PDA

View Full Version : Apple Named World's Most Valuable Brand for Third Year in a Row




MacRumors
May 21, 2013, 10:33 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/05/21/apple-named-worlds-most-valuable-brand-for-third-year-in-a-row/)


http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2013/04/applelogo.jpgMillward Brown today released its annual BrandZ study of global brands (http://www.millwardbrown.com/brandz/2013/Top100/Docs/2013_BrandZ_Top100_Chart.pdf) (via AllThingsD (http://allthingsd.com/20130520/yahoo-falls-back-on-to-key-list-of-top-100-brands-at-no-92-though-apple-remains-no-1/)), which found Apple to be the world's most valuable brand for the third straight year.

Although Apple topped the list once again, its brand value only increased 1% to $185 billion, which is not as impressive as the 19% increase (from $153 billion in 2011 (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/09/apple-named-worlds-most-valuable-brand-at-153-billion/) to $183 billion in 2012 (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/05/22/apple-again-ranked-as-worlds-most-valuable-brand/)) it received last year. Apple rival Google jumped back up to the second spot with a brand value of $137 billion (a 5% increase) and Samsung clocked in a 51% increase and a $21.4 billion brand value at the 30th spot.

http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2013/05/brandz2013.png
Overall, Millward Brown said (http://millwardbrown.com/BrandZ/Top_100_Global_Brands/Categories/technology.aspx) that the technology sector was "flat," declining after 5 years of growth:Without the surge in*Apple*and*Facebook*brand value that helped drive category growth,*Technology declined 1 percent*in the BrandZ(TM) 2013 ranking, after five years averaging 8 percent annual category growth.Among other top brands, IBM fell down to the third spot with a brand value of $112 billion while Microsoft dropped 9% to $69.8 billion and Facebook fell 36% to $21 billion. Yahoo, which fell out of the top 100 years ago, returned to the 92nd spot with a brand value of $9.8 billion.

While "brand value" studies can be difficult to compare, because of the use of differing methodologies used by those who gather the data can lead to much different results, they can be a good look at marketing and branding trends.

Article Link: Apple Named World's Most Valuable Brand for Third Year in a Row (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/05/21/apple-named-worlds-most-valuable-brand-for-third-year-in-a-row/)



toaster64
May 21, 2013, 10:50 PM
McDonald's is a valuable brand? Most people I know (including me) stay clear of anything labeled with that "M".

Apple deserves a high spot, but put Beats up on #1. That "b" sells $30 headphones for >$200.

-LikesMac-
May 21, 2013, 10:52 PM
I'm wondering what exactly does brand value represent. Also, how is Coca Cola rising? :D

toaster64
May 21, 2013, 10:54 PM
I'm wondering what exactly does brand value represent. Also, how is Coca Cola rising? :D

Rising economy => less people buying Shasta knockoffs? :D

tutubibi
May 21, 2013, 10:54 PM
It's billions not millions, look at the column heading.
Based on that Apple brand is worth 185 Billion $, makes much more sense than 185 million $ as that would be pocket change compared to Apple's market valuation.

toaster64
May 21, 2013, 10:58 PM
It's billions not millions, look at the column heading.
Based on that Apple brand is worth 185 Billion $, makes much more sense than 185 million $ as that would be pocket change compared to Apple's market valuation.

Brand value is not related to market cap, I think.

tutubibi
May 21, 2013, 11:01 PM
Brand value is not related to market cap.

I am not saying it is ... just saying that 185 million is too small compared to Apple's value as a company. 185 billion (correct figure) makes much more sense.

In fact, there is some relationship ... imagine if some company is selling exactly the same products as Apple, same quality, same everything, but label does not say Apple, that company would be worth 185 B$ less than Apple.

toaster64
May 21, 2013, 11:11 PM
In fact, there is some relation ... image if some company is selling exactly the same products as Apple, same quality, same everything, but label does not say Apple, that company would be worth 185 B$ less than Apple.

Makes sense. Besides, Samsung was recently worth about $185G less than Apple ;)

linuxcooldude
May 21, 2013, 11:13 PM
I am not saying it is ... just saying that 185 million is too small compared to Apple's value as a company. 185 billion (correct figure) makes much more sense.

In fact, there is some relation ... image if some company is selling exactly the same products as Apple, same quality, same everything, but label does not say Apple, that company would be worth 185 B$ less than Apple.

