or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple ends Coca-Cola's 13-year reign as world's most valuable brand
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple ends Coca-Cola's 13-year reign as world's most valuable brand

post #1 of 46
Thread Starter 
Apple has taken the top spot ahead of fellow tech giant Google and former number one Coca-Cola as the most valuable brand in the world, according to Interbrand's annual "Best Global Brands" report for 2013.

Interbrand 2013
Source: Interbrand


Interbrand, a brand consulting firm based out of New York, estimated Apple's brand valuation for 2013 hit $98.3 billion, snatching the Best Global Brand title away from Coca-Cola for the first time in the report's history, reports The New York Times.

The Cupertino, Calif., company was in second place last year after more than doubling its brand valuation from 2011. In 2013, Apple gained another 28 percent and was once again named cited as a "Top Riser."

Interbrand cites a number of attributes that contributed to Apple's success, including a strong presence in retail, explosive iOS device sales, and future prospects like wearable computing devices and new Mac products.

From the report:

Few brands have enabled so many people to do so much so easily, which is why Apple has legions of adoring fans, as evidenced by the record-breaking launch of the iPhone 5c/5s. For revolutionizing the way we work, play, and communicate?and for mastering the ability to surprise and delight?Apple has set a high bar for aesthetics, simplicity, and ease of use that all other tech brands are now expected to match, and that Apple itself is expected to continually exceed.


In the number two spot was Apple's smartphone competitor Google, which managed to jump 34 percent from last year to reach a brand valuation of $93.3 billion, a change only beaten by Facebook's 43 percent growth.

Coca-Cola, which previously held the top spot for 13 years, was bumped to third by the two tech monoliths despite growing 2 percent on the year. The beverage company is now just ahead of IBM with a valuation of $79.2 billion.

Interbrand employs a variety of metrics to decide its Best Global Brands index, but requires each company generate 30 percent of revenue from outside its home region, have a presence on at least three major continents as well as coverage in emerging markets, publicly available financials, and a positive economic outlook. In addition, the brand must have a public profile and awareness beyond its own market.
post #2 of 46
Very nice
post #3 of 46

Apple dominates quite a few things, and that creates hatred amongst people who can't stand success!

post #4 of 46
If you subtract apple cash $150b and Apples brand value $93b from Apples Marketcap of $450b you are left with a mere $207b value on their business. A business that will generate more than $45b in pure profit this year, and with a estimated growth of 26%.

What are these goons on WS thinking? 2014 will be the year Apple makes a sentiment comeback on WS.
post #5 of 46
Fair value of apple stock is easily 1000+
post #6 of 46

This is funny valuation. It still talks about the world from US perspective. How many people outside US know about GE at all? How many recognize the logo? Should Cisco really be so hight or Louis Vuitton? I'd say the company should be really global when valuing on the global scale...

post #7 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by poksi View Post

This is funny valuation. It still talks about the world from US perspective. How many people outside US know about GE at all? How many recognize the logo? Should Cisco really be so hight or Louis Vuitton? I'd say the company should be really global when valuing on the global scale...

It's referring to most valuable brand, not necessarily the most well known. I'd say Coke still wins the latter category, but that's not what this is about.
post #8 of 46

I wonder, how the hell Information-blood-sucking vampire, Google, has managed to secure second spot.  People hardly consider their privacy now-a-days.  

So many of their info on FB, Twitter and google. God!

post #9 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post


It's referring to most valuable brand, not necessarily the most well known. I'd say Coke still wins the latter category, but that's not what this is about.

 

Yes, you may have the point here. Methodology must have also company public valuation as the variable somewhere, then. Still, it is a bit puzzling when glancing the list... :)

post #10 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by poksi View Post
 

This is funny valuation. It still talks about the world from US perspective. How many people outside US know about GE at all? How many recognize the logo? Should Cisco really be so hight or Louis Vuitton? I'd say the company should be really global when valuing on the global scale...

 

Do you have anything to backup your view to the contrary for these brands? Or is it just your impression that they are not big outside of the US? These are all large global brands and the requirements to even make the list ensure they are actually doing business on a global level and have the appropriate visibility in multiple continents. 

post #11 of 46

It's a good thing that Apple finally dethroned Coca-Cola, but what the hell is number eight doing on that list?

post #12 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

It's a good thing that Apple finally dethroned Coca-Cola, but what the hell is number eight doing on that list?
When you spend $12B on advertising you can basically buy your way onto the list.

What's interesting is IBM is 4th on the list. Yet when people suggest Microsoft should spin off hardware and become more like IBM the MS fanboys get all insulted as if IBM is some embarrassment of a company.
post #13 of 46
Apple has worked hard to get to there. Well deserved.

