brand battle: forever 21 vs h&m

1
OVERALL SCORE CARD COMPETITORS COMPETITORS LOCAL SEO LOCAL SEO LOCAL ADVERTISING ENGAGEMENT ENGAGEMENT REVIEWS LOCAL DIGITAL MARKETING LOCAL DIGITAL MARKETING A HEAD TO HEAD SHOWDOWN k.o. brand score DATA QUALITY REVIEWS 77 % 60 k.o. Brand Battle Battle Brand A HEAD TO HEAD SHOWDOWN in Forever 21 vs H&M SATISFACTION RATING 4-STAR AND ABOVE RATING ADDRESS PRECISION PHONE# PRECISION FOUND LOCATIONS DATA QUALITY brand score NAP ANALYSIS & LISTING PRESENCE ACROSS THE “BIG 6” ENGINES AND LOCAL DIRECTORIES KO 3 wrong number, bro bring it on % OVERALL SCORE CARD LOCAL SEO 114 REVIEWS 90 95 ENGAGEMENT 108 113 DATA QUALITY 114 118 FIGHT FOR THE TOP USING KEYWORDS Clothing Store, Womens Clothing, Dresses 40% of Forever 21's locations showed up at position 1. NON-RANKING LOCATIONS SEARCH RANK Supermarket 1. 2. 3. 4. Discount Store 1. 2. 3. 4. Forever 21's locations ranked in the first position 27% more often than H&M’s locations. LOCAL ADVERTISING GENERATING BRAND AWARENESS AND DRIVING LOCAL CONVERSIONS H&M CLOTHING H&M DRESSES THIGH-HIGH BOOTS H&M KIDS H&M MATERNITY 2. 1. 3. 4. 4. 80% of Keywords rank IN POSITION 1-3 34% BUSINESS LOCATOR LOCAL PAGES STORE HOURS ADDRESS PHONE FLAVORS IN STORE Due to more claimed locations and the increase in address precision, H&M managed to have an overall stronger listings presence. 43% 71% 15% 10% 2% UNCLAIMED LOCATIONS LISTING STRENGTH COMPETITORS 90 93 LOCAL ADVERTISING 83 90 LOCAL AMPLIFICATION FANS 23,135,365 42,981,637 HIGHER ENGAGEMENT Likes, Shares, Comments, & Consumer Brand Hashtags SENTIMENT ANALYSIS KEYWORD ANALYSIS Forever 21 customers were most likely to experience: Both brands should incorporate local pages to help boost their page ranks on Google and Bing. KEY LOCATOR FACTORS KEY LOCAL PAGE FACTORS DOMINATED DOMINATED Architecture & Usability NUMBER OF COMPETITORS: 4, including each other HAS HIGHER LOCAL OCCURANCES 38 40 % % Quality clothing! Helpful staff! Great selection! Helpful AN ANALYSIS OF CONSUMER ACTIONS AND INTERACTIONS % 38 MISSING LOCATIONS @GoBrandify 91 % 84 % Neither Forever 21 nor H&M has branded local pages. Price KO KO KO 599 winner H&M's locator has a map view as well as integrated directions on mobile providing an overall greater user experience. What is your Brand Score? Brandify's real-time algorithms continuously evaluate the online footprint of multi-location brands across the six pillars: Data Quality, Local SEO, Reviews, Engagement, Local Advertising, and Competitors. Improve organic search, business listings, competitiveness and social media engagement with Brandify. We evaluate over 250+ variables representing the following categories: Lo cal SEO C ompetitors 1 2 3 Local Advertising R evi ews Measuring your Brand’s Digital Footprint. En gagement Data Quality Brand Score DATA COLLECTED: AUGUST 2015 - OCTOBER 2015 Quality FOR THE KEYWORDS: Women's Clothing Top competition is each other, with Charlotte Russe, The Gap, Aeropostale 623 H&M MEN H AND M CLOTHING H&M SHOES BODY SUITS BIKER JEANS DIVIDED 714.660.4870 | [email protected] | www.brandify.com 39 % 70 % 18% H&M HOME 114 Across the board we noticed that H&M had more social fans that were more engaged on its social channels. 44% THIGH-HIGH LACE UP BOOTS Charlotte Russe, H&M, Aeropostale The Gap, Forever 21, Zara

Upload: brandify

Post on 12-Jan-2017

301 views

Category:

Small Business & Entrepreneurship


5 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Brand Battle: Forever 21 vs H&M

OVERALL SCORE CARD

COMPETITORSCOMPETITORS

LOCAL SEOLOCAL SEO

LOCAL ADVERTISING

ENGAGEMENTENGAGEMENT

REVIEWS

LOCAL DIGITAL MARKETINGLOCAL DIGITAL MARKETING

A HEAD TO HEAD SHOWDOWN

k.o.brand score

DATA QUALITY

REVIEWS

77 %

60

k.o.