McDonald & Coca Cola have been far more consistant then Apple over the long term. We seen Apples stocks drop over $300 very quickly.

jclo
May 21, 2013, 11:13 PM
I am not saying it is ... just saying that 185 million is too small compared to Apple's value as a company. 185 billion (correct figure) makes much more sense.

In fact, there is some relationship ... imagine if some company is selling exactly the same products as Apple, same quality, same everything, but label does not say Apple, that company would be worth 185 B$ less than Apple.

It is billions, not millions. Post has been updated.

spicynujac
May 21, 2013, 11:16 PM
I agree Apple is probably the most valuable brand In the USA. But I would think worldwide Coca Cola and McDonalds would take the prize. Smartphones only THIS year surpassed feature phOnes in sales volume in the USA. Worldwide, they are only a fraction, and most people can't afford Apple products. They are gaining recognition but I can't believe they are as well known as McD or Coke.

But what I really disagree with is IBM and Google. I couldn't tell you anything about IBM except that they used to make great notebooks. And Google with all it's spying and violations of the don't be evil rule--I use it but mainly out of habit and cause I have gmail. I don't necessarily think its the best search engine out there. And it doesn't have the brand cachet that Apple does.

tech4all
May 21, 2013, 11:18 PM
McDonald's is a valuable brand? Most people I know (including me) stay clear of anything labeled with that "M".

Unless you know everyone on this planet, your point is moot.

ArtOfWarfare
May 21, 2013, 11:19 PM
McDonald's is a valuable brand? Most people I know (including me) stay clear of anything labeled with that "M".

I was turned off of McD's about 12 years ago. I'm doing a business research project on them and have found that they've actually really reinvented themselves over the last decade. They've done away with a lot of the childish things (the characters, the play places,) and have been trying to make themselves into more of a cafe kind of place, like StarBucks.

Nutritional information is no longer something that they try to keep a secret from customers - it's plainly printed on everything for you to look at and think, "That's interesting - I'm consuming the amount of salt with this one product that doctors think I should each day." and then stop caring because it tastes okay and the price is dirt cheap.

Not that I eat it on a regular basis by any stretch of the imagination. I've had McDonald's four times in the past 5 years... and my bias isn't against fast food in general, I eat at Burger King and Wendy's on a monthly basis.

linuxcooldude
May 21, 2013, 11:30 PM
I was turned off of McD's about 12 years ago. I'm doing a business research project on them and have found that they've actually really reinvented themselves over the last decade. They've done away with a lot of the childish things (the characters, the play places,) and have been trying to make themselves into more of a cafe kind of place, like StarBucks.

Nutritional information is no longer something that they try to keep a secret from customers - it's plainly printed on everything for you to look at and think, "That's interesting - I'm consuming the amount of salt with this one product that doctors think I should each day." and then stop caring because it tastes okay and the price is dirt cheap.

Not that I eat it on a regular basis by any stretch of the imagination. I've had McDonald's four times in the past 5 years... and my bias isn't against fast food in general, I eat at Burger King and Wendy's on a monthly basis.

You will find most businesses do that. Apples no different going into the mobile market was reinventing themselves and going in a different direction.

I don't think its no secret fast food is fattening. Nutritional information is now required by law in the U.S.

ALange
May 22, 2013, 01:18 AM
But what I really disagree with is IBM and Google. I couldn't tell you anything about IBM except that they used to make great notebooks. And Google with all it's spying and violations of the don't be evil rule--I use it but mainly out of habit and cause I have gmail. I don't necessarily think its the best search engine out there. And it doesn't have the brand cachet that Apple does.

wahahhahaha icant stop laughing. get more knowlesge about what ibm was and is doing.

damn, kids this days are brainwashed...

iMikeT
May 22, 2013, 02:54 AM
Is there any real value in any of this?

ArchAndroid
May 22, 2013, 03:28 AM
McDonald & Coca Cola have been far more consistant then Apple over the long term. We seen Apples stocks drop over $300 very quickly.

The technology companies are much more impressive because they are under constant pressure to keep on evolving.

With Coca Cola and McDonalds, it is pretty much invariable that people are going to consume fast food and fizzy drinks.

Mr.damien
May 22, 2013, 06:39 AM
I am not saying it is ... just saying that 185 million is too small compared to Apple's value as a company. 185 billion (correct figure) makes much more sense.