But ... but ... but ... google? google!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh give me a break people.

....the lack of properly optimized apps is one of the reasons "why the experience on Android tablets is so crappy".

Tim Cook ~ The Wall Street Journal - February 7, 2014

Inside Google! 

Reply

....the lack of properly optimized apps is one of the reasons "why the experience on Android tablets is so crappy".

Tim Cook ~ The Wall Street Journal - February 7, 2014

Inside Google! 

Reply
post #14 of 46
I should think that "brand value" is a a little different from "company value."
post #15 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post
 

It's a good thing that Apple finally dethroned Coca-Cola, but what the hell is number eight doing on that list?

 

Their refrigerators and washing machines?

post #16 of 46

When a Roman emperor returned victorious from a campaign he was greeted with a parade and a laurel wreath. But tradition says there was also someone on the chariot whispering in his ear "Remember, you are mortal."

 

Satchel Paige said, "Never look back. Something might be gaining on you."

 

Meanwhile the trolls over at C|net are getting more strident every day. They are running around with their hair on fire as the bad news keeps rolling in. What a site to behold.

post #17 of 46
Just more evidence poting to Apple's continuing death spiral into irrelevancy, right? Amazing how everyday, facts continue to contradict all the nay-sayers, yet they get louder and more smug in their idiocy. Apple is more highly regarded, makes more money, and sells more stuff, and makes better stuff, than it ever did in its lifetime.
post #18 of 46
So long Coca-Cola. It was nice knowing ya.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #19 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by poksi View Post
 

This is funny valuation. It still talks about the world from US perspective. How many people outside US know about GE at all? How many recognize the logo? Should Cisco really be so hight or Louis Vuitton? I'd say the company should be really global when valuing on the global scale...

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post


It's referring to most valuable brand, not necessarily the most well known. I'd say Coke still wins the latter category, but that's not what this is about.

 Hate to tell you two, Brand is all about recognition and how well known they are for what they do, why else have a brand. Also this is about worldwide recognition not US, and all the companies on the list have worldwide presents and are known.

 

This valuation is based on some buying decision based on the brand alone. If they are presented one over another how likely are they to buy just because of the name. Coke has been at the top for so long because anywhere you go in the world people know the Name Coke and the logo and will buy it because of it. You know you make it to the top of the list when your brand become synonymous with the type of product you sell. IE even asks for Cola or a Coke when in fact they want a carbonate color water drink. Coke lost lots of ground due to all the competition they now have in the drink market.  

post #20 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Apple 
[" url="/t/159842/apple-ends-coca-colas-13-year-reign-as-worlds-most-valuable-brand#post_2408321"]It's a good thing that Apple finally dethroned Coca-Cola, but what the hell is number eight doing on that list?

Agreed. Better yet, what the hell is number seven doing on that list?
post #21 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post


 Hate to tell you two, Brand is all about recognition and how well known they are for what they do, why else have a brand. Also this is about worldwide recognition not US, and all the companies on the list have worldwide presents and are known.

This valuation is based on some buying decision based on the brand alone. If they are presented one over another how likely are they to buy just because of the name. Coke has been at the top for so long because anywhere you go in the world people know the Name Coke and the logo and will buy it because of it. You know you make it to the top of the list when your brand become synonymous with the type of product you sell. IE even asks for Cola or a Coke when in fact they want a carbonate color water drink. Coke lost lots of ground due to all the competition they now have in the drink market.  

Exactly.

To simplify, let's say a new product is introduced. Its specs are well known and it is a product for which there is a market need.

The issue of brand is "will the customer be more likely to buy it if it has an Apple name plate vs a Samsung (or even generic) nameplate?" If the answer is 'yes', then Apple's brand has value. Alternatively, you could ask it in a different way: "here are two very similar devices. They both have the same specs, same size, and same features. One is from Apple and one is from Samsung (or generic). How much more would you pay for the Apple device?"

Either way, the brand is a recognition of past experience and expected future experience. The thinking would be something like "I've bought Apple products in the past and have always been 100% satisfied while products I've bought from other vendors have been less satisfying. That satisfaction makes me more likely to buy Apple products in the future."

