MLB  > General MLB  > Best Brands in the U.S.
April 17, 2011, 04:51 PM
Hi Folks,

Well, I already screwed up as a new user. I wanted to make my own post but I made it on Uncle Walt's thread... or something. And I know Uncle Walt already brought some of my posts over and put them in another thread. But I'm starting over now, with my very own thread. I'm so excited!

So, let me try again, and I'm very sorry.

I am a researcher working on a study of brands that includes some baseball and other sports brands, and I have full access and use of this database. I have a blog but that mainly attracts business people. I think the information is also of value to consumers including ones who like statistics and ratings of things.

My blog link is http://blogs.delphiforums.com/abbyzynzer

The study itself has been conducted three times in the U.S., Dec. '08, Dec. '09, and Dec. '10. It also has been conducted in Europe. The company that conducted the research is Kadence, a global market research company headquartered in London, but with offices in Boston, Singapore, etc.

Each wave of the U.S. part of the study measures the responses of a representative sample of 5,000+ U.S. consumers age 18-54, excluding ones who don't have a high school diploma or equivalent and/or who have household income below $35,000 per year (under $20,000 for people 18-29). The average household income in the sample is around $90,000/year.

In each post, I will address a particular topic. Like in this post, I will just show the brands that were liked the most overall by this sample. The scale used was

7 = Wonderful Brand
4 = Good Brand
1 = Not so Good Brand

In actuality, most of the brands received scores between four and six on this scale. We have then converted the original scores to grades like school grades, to give them more easily interpreted meaning to the companies themselves.

This post we thought we'd keep it simple and just list the 25 brands that were most well-liked overall as of December 2010 by our sample of 5.000+ midscale to upscale 18-54 year olds (~$90,000 average HH income). These people were researched rather than a broader sample since they are the most prized consumers among many of the major brands who invest money in strategic as opposed to tactical market research. Within the age, education, and income limits we set, the sample is demographically representative of that midscale to upscale 18-54 year old universe.

As usual, the top brands are an eclectic mix of trusted technology, food, luxury, home, and child-oriented brands.

1. Google 99.7 A+

2. Hershey's 98.9 A+

3. Bose 97.5 A+

4. Sony 96.9

5. Kelloggs 96.3 A

6. Cheerios 95.9 A

7. Amazon 95.7 A

8. Duracell 95.7 A

9. Wii 95.3 A

10. Kraft 95.3 A

11. Scotch Tape 95.3 A

12. Rolex 95.3 A

13. Ghiradelli 95.1 A

14. Johnson & Johnson 95 A

15. M & M Mars 95 A

16. Crayola 94.9 A

17. PayPal 94.7 A

18. General Mills 94.6 A

19. Craftsman 94.5 A

20. Campbell's Soup 94.4 A

21. Coke 94.4 A

22. Lego 94.3 A

23. iPod 94.2 A

24. Rolls Royce 94.2 A

25. Pillsbury 94.1 A

And, for some flavor of the rest...

50. Quaker 92.5 A-

100. Honda 89.9 B+

150. Pampers 87.7 B+

200. Pella 86 B

250. Motorola 84.9 B

300. Marc Jacobs 83.7 B

350. Miele 83.2 B-

400. Firestone 80.9 B-

450. Crowne Place 79.6 C+

500. Tommy Bahama 77.9 C+

550. United Airlines 75.8 C+

600. World Cup Soccer 70.2 C-

624. Hummer 69.2 D+

625. Direct Buy 68.9 D+

626, alli 68.8 D+

627. Kia 67.7 D+

629. BP 62.4 D-

634. National Enquirer 52.0 F-

I'll keep posting, and I hope you like the posts. I have hundreds of things here I can post about related to this study, not counting stuff like whether or not I have a boyfriend!
April 17, 2011  04:58 PM ET

In this post, I've listed the brands that improved the perception of their overall 'Goodness' the most during the 2008 to 2010 period. Next time I may list the brands that lost the most consumer 'love' from 2008 to 2010.

Keep in mind that there are several scenarios under which a brand's 'goodness' in consumer's eyes can jump:

1. The brand is rebounding from a poor period or even a disaster that included the 2008 'pre' measure.

2. The brand is chronically a poor performer ('there's no place to go but up') and therefore always potentially in a good position to improve -- even if it's just by luck, e.g., its category suddenly has more demand because of external/ global changes.

