Apple Again Ranked as World's Most Valuable Brand

[miss.manson]

Another BS list put together by "ANALysts"

Macrumors really has gone down the tube. I'm "switching" to 9to5Mac...

Me too!

 

[damiengolding]

Yeah, except I don't know anyone who trusts Microsoft. Even Windows users think MS sucks, but they like Dell or whatever hardware they are using.

----------



Facebook, for one, has nowhere to go but down. I am very confident that it is just a trend that will subside. People at my school who previously lived on facebook.com are now already ignoring it somewhat. And their IPO's failure was predictable with all of the overrating of Facebook.

I have just the same opinion.
I think Microsoft and Windows sucks, and the only reason I have kept using them until now is because I thought that was the only option. After trying out Mac, I am starting to realize there are alternatives.

And yes, Facebook does seem to be anything special. I can easily see a competitor overtaking Facebook in the future. Although it has many many users. It is becoming easier and easier to connect everything. If it become easy to just transfer accounts to somewhere else, who knows what shifts could happen. I use Facebook, but only because I feel I have no alternative. If one came I would probably move just like moving to Mac.

 

[champ01]

I don't know about this chart but....

Marlboro, MCDonald and Coca Cola shouldn't be on this chart if we want to call ourselves intelligent species.

How many people keep spending money on crap like this.
It doesn't fill their stomach, adds cancer to all organs, kills the braincells. etc.
All this chart shows is how incredible stupid we still are in the year 2012.

When will this society grow up?


(To be fair I'm still a smoker and drink Cola from time to time so yes I'm dumbass myself. Doesn't change the fact that I'm right.)

 

[roanmartigan]

American-centric nonsense. Verizon and AT&T are totally unknown outside of the USA and as for IBM? Most people under 25 wouldn't know it existed.

This is clearly just made up.

Go to China, Romania, Australia or Thailand and ask about Verizon and you will get a strange look. Coca Cola or McDonalds, Facebook or Nike should be top.

Agree. This is definitely something they pulled out of their *ss. Don't forget these people will go and sell services to the top names on the list.

This is so made-up it's obvious - mostly US names (others have pointed out Vodafone and other mobile phone companies have hundreds of millions more subscribers thank Verizon and Sprint) and then out of nowhere China Mobile (to show they did not forget China). I can think of at least ten brands in China that have much more value than China Mobile. China Mobile has d*ck reputation for ripping off their consumers and providing a poor service all while being subsidised by the government.

So in short what they are doing is putting together a lot of US brands in the most random order (don’t get me wrong - probably superbly ordered in accordance with an Excel term sheet with a lot of relevant variables but populated by numbers taken out of their posteriors).

Then a few random Chinese names, to impress the masses and look like they know what they are doing (which they don’t).

Agricultural Bank of China more valuable than Zara ? Give me a break.

 

[groovebuster]

How exactly is the brand value measured?

And of course the top 10 consist only of US brands?

Yeah, right...

Little example:

Nike & adidas

Revenue Nike 2011: $20.8 billion
Revenue adidas 2011: $17.5 billion

But the report says:

Brand value Nike: $16.2 billion
Brand value adidas: $3.8 billion

?????????????????

Other example:

Volkswagen. Second biggest car maker in the world:

Revenue in 2011 $202 billion!!!
Profit in 2011 $20 billion!!!

And now the brand value? -> $8.5 billion? Not even half of the profit? Ranking #96?

And McDonalds is on #4? Revenue and profit at 1/10 of Volkswagen, but with a brand value of $95.2 billion????

WTF? This report is a big piece of crap.

But like this people still think that the US are the center of the universe. And this is probably the main goal of a report like this.

Over and out...

 

[roanmartigan]

Yeah, because the only thing we need more of is censorship...

----------



Unfortunately for you, this list is not governed by popularity or fame. It's populated by the most VALUABLE companies.

