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 - Page 2

post #41 of 46

Does this fit in with the "Apple mirroring blackberry's demise" narrative that that analyst was spewing forth last week? Of course it does. Becoming the #1 brand on the planet is just one step closer towards inevitable demise. 

post #42 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadmatic View Post

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

Are you not loving it?

"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 #43 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post
 

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. 

My only grumble is: why does Tim Cook pay any attention to them!?

post #44 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.

It is not a popularity contest. Here is the criteria to be included in the study:

 

  • At least 30 percent of revenues must come from outside the brand’s home region
  • It must have a presence in at least three major continents, as well as broad geographic coverage in emerging markets
  • There must be sufficient publicly available data on the brand’s financial performance
  • Economic profit must be expected to be positive over the longer term, delivering a return above the brand’s operating and financing costs
  • The brand must have a public profile and awareness above and beyond its own marketplace.

 

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #45 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.

 

 

Its not necessarily about which brand is the best known, so much as the estimated $ value of the brand.  The Disney brand is more well known and convinces a lot of people to travel for miles and visit their sites and or buy their movies.  Cisco isn't as 'mainstream' and is most known to techies who work in the IT sector- but those people weigh heavily on the Cisco brand when putting in their multi-million dollar orders.

 

Still kind of a cool list with a lot of the 'old guard' that have been around forever being pushed by the new kids on the block.  Pretty amazing, Apple at #1 and close behind Google... a company that didn't even exist 15 years ago.

post #46 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post
 

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. 

 

Thanks for the link. Wish others would do their homework before commenting so passionately.

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