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

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 45
    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.
  • Reply 22 of 45
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    chadmatic wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 23 of 45
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    inkling wrote: »
    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'?
  • Reply 24 of 45
    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 :)

  • Reply 25 of 45

    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. 

  • Reply 26 of 45
    froodfrood Posts: 771member
    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.

  • Reply 27 of 45
    Proost!
  • Reply 28 of 45
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    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 . . .
  • Reply 29 of 45

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

  • Reply 30 of 45
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    frood wrote: »

    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?
  • Reply 31 of 45
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,718member
    Fair value of apple stock is easily 1000+

    I've made my decision to sell at that very moment and fully retire. :)
  • Reply 32 of 45
    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¡ ;)

  • Reply 33 of 45
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,557member
    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.

  • Reply 34 of 45

    Way to take the #1 spot.

  • Reply 35 of 45
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,557member
    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.

  • Reply 36 of 45
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    lkrupp wrote: »
    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?
  • Reply 37 of 45

    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.

  • Reply 38 of 45
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,718member
    What a hellacious web site Interbrand have!
  • Reply 39 of 45
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,718member
    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.
  • Reply 40 of 45
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,382member

    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. 

Sign In or Register to comment.