I thought this was about brands. If this was just a list about the value of companies it'd be fairly easy to put together.

----------

How exactly is the brand value measured?

And of course the top 10 consist only of US brands?

Yeah, right...

Little example:

Nike & adidas

Revenue Nike 2011: $20.8 billion
Revenue adidas 2011: $17.5 billion

But the report says:

Brand value Nike: $16.2 billion
Brand value adidas: $3.8 billion

?????????????????

Other example:

Volkswagen. Second biggest car maker in the world:

Revenue in 2011 $202 billion!!!
Profit in 2011 $20 billion!!!

And now the brand value? -> $8.5 billion? Not even half of the profit? Ranking #96?

And McDonalds is on #4? Revenue and profit at 1/10 of Volkswagen, but with a brand value of $95.2 billion????

WTF? This report is a big piece of crap.

But like this people still think that the US are the center of the universe. And this is probably the main goal of a report like this.

Over and out...

Absolutely. Although I think the main point of the report is probably to bring the Millward Brown name out there. Because that brand is worth *****, unlike McKinsey.

 

[bottleneck]

Yeah right Exxon Mobile: Brand value $16,419m

they made $9.45 billion in the Q1...

APPLE is big... nice! so bring the new MacPro ffs.

 

[Winni]

I'm surprised IBM is so high on that list ... If anything, I would think McDonalds would be higher.

Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM. They are still the biggest player in the corporate market - and for a reason. Their stuff is reliable and works - for decades, if it must.

Regarding all those childish comments about Microsoft: Get over it, kids. You are not Microsoft's customers. IBM, Dell, Acer, Asus, HP and all those other OEMs are Microsoft's customers. The United Nations, Deutsche Bank and all those other corporations and big businesses are Microsoft's customers. You only appear on Microsoft's radar when you buy one of their few consumer products.

Business buy Microsoft because Microsoft actually sells great and well integrated business products. Windows and Office are just puzzle pieces in that big picture. Important pieces, but only pieces nonetheless.

Businesses also buy Microsoft because they are a so-called blue chip player. They will still be there tomorrow. The company is reliable and dependable. Their products are well supported and won't go away. And yes, their back office and data center products - the products that business need and want and rely on - actually work.

Apple are successful with their iOS gadgets. In the business world, they are basically just a new phone manufacturer IT departments have to deal with. Their products are just some small new puzzle pieces. Apple does not sell big iron or enterprise software.

 

[samxool]

All of us who have bought only Apple products over the years have helped to make Apple the greatest company on earth and the most valueable brand on earth.
Well done guys, WE are the most valuable brand in the world!!

 

[Nova Sensei]

Yeah, because the only thing we need more of is censorship...

----------



Unfortunately for you, this list is not governed by popularity or fame. It's populated by the most VALUABLE companies.

I'll take censorship over another generation of cancer riddled nicotine addicts any day thanks.

----------

All of us who have bought only Apple products over the years have helped to make Apple the greatest company on earth and the most valueable brand on earth.
Well done guys, WE are the most valuable brand in the world!!

Gee I hope there's some sarcasm in there somewhere....

 

[Sensation]

Where is Pepsi wtf is this.

 

[GenesisST]

Marlboro?!?!? When was this study taken, 1976?! I didn't even know people still smoked. LMAO.

Lots of idiots in the world...

EDIT: Both my parents died of cancers, not lung, but the way they smoke it cannot not be related. PLus I have asthma from living the first 19 years of my live in a smoke cloud. So, yes, I have resentment...

 

[lifeguard90]

why is there again no mac news. Really starting to annoy. Ooo ipod touch screen! We get ios stuff every few hours and Mac 1-2 every few weeks. Has been 9 days since mbp imac news. Sucks

 

[Macboy Pro]

What a confusing list, ATT is pretty much unanimously feared and was a finalist in Consumerists "worst company in america" contest, their branding actually hurts them. So is it a measure of how many people know the brand (which isnt the case with some of the weird tech brands so high), how much money each company makes, or something else? There is simply no possible way ATT has what is considered a positive brand, the only thing they are known for is sucking, Sony was actually booed by a whole auditorium when they announced the Vita would be exclusive to ATT.. booed!