BrandBattleBattleBrand

A HEAD TO HEAD SHOWDOWNin

Forever 21 vs H&M

SATISFACTION RATING

4-STAR AND ABOVE RATING

ADDRESS PRECISION

PHONE# PRECISION

FOUND LOCATIONS

DATA QUALITY

brand score

NAP ANALYSIS & LISTING PRESENCEACROSS THE “BIG 6” ENGINES AND LOCAL DIRECTORIES

KO

3wrong number, bro

bring it on

%

OVERALL SCORE CARD

LOCAL SEO

114

REVIEWS

90 95

ENGAGEMENT

108 113

DATA QUALITY

114 118

FIGHT FOR THE TOPUSING KEYWORDS Clothing Store, Womens Clothing, Dresses

40% of Forever 21'slocations showed up at position 1.

NON-RANKING LOCATIONSSEARCH RANKSupermarket

1.

2.

3.

4.

Discount Store

1.

2.

3.

4.

Forever 21's locations rankedin the first position 27% more often

than H&M’s locations.

LOCAL ADVERTISING GENERATING BRAND AWARENESSAND DRIVING LOCAL CONVERSIONS

H&M CLOTHING

H&M DRESSES

THIG

H-H

IGH

BO

OTS

H&M KIDS

H&M MATERNITY

2.

1.

3.

4.

4.

80% of Keywords rankIN POSITION 1-3

34%

BUSINESS LOCATOR LOCAL PAGES

STORE HOURS

ADDRESS

PHONE

FLAVORS IN STORE

Due to more claimed locations and theincrease in address precision, H&M managed to have an overall stronger listings presence.

43%

71%

15%

10%

2%

UNCLAIMED LOCATIONS LISTING STRENGTH

COMPETITORS

90 93

LOCAL ADVERTISING

83 90

LOCAL AMPLIFICATION

FANS

23,135,365 42,981,637

HIGHER ENGAGEMENTLikes, Shares, Comments,

& Consumer Brand Hashtags

SENTIMENT ANALYSISKEYWORD ANALYSIS

Forever 21 customers were most likely to experience:

Both brands should incorporate local pages to help boost their page rankson Google and Bing.

KEY LOCATOR FACTORS KEY LOCAL PAGE FACTORS

DOMINATED DOMINATED

Architecture & Usability

NUMBER OF COMPETITORS:4, including each other

HAS HIGHERLOCAL OCCURANCES

3840 % %Quality clothing! Helpful staff! Great selection!

Helpful

AN ANALYSIS OF CONSUMER ACTIONS AND INTERACTIONS

%38MISSING LOCATIONS

@GoBrandify

91 %

84 %

Neither Forever 21 nor H&M hasbranded local pages.

Price

KO

KO

KO

599winner

H&M's locator has a map view as well as integrated directions on mobile providing an overall greater userexperience.

What is your Brand Score?

Brandify's real-time algorithms continuously evaluate the online footprint of multi-location brands across the six pillars: Data Quality, Local SEO, Reviews, Engagement, Local Advertising, and Competitors. Improve organic search, business listings, competitiveness and social media engagement with Brandify.

We evaluate over 250+ variables representingthe following categories:

Local SEO

Competitors

12

3

LocalAdvertising

R eviews

Measuring your Brand’s Digital Footprint.

En gagement

Data Quality

Brand Score

DATA COLLECTED: AUGUST 2015 - OCTOBER 2015

Quality

FOR THE KEYWORDS: Women's Clothing

Top competition is each other, withCharlotte Russe, The Gap, Aeropostale

623

H&M MENH AND M CLOTHING

H&M SHOES

BODY SUITS

BIKER JEANS

DIVIDED

714.660.4870 | [email protected] | www.brandify.com

39% 70 %

18%

H&M HOME

114

Across the board we noticed that H&M had more social fans that were more engaged on its social channels.

44%

THIG

H-H

IGH

LA

CE

UP

BO

OTS

Charlotte Russe, H&M, Aeropostale

The Gap, Forever 21, Zara