3. The toughest scenario to achieve -- a great brand that just getting better and better. (Milestones provides good and great brands with certain insights about how to keep topping a great performance that could never be obtained from a convential 'product category study' or 'segmentation')

4. The brand is one that benefits more than others from improvements in the economy, since 2008 was Gloomsville but 2010 is cautiously optimistic.

5. The brand is a newer one (or one expanding its market coverage or reinventing itself) gradually earning greater credibility and acceptance

The 25 most improved brands in perceived 'wonderfulness' by those 18-54 midscale-upscale consumers who are familiar with the brand are, in order of 'brand goodness improvement' (their current 2010 grade shown)...

1. Ford 82.3 B- (benefited along with others from recession, Toyota spinout)

2. AIG 62.2 D- (they became a little less hated as new objects for more au current hatred emerged)

3. Skype 85.2 B (technology that is tough for the entrenched competitors to defend against)

4. Herr's 82.2 B- (more products that are at least relatively healthier?)

5. Chick-Fil-A 87.8 B+ (a tasty fast food menu that is right for these health/nutrition oriented times, and its higher prices are a better fit than in 2008)

6. Fidelity 81.6 B- (stock market rebound must have helped -- but then where are the other financial companies?)

7. Converse 83.2 B (a brand that after years of neglect has created a new image for itself)

8. Hyundai 73.8 C (effectively used recession as a lever to continue to head toward respectability)

9. Chemlawn 73.0 C (the fears about the safety of their products can remain at a fever pitch for only so long -- the truth is, the stuff really works -- besides, how many families spend all their time hanging out on their lawns and thus being 'poisoned'? It's not the 1950's...)

10. Philadelphia Phillies 72.9 C- (Most of these consumers aren't diehard baseball fans, and people tend to love one team and be indifferent or hate the others, thus the mediocre absolute score -- but who can argue with amazing recent success?)

April 17, 2011  04:58 PM ET

11. Netflix 88.5 B+ (riding the tide of being the hot answer in its category right now -- but who's to say if they can keep doing so in this battleground?)

12. Subaru 77.6 C+

13. PayPal 94.7 A


14. Game Stop 83.9 B

15. Sprint 73.8 C (there was probably a limit to how low it could go)

16. Apple 93.8 A

17. Toro 84.9 B

18. Los Angeles Lakers 73.9 C

19. Kirsch 77.2 C+

20. Charles Schwab 78.1 C+

21. Goldstar 74.6 C

22. Thermador 80.0 B-

23. T.J. Maxx 80.1 B-

24. CoverGirl 85.0 B

25. Farmers Insurance 76.5 C (different, non-GEICO-like, effective advertising probably played a role)

April 17, 2011  05:01 PM ET

The unhappy brands below are listed from the one that had the worst loss from Dec. 2008 to Dec. 2010 to the one that had the smallest loss of these big brands (also shown is the declining brand's Brand Goodness score post-decrease):

1. BP 62.4 D- (duh)

2. Toyota 81.7 B- (down from 93/A in 2008; major safety questions arise)

3. Saturn 73.3 C (brand coming to its end)

4. AT & T 76.8 C (what a long fall from its heyday)

5. Botox 57.4 F+ (accumulation of too many Botox jokes on TV?)

6. Grand Hyatt 84.0 B (not quite as grand?)

7. NPR 79.0 C+ (the Juan Williams firing did them no good)

8. Tylenol 91.8 A- (Contamination of infant's/children's Motrin in now-shuttered Fort Washington, PA plant?)

9. Harley Davidson 89.0 B+

10. Dooney & Burke 85.1 B

11. NBC 86.4 B (their disastrous fall season)

12. Lexus 89.7 B+ (see parent Toyota)

13. Organix 77.0 C+

14. Tiffany 90.8 A-

15. Sierra Club 74.4 C (right-wing swing in the country?)

16. L.L. Bean 83.7 B (see Sierra Club)

17. Maytag 88.2 B+ (the bored repairman is becoming busier with their increasing quality problems and class action suits? Such is the downside of such a cocky advertising campaign...)

18. **** Barrel 82.7 B-

19. USPS 86.2 B

20. Nokia 82.2 B-

21. Popular Mechanics 76.5 C

22. Sephora 83.0 B

23. Blackberry 86.3 B

24. IBM 84.1 B

25. Pentax 80.8 B-

April 17, 2011  06:53 PM ET

Oh, cool.

April 17, 2011  06:56 PM ET
QUOTE:

I have hundreds of things here I can post about related to this study, not counting stuff like whether or not I have a boyfriend!

