Telstra, CBA and NAB are Australia’s most valuable brands
Australia’s most valuable brand is Telstra, according to a report released today by consultancy Interbrand.
According to the Australian Best Brands Report, Telstra’s brand is worth $9.7bn dollars to the company – that figure amounts to nearly a quarter of the company’s market capitalisation. And it doesn’t take into account other Telstra-owned brands such as Big Pond, Sensis, Yellow, White Pages and Trading Post.
Next most valuable is Commonwealth Bank, whose brand value placed at $7.1bn.
Interbrand also calculates that some brands are worth more than their companies’ current worth on the ASX. It says Billabong’s brand is worth $2.2bn, although its market capitalisation is currently $1.4bn. Similarly, it values the Flight Centre brand at $630m, although the company is currently worth $400m.
Thanks Timbrella – Interbrand put out a lot of insightful content. But i’ve always found putting a monetary value on a brand somewhat difficult to swallow. There are so many factors which contribute to a brands success, the process almost devalues the core to what brought it there. Take for example QANTAS who you mentioned… things can change ever so quickly.
It very clearly depends on how you define “brand” then!
: P
My understanding is that the Interbrand methodology is heavily centred on financial performance. In this respect, it is flawed as it fails to adequately take into account brand equity amongst consumers.
This is actually rather important for marketers who believe that brands these days are like beauty – existing solely “in the eye of the beholder”.
If ranking was based on consumers and brand empathy, we’d get a very different list … for example, on the annual AustraliaScan survey there is a question “How well do these brands match your own personal values in life?”.
The figures for Australian consumers answering “very well” or “quite well” to the Interbrand Oz top 10 are below:
1. Telstra 69%
2. Comm Bank 54%
3. NAB 40%
4. Westpac 43%
5. Woolworths 82%
6. Macquarie 20%
7. ANZ 47%
8. Billabong 54%
9. St George 34%
10. Harvey Norman 63%
Bunnings tops AustraliaScan with 86%, while Woolys makes it into this top 5 too with its 82%.
I’m not suggesting for a momment that OZScan should be used for brand valuation … but I do think that brand valuation should include consumer sentiment, such as for Millward Browns Optimor (BrandZ).
I agree with what Adam has said in that if a company is going to have continued growth it is vital that it’s centred around what their customers think. Putting dollar figures on a brand for share holders is fine and to be expected but for customers, the real value is surely based around how they perceive the brand.
As someone once told me at Bunnings; ‘the customer is always right’
The argument behind valuing brands is that they can then contribute to shareholder value. As shareholder value (read: dividend) plumets it will be interesting to see how these “valuable” brands hold up, especially the banks.
Consumers are also shifting toward “make do and mend” behaviour, which will naturally favour the value based propositions. Could be that Bunnings and Woolworts etc rise rapidly…
Well said Adam.
You clearly understand the more dimensional view of brands, beyond merely shareholder value.
The fact is shareholders form their views emotionally and through a myriad of popular cultural views. The leadership of the brand, its media statements, the press view, and most importantly personal experiences.
I spend my life trying to convince businesses here and overseas that true brand value is about how clear, relevant and believable a company’s values are and how they match to our own beliefs.
Great brands help consumers express themselves, establish core beliefs and even create their own personal brands.
They also do so consistently through every touch point.
Banks struggle to show any beliefs and more so to have tens of thousands of staff to deliver as one.
Macquarie was powerful because it served as a personal branding device and reputation enhancer for its niche customer base.
Clearly only 20% would say Macquarie fits with personal values because Macquarie is a niche brand designed for those who value wealth above all other things.
This all comes down to an emotional loyalty, a sense of belonging to a brand.
That can’t happen if a brand doesn’t have a belief and a sense of substance that I can emotionally ‘join’.
Apple has that, as does Virgin.
The ultimate brand value is when a belief creates a sense of belonging and that leads to behavioural change, ie customer loyalty, advocacy and irrational purchase. Harley Davidson is a good example as its customers feel they belong to core beliefs and then behave irrationally by ordering the next model before they even see it.
Great brands are tribes that people want to be a part of. This starts with internal buy in and leads to external desire.
You’d have to argue that Bunnings has this and fosters a sense of tribal belonging as we wander the aisles and dream about what we can make, destroy or merely play wit. The staff are passionate and for the most part, happy to be part of this tribe.
Apple, Google, Harley, the surf brands and others all manage their brand value through this sense of belonging, clearly based on well articulated beliefs.
@simon hammond well said yourself.
I like the definiton that Faris Yakob puts forward:
“a brand is a collective perception in the minds of consumers”
http://farisyakob.typepad.com/.....ially.html
This is all very confusing. The majority of the top 10 have considerable monopoly powers. Billabong stands out in this respect but the way ‘brand’ is applied here is quite deceptive. You seem to be talking more about company worth than the power of ‘brand’.