Why is Google up there? Exactly the same reason. People 'google' the Internet to find information. The name has become so well recognized that Google fights to keep it from becoming generic. More to the point, how long did it take for Google Docs to become accepted (even though there were plenty of alternatives)? Not long. Millions of people use gmail because of the links to Google. When Google introduces a new product, people accept it more quickly BECAUSE it's from Google. {I don't like it because I don't trust them as a company, but that's reality.}

THAT is what brand recognition is all about. Does it change consumer behavior in your favor? Then you have a strong brand. And it would be hard to argue against the top picks. Clearly, many people favor products specifically because they're from Apple or Google (or Coca Cola, for that matter).
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #22 of 46
The fact that Apple is replacing what Steve Jobs aptly sneered at as a maker of "sugar water" ought to make clear that being at the top of this list matters little. It's a bit like being a celebrity, meaning someone famous for being famous.
post #23 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadmatic View Post

Agreed. Better yet, what the hell is number seven doing on that list?

Why wouldn't it be?

Brand value has nothing to do with whether the product is any good. Nor does it have to do with market share (at least, not directly). It's all about whether consumers will change their behavior because a particular brand is behind it.

Clearly, McDonalds has enormous brand value. Millions of people will run to McDs to try their new McWrap (or whatever) simply because it's from McDonalds. When McDonalds introduced iced coffee, it was a huge hit. Their iced coffee wasn't the first on the market and clearly isn't the best. But it rocketed from nothing to perhaps the #1 in terms of sales volume - on the strength of McDonalds' brand recognition.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #24 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling View Post

The fact that Apple is replacing what Steve Jobs aptly sneered at as a maker of "sugar water" ought to make clear that being at the top of this list matters little. It's a bit like being a celebrity, meaning someone famous for being famous.

That's not true, either. It's of enormous value. Apple is able to get a premium price for their products due to their brand recognition. That means added profits. They are able to get new products accepted faster than their competition. That is of enormous value. The study here says that it's worth $100 B to Apple. While I doubt if any of those figures are as precise as you'd like them to be, they seem to be in the right order of magnitude. So you think that $100 B 'matters little'?
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #25 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post
 

When a Roman emperor returned victorious from a campaign he was greeted with a parade and a laurel wreath. But tradition says there was also someone on the chariot whispering in his ear "Remember, you are mortal."

 

Satchel Paige said, "Never look back. Something might be gaining on you."

 

Meanwhile the trolls over at C|net are getting more strident every day. They are running around with their hair on fire as the bad news keeps rolling in. What a site to behold.

 

"What a site to behold." - nice play on words :)

post #26 of 46

Interbrand, the company that created this, has a 129-page glossy (see here, it's the first one listed: http://interbrand.com/en/knowledge/branding-studies.aspx), in which a couple of pages describe their 'methodology' (pp. 120-122).

 

There are three stages to their analysis: assessment of Economic Profit (fairly straightforward), followed by an assessment of the brand's earnings contribution to that EP (which they say is based on some proprietary model of "Role of Brand Index" -- OK, let's give them credit that they know what they're doing there), followed by an NPV analysis of the brand's earnings discounted at some 'discount rate' that they claim is inversely related to brand strength.

 

It is this last part that I have trouble with. They say: "A proprietary formula is used to connect the Brand Strength Score to a brand-specific discount rate. In turn, that rate is used to discount brand earnings back to a present value, reflecting the likelihood that the brand will be able to withstand challenges and generate sustainable returns into the future." What the heck does that mean? Why are they not more forthcoming with how their discount rate is derived? Why is it a black box? How do we know that number reflects the 'likelihood' (a fairly precise term with a precise meaning) that the brand will be able to withstand challenges?

 

Don't get me wrong, I think Apple is, deserves to be, the most valuable brand in the world. These sorts of analyses, however, lead to being hoisted by one's own petard in the long run. 

 

Until I can see somewhat more transparency in the methodology -- which, btw, is required by ISO 10668 standard that they claim to adopt -- I think this sort of analysis is worthless. 

post #27 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling View Post

The fact that Apple is replacing what Steve Jobs aptly sneered at as a maker of "sugar water" ought to make clear that being at the top of this list matters little. It's a bit like being a celebrity, meaning someone famous for being famous.

 

 

Technically, that would have been Pepsi.  And why would Steve 'sneer' at a soda company?  The reference generally comes from when Steve was recruiting John Sculley, the then CEO of Pepsi.  It was quite a sales pitch at the time to try to convince someone who's the CEO of (at the time) one of the most successful companies and get them to quit and go work for tiny ol' Apple.

 

Steve was a good salesman and asked John if he'd rather change the world or take the safer route selling sugar water for the rest of his career.  It wasn't like Steve had anything against Coke or Pepsi or was trying to go 'thermonuclear' on them.

 

Props to Apple for taking the #1 spot.

post #28 of 46
Proost!
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
post #29 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhaskar Bhat View Post

Apple dominates quite a few things, and that creates hatred amongst people who can't stand success!