If it is a ranking based on how the brand helps their business then this research company is a joke.

You have to be kidding me that you are quoting the consumerist contest. Irrelevant and as unscientific as you can get.

 

[Sasoon]

I am surprised to see Marlboro so high

 

[roanmartigan]

You have to be kidding me that you are quoting the consumerist contest. Irrelevant and as unscientific as you can get.

Because the "most valuable brands" study was published in Nature and Science. Yeah, right. I didn't think so. Snake oil vs. snake oil really.

 

[JHankwitz]

Not too surprised. Apple makes a lot of money from taking 30%.

What does 30% have to do with "Brand Value"? "Brand Value", "Net Value", and "Market Value" are very different things.

Also, 30% is low compared to what most others on the list take. The others just don't publish what they take like Apple does.

 

[Nickro]

Is the list accurate??

 

[VenusianSky]

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millward_Brown


Yup, just some dude in the street with a clipboard and a clicker.

What would be so wrong about some dude in the street with a clipboard and a clicker? I'd consider his numbers just as much as some guy that is on Wikipedia. Heck, the guy on the street may be staying low because he doesn't want to be persuaded by the temptations of shady payoffs or personal attachments. Maybe that guy has no agenda and just wants the facts.

 

[RalfTheDog]

It has nothing to do with reliability… It's not about the product, it's about the brand and brand value.

This just means Microsoft is a big solid company, it doesn't matter if they make bad, cheap products or awesome products, this is one's opinion and it varies with audience. What matters is how solid their BRAND is. You can have a solid, trusted brand if you are a big, omnipresent company even if you make bad products in one's opinion…

You could say McDonalds is junk and Coca-Cola tastes like crap, it doesn't mean their brand has no value...

I am saying that, from my perspective, all three brands have negative value. I understand that others may value them higher. I like to believe that over time, quality or lack of quality will override marketing.

 

[AustinIllini]

Americans are worth more than other people and Texans are worth more than other Americans. What one Texan buys is worth like what 500 people in France buy.

Well, no, but Americans do spend a lot more on a phone plan then much of the EU. Go to any other thread on this board. You can't look at number of subscribers as a measure of value. You have to look at how much money it makes.

 

[VenusianSky]

Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM. They are still the biggest player in the corporate market - and for a reason. Their stuff is reliable and works - for decades, if it must.

Regarding all those childish comments about Microsoft: Get over it, kids. You are not Microsoft's customers. IBM, Dell, Acer, Asus, HP and all those other OEMs are Microsoft's customers. The United Nations, Deutsche Bank and all those other corporations and big businesses are Microsoft's customers. You only appear on Microsoft's radar when you buy one of their few consumer products.

Business buy Microsoft because Microsoft actually sells great and well integrated business products. Windows and Office are just puzzle pieces in that big picture. Important pieces, but only pieces nonetheless.

Businesses also buy Microsoft because they are a so-called blue chip player. They will still be there tomorrow. The company is reliable and dependable. Their products are well supported and won't go away. And yes, their back office and data center products - the products that business need and want and rely on - actually work.

Apple are successful with their iOS gadgets. In the business world, they are basically just a new phone manufacturer IT departments have to deal with. Their products are just some small new puzzle pieces. Apple does not sell big iron or enterprise software.

Microsoft "consumer" seems to be forgotten by many when it comes to the Xbox division. Xbox is quite successful.

