Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
FT special on Brandz / Brands 2009

FT special on Brandz / Brands 2009

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,582|Likes:
Published by marcoatzberger
The impact of the credit crunch and the global recession it has caused is apparent in this detailed look at the categories covered in this year’s BrandZ Top 100 rankings. Consumers are searching for value by shopping at cheaper supermarkets, and saving money by eating less frequently at smart restaurants and more often at fast food chains.

The ranking values brands from 17 categories, ranging from apparel, beer, bottled water, cars and coffee to fast food, financial institutions, gaming consoles, insurance, luxury goods, mobile operators, motor fuel, personal care, retail, soft drinks, spirits and technology. The one new category is gaming consoles.

more on ft.com
The impact of the credit crunch and the global recession it has caused is apparent in this detailed look at the categories covered in this year’s BrandZ Top 100 rankings. Consumers are searching for value by shopping at cheaper supermarkets, and saving money by eating less frequently at smart restaurants and more often at fast food chains.

The ranking values brands from 17 categories, ranging from apparel, beer, bottled water, cars and coffee to fast food, financial institutions, gaming consoles, insurance, luxury goods, mobile operators, motor fuel, personal care, retail, soft drinks, spirits and technology. The one new category is gaming consoles.

more on ft.com

More info:

Published by: marcoatzberger on May 04, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/12/2010