Good to see Chick-Fil-A in the #5 spot.
But come on Abby, it's maddening that they aren't open on Sundays. I can't be expected to time my cravings by the day of the week.

April 17, 2011  09:28 PM ET
QUOTE(#5):

Good to see Chick-Fil-A in the #5 spot. But come on Abby, it's maddening that they aren't open on Sundays. I can't be expected to time my cravings by the day of the week.

Thanks (Un)official, and I agree with you Yoda that Chic-Fil-A deserves its good score... As far as the Sundays, a) I agree with you as a consumer but b) I think it signals to everyone that this company has real, absolute standards -- integrity -- and then that positive feeling or 'respect' then cascades back on one's feelings about the integrity of their food and the whole operation. Plus, it may help them attract high quality employees in some cases. I'm not saying this from the standpoint of my own religious beliefs, but from how it strikes me as a business analyst!

Thanks again, guys

Abby

April 17, 2011  11:24 PM ET
QUOTE:

http://www.asyup.comBEST QUALITY GUARANTEE!!SAFTY & HONESTY GUARANTEE!!FAST & PROMPT DELIVERY GUARANTEE!! our price:Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $25T-Shirt(VERSACE,womanPOLO,womanPaco,Chicano,womanEd Hardy womaned hardy) $12edhardy(shoes, tshirts, jeans, caps, watche, handbag) $25coach chanel gucci LV handbags $32;coogi DG edhardy gucci t-shirts $15;CA edhardy vests.paul smith shoes $35;jordan dunk af1 max gucci shoes $33;EDhardy gucci ny New Era cap $15;(air max, shox tn, rift, puma, dunk sb,) nike jordan shoes 1-24 $32

In the heat of a marketing thread, the spammers could not resist!

April 17, 2011  11:32 PM ET
QUOTE(#6):

Thanks (Un)official, and I agree with you Yoda that Chic-Fil-A deserves its good score... As far as the Sundays, a) I agree with you as a consumer but b) I think it signals to everyone that this company has real, absolute standards -- integrity -- and then that positive feeling or 'respect' then cascades back on one's feelings about the integrity of their food and the whole operation. Plus, it may help them attract high quality employees in some cases. I'm not saying this from the standpoint of my own religious beliefs, but from how it strikes me as a business analyst!Thanks again, guysAbby

That is a solid answer.

And I really shouldn't be complaining. They used to be almost impossible to find outside of "The South" but they've opened 2 here now.

April 17, 2011  11:46 PM ET
QUOTE(#8):

In the heat of a marketing thread, the spammers could not resist!

(Un) Official

Yeah, those spammers really turn me off... But then I think about how many people hate my posts, which have often also been called spam...So I guess I've lost my spam-cursing priviledges!

So, some more of my spam

In precise trade-off measurements used in Milestones, the 5,000+ 18-54 year old midscale-upscale consumers (~$90,000 average HH income) who were interviewed for the Milestones Study in the 2010 study revealed that the four most important aspirations (from our list of twenty diverse items) for them were to be seen as

1. Intelligent

2. Genuine

3. Caring

4. Fun to be With

Based on the accurate, indirect method of determining the images of brands that we discussed in our last post, we found that in fact a staggering 0.7 relationship (where 1.0 equals a perfect relationship and 0.0 equals no relationship) between how likely a brand has been purchased/used by our consumers (including of course not at all) and its sum of association scores on these four traits. These four brand traits on their also had a substantial (0.4) relationship with perceptions of brand goodness on their own, even without consideration of the other less-compelling (or more repelling traits).

Excluding the harder-to-interpret media and celebrity 'brands', as well as ones with limited distribution (e.g., smaller regional and specialty brands), the top 25 brands for being associated with the great intelligent-genuine-caring-fun 'package' of four traits were:

1. Land O' Lakes

2. Scotch Tape

3. McCormick

4. Nabisco

5. Bic

6. Progresso

7. Sears

8. Robitussin

9. Orville Redenbacher

10. Secret

11. Bisquick

12. Herbal Essences

13. Kelloggs

14. Target

15. Ghiradelli

16. Folgers

17. Hallmark

18. Maybelline

19. Chevrolet

20. Energizer

21. Nutri-Grain

22. Tide

23. Johnson & Johnson

24. Splenda

25. Clorox

At the very bottom of the list (#635) was our old friend Hummer -- bombing out on all four most-desired comsumer traits while going over the top (perhaps an unfortunate choice of words) on a kind of devil-may-care, fashionable, high-energy traditionalism. Examples of other brands with very 'different' imagery from the All-American intelligent-genuine-caring-fun brand success combo were two Cruise Line brands, Audi, Porsche, Land Rover, Botox, and Miele (very expensive high-tech, rugged vacuum cleaners). Most of these brands are probably not looking for large market share but for high per-unit profitability and a cult, niche following upon which they can thrive.