You are absolutely correct about IBM and Microsoft. I see it as IBM started in the business market (many years ago), entered the consumer market, got out of the consumer market, and now focuses on advanced computing technologies (hardware and software). IBM is the leader of advanced computing.
Microsoft started out with ambition towards the business/consumer market (MS Office), successfully entered the consumer market with Windows (still quite solid today), entered the business/large enterprise market Windows NT/Office/SQL/.NET/VS/etc. (software only) and quickly gaining market share in that market. Also, Microsoft has a huge start for the future of cloud computing with hosting. That is big.
Apple has great momentum in the consumer market but really nothing, yet, in the business market. As long as they don't screw things up, they could take the consumer market all together. However, consumer market is a risky business. Apple needs to work it like the business market where the customers are essentially trapped with using their products. For example, it is very difficult for a business to just dump all of their Windows computers and switch to something else. That could destroy the company. For Apple to remain successful for a long time, they need to do the same, except for consumers. That is a very difficult task. Only time will tell.

 

[Gasu E.]

How exactly is the brand value measured?
And of course the top 10 consist only of US brands?
Yeah, right...

I can tell you exactly how "brand value", also known as "brand equity", is estimated. It is defined as the contribution to the overall corporate equity value (the stock market valuation) of the value of the brand itself. In other words, if the McDonald's Corp were to overnight rename all its usages of the "McDonald's" branding to "Xyqptrwt", what would be the impact on the stock market valuation?

Here are the top 20 corporations world-wide by stock market valuations. The link shows more. Some companies don't depend much on their specific branding. But of the ones that do, obviously, if they have a higher stock market valuation, they are going to have a higher brand equity. For those scoffing at AT&T as proving that the brand list is US-biased: note that AT&T is the 12th most valuable company in the world, and is very dependent on branding. The fact is that world market valuations are dominated by US companies, so brand valuations will be as well.


Apple Inc. $495,938 UNITED STATES
2 Exxon Mobil Corporation $380,967 UNITED STATES
3 Microsoft Corporation $245,893 UNITED STATES
4 PetroChina Co Ltd $238,029 CHINA
5 International Business Machines Corporation $225,945 UNITED STATES
6 China Mobile Limited $214,787 HONG KONG
7 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. $211,638 UNITED STATES
8 Industrial And Commercial Bank Of China Ltd $208,709 CHINA
9 General Electric Company $200,630 UNITED STATES
10 Royal Dutch/Shell Group $199,377 NETHERLANDS
11 Berkshire Hathaway Inc. $197,902 UNITED STATES
12 AT&T Inc. $197,349 UNITED STATES
13 Google Inc. $195,734 UNITED STATES
14 Chevron Corporation $194,279 UNITED STATES
15 Nestle S.A. $190,519 SWITZERLAND
16 Procter & Gamble Co (The) $174,052 UNITED STATES
17 Johnson & Johnson $172,588 UNITED STATES
18 Pfizer Inc. $169,007 UNITED STATES
19 Coca-Cola Company (The) $167,200 UNITED STATES
20 China Construction Bank Corp

 

[Renzatic]

Yeah, Google Chrome has been quite annoying. I always get ads telling me that it will speed up my internet browsing or something. I tried it, and it was slower and hogged CPU and RAM, then it eventually just stopped loading any pages at all.

It's all a big scheme to get people sucked in. The problem is that their half-baked idea of a cloud-based PC failed, so I guess they have to stay in the advertising industry.

Wait a second wait a second wait a second. Lets see if I've got this straight...

So you try Chrome. You get a suspicious pop-up ad advertising a program and/or plugin that claims to speed up internet browsing. You go ahead and grab it cuz, hey, if it's advertised, it must be real. It ends up eating up your resources...

...and somehow this is because Chrome is a crappy browser?

WHAT?

edit: Nevermind. Reading comprehension fail. Should've got more sleep last night.

 

[koolmagicguy]

What does 30% have to do with "Brand Value"? "Brand Value", "Net Value", and "Market Value" are very different things.

Also, 30% is low compared to what most others on the list take. The others just don't publish what they take like Apple does.

Point taken. Still, when you compile all those variables it's easy to see why Apple is at the top.