement to build emotional bond
Quality and trust are closely linked

THE IMPACT ON AWARENESS AND USAGE
Exclusive brands tend to be well known…
Figure 55: Agreement with “exclusive”, by brand awareness, January 2014-October 2016
…but tend to have limited usage
Figure 56: Agreement with “exclusive”, by proportion of people who have ever used the brand, January 2014-October 2016
Perception of quality dependent on active experience of the brand
Figure 57: Agreement with “A brand that is consistently high quality”, by proportion of users in the last 12 months, January 2014-October 2016
Consumers likely to use a spectrum of brands
Figure 58: Agreement with “A brand that is worth paying more for”, by proportion of users in the last 12 months, January 2014-October 2016

THE IMPACT ON PERCEIVED DIFFERENTIATION
Exclusivity adds differentiation
Figure 59: Agreement with “A brand that is consistently high quality”, by perceived differentiation (net of agreement with “It stands out as being somewhat different from other brands” and “It’s a unique brand which really stands out from other brands”), January 2014-October 2016
Differentiation and quality interlinked
Figure 60: Agreement with “A brand that is consistently high quality”, by perceived differentiation (net of agreement with “It stands out as being somewhat different from other brands” and “It’s a unique brand which really stands out from other brands”), January 2014-October 2016
Price-defined retailers skewed towards differentiation
Figure 61: Agreement with “A brand that is worth paying more for”, by perceived differentiation (net of agreement with “It stands out as being somewhat different from other brands” and “It’s a unique brand which really stands out from other brands”), January 2014-October 2016

THE IMPACT ON SATISFACTION
Brands of all exclusivity are equally likely to create satisfaction
Figure 62: Agreement with “exclusive”, by proportion of positive endorsements among users (net of “good” and “excellent” experience), January 2014-October 2016
Link between perceived quality and satisfaction
Figure 63: Agreement with “A brand that is consistently high quality”, by proportion of positive endorsements among users (net of “good” and “excellent” experience), January 2014-October 2016
Correlation between satisfaction and worth paying more for
Figure 64: Agreement with “A brand that is worth paying more for”, by proportion of positive endorsements among users (net of “good” and “excellent” experience), January 2014-October 2016
Figure 65: Agreement with “A brand that is consistently high quality”, by proportion of users who would recommend the brand, January 2014-October 2016

THE IMPACT ON BRAND PREFERENCE
Exclusivity limits brand preference
Figure 66: Agreement with “exclusive”, by commitment (net of agreement with “This is a favourite brand” and “I prefer this brand over others”), January 2014-October 2016
More familiar, quality brands build brand preference
Figure 67: Agreement with “A brand that is consistently high quality”, by commitment (net of agreement with “This is a favourite brand” and “I prefer this brand over others”), January 2014-October 2016
Similar link between worth paying more for and preference
Figure 68: Agreement with “A brand that is worth paying more for”, by commitment (net of agreement with “This is a favourite brand” and “I prefer this brand over others”), January 2014-October 2016

THE IMPACT ON TRUST
Lack of engagement means exclusive brands struggle to generate trust
Figure 69: Agreement with “exclusive”, by agreement with “A brand that I trust”, January 2014-October 2016
Perceived quality and trust closely linked
Figure 70: Agreement with “A brand that is consistently high quality”, by agreement with “A brand that I trust”, January 2014-October 2016
Trust and being considered worth paying more for also related
Figure 71: Agreement with “A brand that is worth paying more for”, by agreement with “A brand that I trust”, January 2014-October 2016

CROSS-CATEGORY REVIEW – WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW
Brands noted for exclusivity tend to use print advertising
Perceptions of exclusivity more inclined to fall than grow
Exclusive brands have strong online presence
High-quality brands tend to be subject of functional conversation
Brands that lack usage can use social media to boost quality image