AND, I AM ALSO PROUD TO SAY THAT MLB WAS THE VERY 1ST MEDIA/CELEBRITY/SPORTS BRAND TO APPEAR IN THE 'LEADER'S LIST' (KIND OF LIKE THE BA LEADERS IN THE NEWSPAPER) FOR BEING ASSOCIATED WITH INTELLIGENT-GENUINE-CARING-FUN-NESS . THERE WERE 51 SUCH BRANDS MEASURED IN THE RESEARCH. SO THIS SAYS THAT ADVERTISERS (HOPEFULLY EXCLUDING ANY MORE GOUT WATER AND IMPOTENCE PILL BRANDS) WOULD BE WELL-ADVISED TO ADVERTISE ON MLB!!!!!!! -- BECAUSE THE INTELLIGENT-GENUINE-CARING-FUN 'RUB-OFF' THEY WILL GET WILL BE GREAT FOR THE ADVERTISED BRAND. OTHER HIGH SCORING MEDIA/CELEBRITY/SPORTS BRANDS ON BEING INTELLIGENT-GENUINE-CARING-FUN WERE NCAA FOOTBALL, NFL, NASCAR, CINEMAX, AC/DC, PGA, NHL, PINK, CELINE DION, THE CUBBIES, AND METALLICA. FOLKS, THIS IS NOT YOUR GRANDFATHER'S WORLD ANY MORE -- EXCEPT PERHAPS WHEN IT COMES TO MLB!!!

April 17, 2011  11:48 PM ET

SORRY, GUYS, I DIND'T MEAN TO REPEAT THE WHOLE DARN THING, JUST THE STUFF IN CAPS AT THE BOTTOM. AND PLEASE VISIT

http://blogs.delphiforums.com/abbyzynzer

WHERE ALL MY WRITEUPS CAN BE FOUND!!!

April 18, 2011  12:15 AM ET

I'm surprised to see Robitussin so high on that list. I figured the brand image would have taken a big hit when kids started using it as a cheap street drug.

April 18, 2011  12:21 AM ET
QUOTE(#3):

The unhappy brands below are listed from the one that had the worst loss from Dec. 2008 to Dec. 2010 to the one that had the smallest loss of these big brands (also shown is the declining brand's Brand Goodness score post-decrease):1. BP 62.4 D- (duh)2. Toyota 81.7 B- (down from 93/A in 2008; major safety questions arise)3. Saturn 73.3 C (brand coming to its end)4. AT & T 76.8 C (what a long fall from its heyday)5. Botox 57.4 F+ (accumulation of too many Botox jokes on TV?)6. Grand Hyatt 84.0 B (not quite as grand?)7. NPR 79.0 C+ (the Juan Williams firing did them no good)8. Tylenol 91.8 A- (Contamination of infant's/children's Motrin in now-shuttered Fort Washington, PA plant?)9. Harley Davidson 89.0 B+ 10. Dooney & Burke 85.1 B11. NBC 86.4 B (their disastrous fall season)12. Lexus 89.7 B+ (see parent Toyota)13. Organix 77.0 C+14. Tiffany 90.8 A-15. Sierra Club 74.4 C (right-wing swing in the country?)16. L.L. Bean 83.7 B (see Sierra Club)17. Maytag 88.2 B+ (the bored repairman is becoming busier with their increasing quality problems and class action suits? Such is the downside of such a cocky advertising campaign...)18. **** Barrel 82.7 B- 19. USPS 86.2 B20. Nokia 82.2 B-21. Popular Mechanics 76.5 C22. Sephora 83.0 B23. Blackberry 86.3 B24. IBM 84.1 B25. Pentax 80.8 B-

Is "****" a banned word again?

****.

April 18, 2011  12:22 AM ET
QUOTE(#13):

Is "****" a banned word again?****.

Ha! The folks at Nabisco are gonna be pissed!

April 18, 2011  12:23 AM ET

How about ****?

April 18, 2011  12:24 AM ET
QUOTE(#15):

How about ****?

Ha!

April 18, 2011  12:24 AM ET

Elmer Fudd version?

