Somebody wake me up when Apple updates their miniscule, prehistoric computer lineup.
Might be a while. All their energy seems to be focused on the iPhone at the moment.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Moves Up to #20 on 'Best Global Brands' List
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Might be a while. All their energy seems to be focused on the iPhone at the moment.
Except for this:
http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/organic-new-imacs-refreshed-macbooks-due-in-weeks-20090917/
And I guess the June refresh didn't count for some reason?
Thank you someone who doesn't think this is based on who is the most well known.
I guess that must be the criteria for the list; and maybe it says so if you access the original article. But I think we could be forgiven if we are thinking in terms of mindshare and public perception of these companies, simply because the word "brand" was used. That's what a "brand" is -- your recognition factor and the kind of taste you leave in someone's mouth (with Marlboro and Coca-Cola, that's literal).
So, I am wondering why they said "Best Global Brand", then, in the first place; if it was simply about the corporate assets, or total marketcap or something.
A brand can add value to a company, and in that sense be worth something. Some lists have even put a tangible value on a company's brand. I think I saw somewhere that Coca-Cola has the highest value brand (that it may even be worth more to the company that their factories and other assets). Nike is also very high, in terms of the brand's worth to the company. Likewise, Apple is a good brand.
In terms of brand, I would put MS way down the list. That brand seems to hurt more than help
, and they seem to want to hide it when they market X-Box, Bing, Zune, etc. They keep coming out with other things to turn into brands, simply because they have no good value built up in their main brand.GE, while relatively unknown, seems to have a basically good brand. There is a big GE plant close to me here in the Netherlands. I had an interview there once. I was impressed that they supply the plastic for my favorite plastic product, Lego
.Nestle, while very well known, has received a hit to their brand over the years: in England at any rate, they are associated with cutting corners and putting unapproved ingredients in their baby formula, and then dumping it on African markets which had the effect of discouraging natural breast-feeding and using poor water instead. I don't like their chocolate, hate their coffee and resent the fact that they have bought up all the breakfast cereals and chocolate (eg. Rowntree Macintosh -- Yorkies, LionBars, etc.) I used to like.
So, as you can see from my rants, "Brand" value is/should be more about personal perception of the consumer, hence all the values-based advertising. If you brand is actually making consumers avoid your products when possible, then you have a problem (MS springs to mind
)Brand?
I guess that "size" alone must be the criteria for the list; and maybe it says so if you access the original article. But I think we could be forgiven if we are thinking in terms of mindshare and public perception of these companies, simply because the word "brand" was used. That's what a "brand" is -- your recognition factor and the kind of taste you leave in someone's mouth (with Marlboro and Coca-Cola, that's literal).
So, I am wondering why they said "Best Global Brand", then, in the first place; if it was simply about the corporate assets, or total marketcap or something.
A brand can add value to a company, and in that sense be worth something. Some lists have even put a tangible value on a company's brand. I think I saw somewhere that Coca-Cola has the highest value brand (that it may even be worth more to the company than their factories and other assets). Nike is also very high, in terms of the brand's worth to the company. Likewise, Apple is a good brand.
In terms of brand, I would put MS way down the list. That brand seems to hurt more than help, and they seem to want to hide it when they market X-Box, Bing, Zune, etc. They keep coming out with other things to turn into brands, simply because they have no good value built up in their main brand and don't know how to add value to the MS brand.
GE, while relatively unknown, seems to have a basically good brand. There is a big GE plant close to me here in the Netherlands. I had an interview there once. I was impressed that they supply the plastic for my favorite plastic product, Lego. Likewise, Marlboro, despite killing people with its product, seems to have a positive brand -- everyone relates positively with the freedom-loving, independent, no-nonsense cowboy Marlboro Man.
Nestle, while very well-known, has received a hit to their brand over the years: in England at any rate, they are associated with cutting corners and putting unapproved ingredients in their baby formula, and then dumping it on African markets which had the effect of discouraging natural breast-feeding and using poor water instead. I don't like their chocolate, hate their coffee and resent the fact that they have bought up all the breakfast cereals and chocolate (eg. Rowntree Macintosh -- Yorkies, LionBars, etc.) I used to like and seem to have made them taste flat and stale.
So, as you can see from my rants, "Brand" value is/should be more about personal perception of the consumer, hence all the values-based advertising. If your brand is actually making consumers avoid your products when possible, then you have a problem (MS springs to mind). Their recent ad campaigns have done nothing to enhance their brand; on the contrary, they seem to have reinforced how out of touch they are. That also brings up the question: how can MS "rebrand" something (like a Toshiba Gigabeat) and make it worse??? Most people would rather buy a Toshiba hardware product than a Microsoft one! (I mean, I know how they can, I just want to know why).
Thank you someone who doesn't think this is based on who is the most well known.
I guess that "size" alone must be the criteria for the list; and maybe it says so if you access the original article. But I think we could be forgiven if we are thinking in terms of mindshare and public perception of these companies, simply because the word "brand" was used. That's what a "brand" is -- your recognition factor and the kind of taste you leave in someone's mouth (with Marlboro and Coca-Cola, that's literal).
So, I am wondering why they said "Best Global Brand", then, in the first place; if it was simply about the corporate assets, or total marketcap or something.
A brand can add value to a company, and in that sense be worth something. Some lists have even put a tangible value on a company's brand. I think I saw somewhere that Coca-Cola has the highest value brand (that it may even be worth more to the company than their factories and other assets). Nike is also very high, in terms of the brand's worth to the company. Likewise, Apple is a good brand.
In terms of brand, I would put MS way down the list. That brand seems to hurt more than help
, and they seem to want to hide it when they market X-Box, Bing, Zune, etc. They keep coming out with other things to turn into brands, simply because they have no good value built up in their main brand and don't know how to add value to the MS brand.GE, while relatively unknown, seems to have a basically good brand. There is a big GE plant close to me here in the Netherlands. I had an interview there once. I was impressed that they supply the plastic for my favorite plastic product, Lego
. Likewise, Marlboro, despite killing people with its product, seems to have a positive brand -- everyone relates positively with the freedom-loving, independent, no-nonsense cowboy Marlboro Man.Nestle, while very well-known, has received a hit to their brand over the years: in England at any rate, they are associated with cutting corners and putting unapproved ingredients in their baby formula, and then dumping it on African markets which had the effect of discouraging natural breast-feeding and using poor water instead. I don't like their chocolate, hate their coffee and resent the fact that they have bought up all the breakfast cereals and chocolate (eg. Rowntree Macintosh -- Yorkies, LionBars, etc.) I used to like and seem to have made them taste flat and stale.
So, as you can see from my rants, "Brand" value is/should be more about personal perception of the consumer, hence all the values-based advertising. If your brand is actually making consumers avoid your products when possible, then you have a problem (MS springs to mind
). Their recent ad campaigns have done nothing to enhance their brand; on the contrary, they seem to have reinforced how out of touch they are. That also brings up the question: how can MS "rebrand" something (like a Toshiba Gigabeat) and make it worse??? Most people would rather buy a Toshiba hardware product than a Microsoft one! (I mean, I know how they can, I just want to know why).I don't quite know what you mean, but I'm guessing the first part was sarcastic but in the picture you are pointing out that the girl is not?
Because they all look like creepy stalkers with anger, whilst she maintains a hidden smile.
You've not seen Harry Potter then.