In fact, there is some relationship ... imagine if some company is selling exactly the same products as Apple, same quality, same everything, but label does not say Apple, that company would be worth 185 B$ less than Apple.

Well no. Because nobody is able to reproduce what Apple is doing so...

Compile 'em all
May 22, 2013, 06:41 AM
Where is Samsung? :p

eawmp1
May 22, 2013, 06:58 AM
where is samsung? :p

30

seek3r
May 22, 2013, 07:19 AM
But what I really disagree with is IBM and Google. I couldn't tell you anything about IBM except that they used to make great notebooks.

Ever heard "no one ever got fired for buying IBM"? That's why their brand is so valuable.

Greg.
May 22, 2013, 07:36 AM
Really surprised that Nike is only 56th. Most of their profit is derived from the existence of their brand.

210
May 22, 2013, 08:00 AM
I'm not sure if valuable brand equates to recognisable brand, but I think it would. Nearly everyone, whether they have one of its products or not, has heard of Apple and certainly recognises the logo. They have also heard of the iPod and iPhone, I'm sure as well.

However, by that logic I would have put Coca-Cola at number one as everyone on the planet knows the drink and very likely has tried it.

I have to agree that I am not sure why IBM is always so high in the list. Other than knowing the name, I don't think most of the public knows what they do.

GoCubsGo
May 22, 2013, 08:01 AM
I'm not sure if valuable brand equates to recognisable brand, but I think it would.(snip)

I believe to some extent that noticeably plays a big role in value. I think you're right on the money here.

ConCat
May 22, 2013, 08:02 AM
I agree Apple is probably the most valuable brand In the USA. But I would think worldwide Coca Cola and McDonalds would take the prize. Smartphones only THIS year surpassed feature phOnes in sales volume in the USA. Worldwide, they are only a fraction, and most people can't afford Apple products. They are gaining recognition but I can't believe they are as well known as McD or Coke.

But what I really disagree with is IBM and Google. I couldn't tell you anything about IBM except that they used to make great notebooks. And Google with all it's spying and violations of the don't be evil rule--I use it but mainly out of habit and cause I have gmail. I don't necessarily think its the best search engine out there. And it doesn't have the brand cachet that Apple does.

Take a look at what computers are used as cash registers these days. Usually IBM. The majority of their business isn't in the consumer market. IBM stuff (http://www-03.ibm.com/products/retail/products/pos/index.html)

Interesting... Looks like Toshiba recently bought that specific part of their business. Go figure!

The thing about Google is just plain ignorant though... Ever heard of Android? It hasn't been a search engine+email for many years now...

toaster64
May 22, 2013, 08:38 AM
Really surprised that Nike is only 56th. Most of their profit is derived from the existence of their brand.

Same with most clothing companies. I stopped buying Nike a long time ago because their shoes kept breaking.

tutubibi
May 22, 2013, 08:53 AM
... Because nobody is able to reproduce what Apple is doing so...

And that's why Apple brand value is deemed #1 today.

Well no...

If (hypothetically) you have 2 identical products, one with Apple logo can sell for higher price and will sell better.

Of course, if Apple releases couple of sub-par products, brand value goes down.

iGrip
May 22, 2013, 10:04 AM
I couldn't tell you anything about IBM except that they used to make great notebooks.

Here's something else you can now tell us:

IBM's software business is as big as Oracle's and dwarfs HP's.

http://www.businessinsider.com/ibm-software-company-2012-8

acorntoy
May 22, 2013, 10:41 AM
Makes sense. Besides, Samsung was recently worth about $185G less than Apple ;)

Plastic doesn't come anywhere near apples quality ;)

Opiyum
May 22, 2013, 11:34 AM
Yahoo, which fell out of the top 100 years ago, returned to the 92nd spot with a brand value of $9.8 billion.

10 years not 100, ya?

pgiguere1
May 22, 2013, 11:41 AM
I'm surprised Google has such a high score.

For most people, Google is first and foremost a search engine and they may know a couple online services like Google Maps and Gmail.

But those services act so much like tools and don't evolve that much that we take them for granted and kind of forget how useful they are daily. It's hard to create hype or desire for such tools that have been around for so long.

I'm not even sure most people know that YouTube and Android belong to Google, and besides, Android has very little brand value. People desire the Galaxy brand, not Android. Samsung could fork Tizen, skin it with Touchwiz and put it on their GS5 and a lot of people wouldn't even notice and it would still sell ****tons.