Quacker

Quackerassquacker

April 18, 2011  05:11 PM ET

Let's take a look at a very simple measure of brand 'value'. In the research, the brands are rated by our 5,000+ 18-54 midscale/upscale consumers on a 1 to 7 scale on both Goodness and Expensiveness. For instance, a 7 on the Goodness scale is to be used only if you think the brand is 'Wonderful'. The 7 on the expensiveness scale is to be used only if you think the brands 'costs much more than other options'.

So one obvious and simple way to assess a brand's 'value' is to simply subtract a brand's Expensiveness score from its Goodness score. Thus brands that rate much higher on goodness than on expensiveness would be 'good values' and brands that rate much higher on expensiveness than on goodness would be 'poor values'.

A few caveats about this 'value' measure, which otherwise might be looked at as a direct precursor to actual product selection (i.e., which product a person would buy).

1. The overall importance of Goodness to the overall importance of Expensiveness varies from individual to individual. For example, for an affluent person who 'only wants the very best', cost is, as they say, 'no object'. For a poor person, articles with a high goodness level may be out of the question even if they are in some relative sense 'good values'. These people simply may not have the wherewithal to buy the better product... It's 'out of reach'.

2. The relative importance of Goodness to the importance of Expensiveness also varies from product or service category to product or service category. For instance, the goodness of a product for infants may override concerns about expense simply because of what is perceived at stake.

3. Finally, people may be value-oriented in one category and goodness-oriented in another, independent of the two above general points. It is rare to find people who are consistently 'cheapskates' or 'big time spenders' in every single category they buy.

4. Further complicating issues, price is often used as a barometer of quality. This is especially true in categories where the performance of the product is hard to assess, i.e., where it is hard to accurately compare one versus another. For instance, nutritional supplements. There is very limited information (if any) on the efficacy of most of these products, as the cost of properly researching them can be enormous. This may lead one person to buy the cheapest ones s/he can find because they're not sure the product even does anything. On the other hand, it may lead another person to use brand price as a barometer of quality, figuring that the more expensive products are purer and have retained more the power of the substance to aid their health.

5. The bottom line is that the price elasticity of demand for products varies widely by category. Categories where demand is price-driven, i.e., share of market is proportional to cheapness of product, are considered commodities, and only the most efficient companies can be profitable in these markets. Categories where demand is goodness-driven, and where consumers can perceive or imagine they perceive big differences between the products are not commodities but markets where the top brands can be hugely lucrative to their manufacturers or providers. It is essential for any market that a marketer know its commodity/non-commodity status and how price elastic demand for brands is by different key consumer groups.

April 18, 2011  05:11 PM ET

But back to our original topic: Goodness versus Expensiveness. In a commodity market, there should be minimal differences in the perceived goodness of different brands of products. In a non-commodity market, there should be substantial differences among the product choices in terms of perceived goodness, with market share (once differences in brand awareness and availability are held constant) driven by the ratio of goodness to expensiveness. Using the simplest of algorithms, we will now show the top 25 brands from the 2010 survey in terms of goodness MINUS expensiveness, i.e. in doing so we are assuming these two factors are equal in importance.

1. Walmart +2.29 (i.e., Goodness score 2.29 higher than Expensiveness score)

2. Amazon +2.19

3. Google +1.98

4. Hershey's +1.90

5. Pay Pal +1.87

6. eBay +1.72

7. Cheerios +1.71

8. M&M Mars +1.68

9. Target +1.65

10, Netflix +1.64

11. Betty Crocker +1.63

12. Campbell's Soup +1.61

13. Kelloggs +1.60

14. Kool-Aid +1.60

15. Kraft +1.56

16. Jell-O +1.56

17. McDonald's +1.55

18. Bic +1.55

19. Pillsbury +1.54

20. Scotch Tape +1.53

21. Arm & Hammer +1.53

22. Southwest +1.52

23. Johnson & Johnson +1.51

24. Coke +1.50

25. General Mills +1.50

Some other brands that are not packaged foods or other packaged goods:

28. T.J. Maxx +1.49 (first specialty store on list)

35. Skype +1.46

37. Crayola +1.46

38. Sam's Club +1.43

47. Lowes +1.36

48. Nintendo +1.36

49. Home Depot +1.35

Among the last ten in this crude estimate of value (i.e. the poorest values):

626. Louis Vuitton -1.05 (proving that there is a lot more to success than our simple value equation)

631. Prada -1.22

634. Hummer -1.87 (In my humble opinion, the Hummer fad was one of the true low points in American consumerism -- need to know why foreigners hate America? Look no further!)