ADVERTISING AND MARKETING ACTIVITY
Exclusive brands engage in advertising
Figure 72: Total above-the-line, online display and direct mail advertising expenditure of top brands, by agreement with “exclusive”, January 2013-September 2016
Exclusive brands tend to focus on press advertising
Figure 73: Total above-the-line, online display and direct mail advertising expenditure on top brands, by agreement with “exclusive”, by media type, January 2013-September 2016
Figure 74: Total above-the-line, online display and direct mail advertising expenditure on all brands across Mintel’s Brand Research, by media type, January 2013-September 2016
Brands seen as quality also invest in advertising
Figure 75: Total above-the-line, online display and direct mail advertising expenditure on top brands, by agreement with “A brand that is consistently high quality”, January 2013-September 2016
Figure 76: Total above-the-line, online display and direct mail advertising expenditure on top brands, by agreement with “A brand that is consistently high quality”, by media type, January 2013-September 2016
Brands can demonstrate quality through TV advertising
Advertising investment does not necessarily add extra benefits
Figure 77: Total above-the-line, online display and direct mail advertising expenditure on top brands, by agreement with “A brand that is worth paying more for”, January 2013-September 2016
Nielsen Ad Intel coverage

SHIFTS IN PERCEIVED EXCLUSIVITY
Perceived exclusivity is largely static
Figure 78: Agreement with “exclusive” for Samsung, Virgin Atlantic and M&S Simply Food, November 2011-August 2016
New brands hit the mainstream
Figure 79: Agreement with “exclusive” for Coca-Cola Life and Everything Everywhere/EE, December 2012-April 2016
Other brands permeate more into public consciousness
Figure 80: Agreement with “exclusive” for Jack Daniel’s, Thorntons and Twinings, June 2012-May 2016
Competitive landscape influences brand perceptions
Burberry sees exclusivity fall in line with other positive traits
Figure 81: Selected perceptions of Burberry, December 2013-September 2015

EXCLUSIVE BRANDS – ONLINE DISCUSSION
Glamour and aspiration boost online engagement
Figure 82: UK Social Media Metrics for selected brands, October 2016
Louis Vuitton’s handbags take centre stage
Figure 83: Topic cloud around mentions of Louis Vuitton, October 2011-October 2016
Rolex sponsorship activity noted
Figure 84: Topic cloud around mentions of Rolex, October 2011-October 2016
Importance of Harrods’ single location evident in online discussion
Figure 85: Topic cloud around mentions of Harrods, October 2011-October 2016
Exclusivity results in online spam
Harrods generates more conversation in run-up to Christmas
Figure 86: Online mentions of Louis Vuitton, Rolex and Harrods as a proportion of all online conversation, October 2011-October 2016

QUALITY BRANDS – ONLINE DISCUSSION
Lack of aspiration means fewer online mentions
Figure 87: UK Social Media Metrics for selected brands, October 2016
Heinz’s holistic company mentions indicative of quality perceptions
Figure 88: Topic cloud around mentions of Heinz, October 2011-October 2016
NIVEA’s products most prominent part of online discussion
Figure 89: Topic cloud around mentions of NIVEA, October 2011-October 2016
Colgate mentions often functional
Figure 90: Topic cloud around mentions of Colgate, October 2011-October 2016
Heinz sees two main peaks in conversation
Figure 91: Online mentions of Heinz, NIVEA and Colgate as a proportion of all online conversation, October 2011-October 2016
NIVEA marketing activity creates mentions

BRANDS WORTH PAYING MORE FOR – ONLINE DISCUSSION
Strong social media presence
Figure 92: UK Social Media Metrics for selected brands, October 2016
Formula One involvement guides Mercedes-Benz mentions
Figure 93: Topic cloud around mentions of Mercedes-Benz, October 2011-October 2016
James Dyson as a figurehead
Figure 94: Topic cloud around mentions of Dyson, October 2011-October 2016
Le Creuset using competitions to promote premium perceptions
Figure 95: Topic cloud around mentions of Le Creuset excluding competition-based mentions, October 2011-October 2016
Mercedes-Benz stays most talked about across the period
Figure 96: Online mentions of Mercedes-Benz, Dyson and Le Creuset as a proportion of all online conversation, October 2011-October 2016

APPENDIX – DATA SOURCES, ABBREVIATIONS AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Abbreviations

APPENDIX – BRANDS COVERED

List of Table

NA

Make an enquiry before buying this Report

Please fill the enquiry form below.

  • Full Name *
  • Your Email *
  • Job Title *
  • Company *
  • Phone No. * (Pls. Affix Country Code)
  • Message
  • Security Code *