There are also those attempts at halo products like the Chromebook Pixel, Google Glass, Google Fiber, etc. but I doubt those excite a lot of people other than tech websites-following geeks.

FirstNTenderbit
May 22, 2013, 12:25 PM
I'm surprised Google has such a high score.

For most people, Google is first and foremost a search engine and they may know a couple online services like Google Maps and Gmail.

But those services act so much like tools and don't evolve that much that we take them for granted and kind of forget how useful they are daily. It's hard to create hype or desire for such tools that have been around for so long.

I'm not even sure most people know that YouTube and Android belong to Google, and besides, Android has very little brand value. People desire the Galaxy brand, not Android. Samsung could fork Tizen, skin it with Touchwiz and put it on their GS5 and a lot of people wouldn't even notice and it would still sell ****tons.

There are also those attempts at halo products like the Chromebook Pixel, Google Glass, Google Fiber, etc. but I doubt those excite a lot of people other than tech websites-following geeks.

Surprised at Google? Seriously? When your brand is a verb it has value. Google is synonymous with search. Forgive me but I am going to use one of my most hated phrases: 'Most people I know' -kill me now - never utter the word search. They just google it.

Reach9
May 22, 2013, 12:41 PM
So what happened to Facebook?

linuxcooldude
May 22, 2013, 02:30 PM
The technology companies are much more impressive because they are under constant pressure to keep on evolving.

With Coca Cola and McDonalds, it is pretty much invariable that people are going to consume fast food and fizzy drinks.

Exactly, thats why they make a good long term investment. Technology based companies are more risky, but pay off is larger.

pgiguere1
May 22, 2013, 03:12 PM
Surprised at Google? Seriously? When your brand is a verb it has value. Google is synonymous with search. Forgive me but I am going to use one of my most hated phrases: 'Most people I know' -kill me now - never utter the word search. They just google it.

If that's the main reason then it's pretty weak. I mean, there are tons of genericized trademarks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks) that we use as much as "Google" yet most of these brands aren't even on the list.

FirstNTenderbit
May 22, 2013, 04:29 PM
If that's the main reason then it's pretty weak. I mean, there are tons of genericized trademarks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks) that we use as much as "Google" yet most of these brands aren't even on the list.

You're right. I stated that was the main reason. I apo... wait no I didn't. It's one of many reasons. I only listed one because Siri recommends brevity. :D

Whether someone likes Google or hates them, their brand, from a marketing standpoint, is outstanding. In forums we tend to take sides. Apple v Google, Android v iOS, Siri v Google now. In the real world, more specifically the world of marketing, each of those brands have a value that can't really be denied. Lemme back up. Obviously the value can be denied, but why?

pgiguere1
May 22, 2013, 06:28 PM
You're right. I stated that was the main reason. I apo... wait no I didn't. It's one of many reasons. I only listed one because Siri recommends brevity. :D

Whether someone likes Google or hates them, their brand, from a marketing standpoint, is outstanding. In forums we tend to take sides. Apple v Google, Android v iOS, Siri v Google now. In the real world, more specifically the world of marketing, each of those brands have a value that can't really be denied. Lemme back up. Obviously the value can be denied, but why?

I never said Google doesn't deserve to be at that spot, just that I'm surprised to it there. I gave my reasons.

It's not really an Apple vs Google thing. Like I said, I think Google is best known for its search, something Apple doesn't compete with. The rest seems to have little brand strength from my own observations on real-life people, but then again my observations don't represent everybody.

It seems to me that people desire a certain brand. They will want a Galaxy phone, not an Android phone. They may desire certain features like a big screen, but won't say desire an Android specifically. It seems that even a dying brand like BlackBerry with some very low market share has more brand strenght than Android. People call their BlackBerry a BlackBerry, yet they call their Android phone their phone, because that's just what it is to them, a generic smartphone with the features they want.

needfx
May 22, 2013, 06:51 PM
Unless you know everyone on this planet, your point is moot.

most of everyone on the planet is still kind of moot :D

marksman
May 22, 2013, 10:44 PM
Good on you Samsung and your thirtieth place. You only spend thirty billion dollars on advertising to get a twenty two billion dollar brand valuation!

eyehop
May 29, 2013, 09:22 AM
it's hard to be beleaguered.

RedRaven571
May 30, 2013, 10:29 AM
It's billions not millions,


http://theatreofreason.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/dr-evil.jpg