635. Botox -2.09

Those of you who may work for one of these companies, or know someone who does -- please 'pass it up the line' -- as this may be something of which the company itself is not fully aware. In the end, our main objective is to helpful to the brands themselves.

April 19, 2011  01:49 PM ET

An earlier post looked at the esteem held for the 635 diverse brands versus one another among those familiar with each brand within our 5,000+ 18-54 midscale/upscale consumers. in this post, we will look at a subset of those ratings -- the opinions of people who actually purchase and/or use each brand. It's one thing to say a brand is wonderful based on advertising or hearsay, a more impressive measure if its users say that.

At the same time, we need to remember that...

1. Purchasers and users of a brand are normally self-selected (unless the buyer was not the user, e.g., a 'gifter', who did not know their preferences), so we know that they are probably better suited to the brand than others.

2. Regardless of their personal feelings towards it, gifters may buy a brand for someone else that they know or believe they want.

3. Through the mechanism, called by some pedants the reduction of 'cognitive dissonance', buyers of a product may want to justify/defend their choices after the fact.

4. Unsatisfied users or purchasers of a brand will normally stop using it and/or gifting it and thus will be weighted less in the User Affection calculation. This is normally much more problematic with a durable (e.g., a car) or a service that requires a contract than, say, a packaged good purchased at the supermarket or the drug chain.

Given these caveats, the Top 25 brands on User Affection from the 2010 research are shown below, along with (in parentheses) the ranking of the brand on overall Brand Goodness (i.e, everyone familiar with the brand rating it regardless of whether they have ever purchased or used it). While most of the brands are American icons, keep an eye out for a few surprises too!

1. iPod (23rd in overall Brand Goodness)

2. Google (1st)

3. Hershey's (2nd)

4. Wii (9th)

5. Bose (3rd)

6. Honda (100th: what a great storyline for Honda!)

7. Amazon (7th)

8. Apple (31st)

9. Sony (4th)

10. Disney World (44th)

11. Ghiradelli (13th: surprisingly strong and consistent performance for this premium chocolate brand on both measures)

12. Cheerios (6th)

13. PayPal (17th)

14. Kelloggs (5th)

15. Nintendo (41st)

16. Lego (22nd)

17. M&M Mars (15th)

18. Johnson & Johnson (14th)

19. Tide (36th)

20. Craftsman (19th)

21. Coke (21st)

22. Netflix (129th -- this discrepancy normally a sure sign of a growth brand)

23. Crayola (16th)

24. Crest (28th)

25. Kraft (10th)

Other brands that are in the Top 25 in overall Brand Goodness but NOT in User Affection, i.e., their reputations may somewhat exceed their performance?

26. Duracell (8th)

27. Scotch Tape (11th)

32. Campbell's Soup (20th)

36. General Mills (18th)

45. Pillsbury (25th)


58. Rolex (12th -- too many cheap fraudulent knock-offs out there??)

556. Rolls Royce (24th -- very small base size of owners, so we suggest that you not take this finding too seriously)

Those of you who may work for one of these companies, or know someone who does -- please 'pass it up the line' -- as this may be something of which the company itself is not fully aware. In the end, our main objective is to helpful to the brands themselves.

 
April 19, 2011  01:58 PM ET

I should have added a sports angle to the last post to be consistent with the purpose of this board. Among 51 sports, teams, media, and celebrities evaluated (the latter two not typically sports-related), the NFL was highest in 'user (i.e., viewer, follower) affection', followed by MLB, NCAA Football, and NCAA Basketball. The Boston Celtics were the measured team most loved by their own followers, the Yankees right behind them. As far as celebs most loved by their own 'users', we have AC/DC, Toby Keith, Miles Davis, B.B. King, Metallica and Coldplay.

Comment

Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.


Truth & Rumors

MOST POPULAR

  1. 1
    Tuukka Rask takes blame for Bruins' Game 1 loss
    Views
    2110
    Comments
    230
  2. 2
    Smush Parker allegedly punches high schooler
    Views
    1686
    Comments
    139
  3. 3
    Joel Quenneville's Midnight Hawk favored to win Illinois Derby
    Views
    419
    Comments
    88
  4. 4
    Quarterback freefalling down draft boards
    Views
    6069
    Comments
    87
  5. 5
    Oklahoma State pays Peyton Manning $105K for speech
    Views
    593
    Comments
    25

SI.com

SI Photos