Or is it? If we are to believe in these league tables which regularly assess the brand values of some of the world’s largest corporations, we should surely expect a certain consistency between them.
This is far from always the case. Take Apple itself. For the last year or two is has been the world’s top, or near top, company by market capitalisation with a simply stunning profit record. No one in their right mind would argue that branding, through Steve Jobs’ long career, has not been a salient feature of the technology company’s success (even when some elements, such as profitability, were clearly lacking). Put the two together, and you would surely expect it to be near the top.
But that’s not so when we turn to BrandZ’s principal rival, the longer-established Interbrand Best Global Brands, owned by Omnicom. Curiously Apple comes in at a sickly 17, up from 20, in the Interbrand rankings for 2010, published last September – the latest available.
Apple may be the most conspicuous anomaly, but it’s certainly not the only one when we compare the two league tables. Why is Disney so highly regarded by Interbrand (it’s ninth), but relatively lowly by BrandZ (it’s 38th)? Why is Samsung only 67th in the BrandZ charts, while it is ranked 19th by Interbrand? Doubtless there are other glaring disparities, which the more eagle-eyed will spot.
Such mis-attention to detail, you say. It’s the differing methodologies isn’t it? A bit of capitalist differentiation in the brand valuation market. You pick the one you trust more and go with it.
Well, not exactly – despite the anomalies, there’s plenty of consensus too. Technology companies, however ordered, now overwhelmingly dominate the top ten (and in BrandZ’s case, the second ten as well); mostly the same names crop up as well. Louis Vuitton is clearly the top-ranking French brand: both tables have it in their top 30. Even some of the valuations are pretty similar. Coca-Cola’s brand-worth, for instance, is estimated at $74bn in BrandZ (just out); and $70bn in the Interbrand rankings. While BMW is valued at at just over $22bn by both.
Admittedly, Interbrand tends to be a little more economical with its overall valuations, in dollar terms. Then again, the real importance of these tables is not the absolute, but relative values conveyed: it resides in the dynamic interaction of the brands contained therein.
And yet it is precisely here that their biggest difficulty lies. Amusing though it may be to pick out the winners from the losers and also-rans, are we any the wiser once we have done so? True, such tables serve an important function as a marketing propaganda tool within the investment community – helping to prop up, or knock down, share prices. But many of the conclusions they reach seem blindingly obvious rationalisations after the fact.
So, in the case of BrandZ, Blackberry is down 20% and 11 places to number 22; while Nokia has tumbled 38 places to 79th and lost 28% of its value (now $11bn). Well strike me down with a feather. Nothing of course to do with the two brands well advertised failure to crack the current consumer smartphone market I suppose?
Mind you, at least the BrandZ analysis is consistent, attributing due weight to the two phone brands’ nemeses, Apple and Google. Which is more than you can say for the Interbrand picture.
On the subject of which, expect a major brand revaluation this autumn. Here’s a fairly safe prediction. If not actually top, Apple will be one of Interbrand’s top-performing brands this year.