Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
54,237
16,075



applelogo.jpg
Millward Brown today released its annual BrandZ study of global brands (via AllThingsD), 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 to $183 billion in 2012) 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.

brandz2013.png
Overall, Millward Brown said 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
 

toaster64

macrumors regular
May 14, 2013
164
0
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.
 
Last edited:
Comment

-LikesMac-

macrumors 6502
Jun 20, 2010
429
23
I'm wondering what exactly does brand value represent. Also, how is Coca Cola rising? :D
 
Comment

tutubibi

macrumors 6502a
Sep 18, 2003
539
0
localhost
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.
 
Comment

toaster64

macrumors regular
May 14, 2013
164
0
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.
 
Comment

tutubibi

macrumors 6502a
Sep 18, 2003
539
0
localhost
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.
 
Last edited:
Comment

toaster64

macrumors regular
May 14, 2013
164
0
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 ;)
 
Comment

linuxcooldude

macrumors 68020
Mar 1, 2010
2,480
7,232
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.
 
Comment

jclo

Editor
Staff member
Dec 7, 2012
1,798
3,748
California
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.
 
Comment

spicynujac

macrumors regular
May 24, 2012
182
7
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.
 
Comment

ArtOfWarfare

macrumors G3
Nov 26, 2007
9,283
5,414
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.
 
Comment

linuxcooldude

macrumors 68020
Mar 1, 2010
2,480
7,232
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.
 
Comment

ALange

macrumors member
Apr 15, 2013
45
0
Poland
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...
 
Comment

ArchAndroid

macrumors regular
Aug 26, 2012
100
4
London, England
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.
 
Comment
M

Mr.damien

Guest
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...
 
Comment

seek3r

macrumors 6502a
Aug 16, 2010
818
578
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.
 
Comment

Greg.

macrumors 6502
Sep 12, 2010
385
17
London, UK
Really surprised that Nike is only 56th. Most of their profit is derived from the existence of their brand.
 
Comment

210

macrumors regular
Mar 3, 2004
215
4
London, England
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.
 
Comment

GoCubsGo

macrumors Nehalem
Feb 19, 2005
35,741
149
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.
 
Comment

ConCat

macrumors 6502a
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

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...
 
Last edited:
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.