And amongst people who can't stand good design or even competence . . .
post #30 of 46

I wonder if it's coincidental that #8 and #9 are based on angled ovals... I never noticed until they were juxtaposed here.

Quality isn't expensive... it's priceless.

Reply

Quality isn't expensive... it's priceless.

Reply
post #31 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post


Technically, that would have been Pepsi.  And why would Steve 'sneer' at a soda company?  The reference generally comes from when Steve was recruiting John Sculley, the then CEO of Pepsi.  It was quite a sales pitch at the time to try to convince someone who's the CEO of (at the time) one of the most successful companies and get them to quit and go work for tiny ol' Apple.

Steve was a good salesman and asked John if he'd rather change the world or take the safer route selling sugar water for the rest of his career.  It wasn't like Steve had anything against Coke or Pepsi or was trying to go 'thermonuclear' on them.

Props to Apple for taking the #1 spot.

A gross misunderstanding. Any West Coast acid-dropping hippie who had been through a vegetarian or fruitarian phase knew in his bones that Coke and Pepsi were selling poison to children. Even East Coast or Midwestern hippies, for that matter.

Clue for those of you who missed out: why did so many acid heads go to India or become Buddhists? Or become environmentalists? Or start magazines like The Whole Earth Catalogue or write books like Be Here Now? Or found companies on ethical principles?
post #32 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by jobsonmyface View Post

Fair value of apple stock is easily 1000+

I've made my decision to sell at that very moment and fully retire. 1smile.gif
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #33 of 46
Originally Posted by Inkling View Post
The fact that Apple is replacing what Steve Jobs aptly sneered at as a maker of sugar water”…

 

 

That was Pepsi. Coke, on the other hand, Steve Jobs had an almost disturbing obsession to obtain¡ ;)

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply
post #34 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

Just more evidence poting to Apple's continuing death spiral into irrelevancy, right? Amazing how everyday, facts continue to contradict all the nay-sayers, yet they get louder and more smug in their idiocy. Apple is more highly regarded, makes more money, and sells more stuff, and makes better stuff, than it ever did in its lifetime.

 

Yep. This story has caused a severe disturbance in the iHater dark side of the Force. How could a doomed company with minuscule market share, plummeting stock price, last year's technology, a despised by all Walled Garden, Hello Kitty operating system, stupid and uneducated user base, possibly have topped this list? It's simply not possible. Therefore Apple must have paid large sums of money to buy this accolade. Every tech pundit or analyst who says anything positive about Apple is obviously on Apple's payroll; we all know this to be true.

post #35 of 46

Way to take the #1 spot.

post #36 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave MacLachlan View Post
 

 

"What a site to behold." - nice play on words :)

 

Yes, C|net is quite the site. It has become comic relief for me. I'm now convinced that many of the positive Apple articles are written with the iHater crowd in mind. I think some of the authors get a kick out of tweaking the noses of that crowd. You can count on certain trolls to be posting away the minute an Apple article hits the front page.

 

But it's sad that C|net is taking this attitude. They should just shut down the comments section and go for page clicks on the strength of their reporting and journalism. I, for one, don't mind articles critical of Apple if they are backed up with reasoned editorials or facts.

post #37 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

Yep. This story has caused a severe disturbance in the iHater dark side of the Force. How could a doomed company with minuscule market share, plummeting stock price, last year's technology, a despised by all Walled Garden, Hello Kitty operating system, stupid and uneducated user base, possibly have topped this list? It's simply not possible. Therefore Apple must have paid large sums of money to buy this accolade. Every tech pundit or analyst who says anything positive about Apple is obviously on Apple's payroll; we all know this to be true.

Just as unbelievable is that an untrustworthy company known for stabbing it's partners in the back, attacking every competitor with bogus IP and trash products and offering a stolen OS that's bug-ridden, laggy, filled with malware and used only by the uneducated and cheap came in at number 2. Who's doing these surveys anyway?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #38 of 46

I think there's something fishy with this listing.  Cisco at #13?  Higher than Disney?  Really?  I barely know what Cisco does, myself.  I bet if you asked 100 people at the mall, only 1 or 2 would even connect Cisco to something internetty.  But 100% would know lots about Disney.

post #39 of 46
What a hellacious web site Interbrand have!
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #40 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeaEarleGreyHot View Post

I think there's something fishy with this listing.  Cisco at #13?  Higher than Disney?  Really?  I barely know what Cisco does, myself.  I bet if you asked 100 people at the mall, only 1 or 2 would even connect Cisco to something internetty.  But 100% would know lots about Disney.

I agree it's suspect. I suspect most out there in the US would know the similarly named food wholesaler more.
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple ends Coca-Cola's 13-year reign as world's most valuable brand