Coca Cola world’s most valuable brand, as Toyota falls and BP plummets
Coca Cola is still the world’s most valuable brand,while Toyota’s safety scare knocked $5bn off the value of the brand over the last 12 months, research by Interbrand suggests.
According to the Best Global Brands 2010 survey, Coca Cola’s brand is worth just over $70bn.
Top ten brands, according to Interbrand:
- Coca Cola $70.452bn +2%
- IBM $64.727bn +7%
- Microsoft $60.895bn +7%
- Google $43.557bn +36%
- GE $42.808bn -10%
- McDonald’s 33.578bn +4%
- Intel $32.015m +4%
- Nokia $29.495bn -15%
- Disney $28.731bn +1%
- HP $26.867bn +12%
The full top 100 can be found on the Best Global Brands website.
Surprised Apple was not higher up =) Also in a few years Facebook may be higher up I guess?
Apple at 17, IBM at 2, Credibility at 0
Charlie … it’s all explained in the video – all makes sense.
H&M at 21. Please come to Australia 😉
+1 to Charlie’s comment.
Apple’s market cap is higher than Microsoft. And as they say, if Apple whacked their logo on a brick it would sell. But it’s not in Interbrand’s Top 10.
More proof what a bunch of plonking brand-babbling twits Interbrand are…
“[The brand] is a company’s most valuable asset”.
No it’s not.
Only brand consultants will sell you such waffle. (Said as an ex-brand consultant.)
Can anyone guess why Cadbury aren’t on the list – surely they must have been close?
What a lovely business model. Marketers want to put a dollar valuation on their brand, and where there is demand there will be supply. The valuation method is secret, and the numbers may be garbage but it fills a demand.
There is pseudo-science and now there is pseudo-finance.
Tom I agree with you comment. Why on earth should we trust this valuation by brand consultants ahead of the share market. It’s like when a real estate agent values houses at completely different values that those they sell at.
The hilarious (or tragic) irony is this: Interbrand says “A brand is a company’s most valuable asset”.
Yet Wall Street says – in hard money terms (i.e. where the rubber hits the road in terms of measurable definitions of value) – “Apple is worth more than Microsoft”.
So people with actual money in play say Apple is worth more, but Interbrand don’t list them close to Microsoft.
If Microsoft’s “brand” is its most valuable asset – remember we’re talking real business assets here – it’s market cap should be higher than Apples, right? But according to Interbrand it isn’t. Why?
Because it’s BS. That’s why. Y’all need to read “The Brand Bubble”.
I’m too drunk to type any further. But basically “brand” has to die in the arse.
I think they have the title of the survey wrong. Seems very financial based, so perhaps “Best Brands” isn’t the right name. If what they’re measuring is most valuable brand, then they should call it “Most Valuable Brands”. I get they also take into account role and brand strength, however, it seems that the finances of the company are a filter keeping out other highly recognised and powerful brands such as facebook or ebay.
Paul
These things are like horoscopes, we can all take guesses about what it might mean, but a sensible conclusion is that it is simply a total mess – no meaning, no utility, just something to get attention and sell to the gullible.
It parades as “serious finance”, but a cursory look shows companies with intangible assets that are worth far more than others but ranked far lower, and vice-versa.
Perhaps it measures “brand strength” instead – but what on earth is this mystical thing? And why is it not valued by the finance markets?
Professor Byron Sharp
Director, Ehrenberg-Bass Institute
University of South Australia.