pdf

text

original

 
GLOBALBRANDS
On FT.com
Interviews withmarketingexperts fromNespresso, Visaand Pampers
FINANCIAL TIMES
SPECIAL REPORT
|
Wednesday April 29 2009
 www.ft.com/global-brands-2009
Inside
Nostalgia
The brandsthat do best balanceevoking happy memorieswith innovation, finds
Emma Jacobs
Page 2Global top 100 ranking
Joanna Seddon
explains amethodology based oncustomer research andfinancial analysis
Page 2Banks and insurers
Andrew Baxter
notes upsand downs for banks andfalls for insurers
Page 3Sectoral round-up
Andrew Baxter
presentsa detailed analysis of the17 categories included inthe ranking – apparel, beer,bottled water, cars, coffee,fast food, financialinstitutions, gamingconsoles, insurance, luxurygoods, mobile operators,motor fuel, personal care,retail, soft drinks, spiritsand technology – plus aranking table for each oneat:
www.ft.com/ global-brands-2009
On FT.com
Top 20 risers
By brand value growth, (year-on-year)
Brand Brandvaluegrowth(%)China Merchants Bank
168
BlackBerry
100
Amazon
85
Wendy’s
72
AT&T
67
Aldi
49
Auchan
48
Vodafone
45
Johnnie Walker
42
Kronenbourg 1664
41
O
2
36
ICBC
36
Rolex
35
Movistar
34
McDonald’s
34
BBVA
33
Marlboro
33
Chivas
30
Nespresso
27
Nivea
24
Source: Millward Brown Optimor (in-cluding data from BrandZ, Datamoni-tor and Bloomberg)
Success results when there is trust among colleagues
Even with the global economyin recession, the idea of taking asuccessful brand and expanding it to new markets continues tobe an appealing proposition.Attracted by the prospect of revenue from customers inpreviously-untapped markets,many companies aspire tosuccess on the world stage.The benefits are obvious: themajority of brands in theBrandZ Top 100 Most ValuableBrands ranking are global inscope, and thus derive theirvalue from creating strong,emotional connections withcustomers across countries andcultures.But those who aspire to buildand maintain global awarenesswould do well to bear in mindthat the success of globalpowerhouse brands such asMicrosoft, Coca-Cola andMcDonald’s was not achievedovernight.With the exception of the big internet names such as Google,Amazon and Yahoo, which areuniquely blessed in terms of offering services that haveinstant distribution, most of thebrands in the ranking havetaken decades to establish theirglobal presence.Here are three main principlesto bear in mind when setting acourse for global brand success.
Adapt to local needs andculture
When developing a strategy, itis critical to figure out whatsimilarities across marketsmight serve globalisation andwhat differences might impedeit. Do not assume that whatworks at home will workelsewhere.Coca-Cola may offer auniversally appealing proposition of happinessthrough refreshment, but toachieve global success, it hasmodified both its product andpackaging.The need to adapt is notlimited to food and beverages.Both Carrefour, the Frenchsupermarket group, and B&Q,the UK home-improvementretailer, stumbled when theyentered China. Both have sincealtered their retail layouts andproduct lines. Carrefour nowoffers live fish and frogs to eat,and B&Q offers an extensiverange of aquariums. (TheChinese believe fish bring goodluck to a home.)
Seek to tap a human truth
Strong brands are founded on apromise that resonates withconsumers. It is easier to builda strong connection with peopleacross countries and cultureswhen the promise taps into abasic human motivation – anessential aspect of humannature that is common to peoplearound the world.Johnnie Walker’s extensivequalitative research around theworld identified the idea of “progress” as a universallypowerful expression of masculine success in the 21stcentury. The “Keep Walking”campaign that developed fromthis insight helped boost salesby 48 per cent between 1999 and2007 and in 2008 its brand valuegrew an impressive 42 per centcompared with the previousyear. Johnnie Walker couldhave chosen to customise itsmessage by country or region,but did not.Some brands, particularlythose marketed to internationalbusinesses, need a commonpresentation across markets.Companies such as IBM, Ciscoand Accenture have targetcustomers that are veryhomogeneous. These companiesneed to present a consistent facearound the world, so that nomatter where their customersencounter them, they arerecognisable.When, by choice or necessity,a brand has found a promisethat works across cultures, ithas a foundation on which itcan build other marketing elements: product and service,packaging, brochures, website,creative executions and so on.
Align the organisation aroundthe global brand strategy 
While in the early days in anynew market, a company mustfocus on establishing a viable,profitable business, a companythat has global aspirations forits products or services shouldnot allow unfettered localcustomisation. The ability totake advantage of futureeconomies of scale will dependon some commonality of approach.Companies need to establish acommon understanding of whatthe brand stands for: itspromise, the elements that mustbe kept consistent, and theelements that can vary.Next they need to ensure thatall employees involved aroundthe world use the same terms,processes and metrics, so theycan share ideas, success storiesand lessons learnt. Seniormanagement must also assignclear responsibility for thebrand and align the organisationappropriately.Failure to do so will result inendless conflict as global andlocal teams fight for what theybelieve is right.Last, and most important,companies must foster a cultureof trust. The better that peopleknow their colleagues and trustthem, the more likely they willbe to co-operate and share ideas.To stimulate and maintainprofitable growth for theirbrands, companies competing onthe world stage need to balanceglobal efficiency against localeffectiveness.Identifying the ideal balancebetween global and local is notan easy task but, as the Top 100ranking demonstrates, thereward for doing so isenormous.
 Nigel Hollis is chief global analyst at Millward Brown
GLOBAL REACH
 Nigel Hollis
presents three principles to build a presencearound the world
Local adaptation: B&Qoffers a wide range ofaquariums in China,where fish are believedto bring good luckto a home
Old-timers and high-tech prosper 
 T
he past year hasbeen a challenging one for companies,chief executives andinvestors. For brands, allthings considered, it couldhave been worse.For a start, the world wit-nessed one of the most suc-cessful campaigns in historyto create a global brand.From its mastery of theinternet and brand values toits relentless discipline andorganisation, the 2008 presi-dential campaign of BarackObama was an object lessonto marketers.Mr Obama’s reward was tobecome US president, and toboost sales of his books. Hedid not, however, crack theBrandZ ranking of the top100 global brands drawn upby Millward Brown Optimorfor the Financial Times.You do not obtain a loftybrand valuation by attract-ing voters rather than pay-ing customers.Yet, even for those brandsthat are measured on finan-cial criteria, this was a yearof relative resilience. Thevalue of the top 100 actuallyrose slightly to about$2,000bn, as financial chaoswas breaking out all around.One reason for that was“survivorship bias” thefact that 15 of the brandsthat lost value this year alsofell out of the top 100, to bereplaced by up-and-comers.If the BrandZ ranking stillcontained Wachovia, Deut-sche Bank, Merrill Lynch,UBS and American Interna-tional Group, things wouldhave been different.Yet brands are also resil-ient. Their value measuresthe emotional and intangibleconnection that consumersfeel, rather than the func-tionality of the product orservice to which they areattached.You can destroy a brandby relentlessly downgrading the product and disappoint-ing expectations, but it takestime. “People do not blamethe brands for everything that has gone wrong. Theyblame the corporations andthe people who ran them,”says Joanna Seddon, chief executive of Millward BrownOptimor.Those that have lagged fora few years, rather thandying, can often be expandedagain successfully. One storyof this year’s rankings isthat many of the 15 newentrants – such as Pampers,Wrigley’s, Visa, Nivea andKFC – have been around fora long time but have gaineda new lease of life, often inemerging markets.Furthermore, those thathave established a strong brand and keep on investing in it can obtain enormousrewards. That is true of clas-sic US names such as Coca-Cola and McDonald’s and itis above all true of Google,which not only came top of the ranking again this year,but opened up a $24bn gapover Microsoft in secondplace.Controversies such asprivacy protests over thelaunch of its Street Viewapplication in the UK andrising tensions with copy-right owners and publishershave not dented the generalenthusiasm among consum-ers for Google’s services.“We know that withoutconsumers, you have noth-ing and there is a great ele-ment of trust in us. Wethink about the consumerfirst and expect everythinelse to fall into place afterthat,” says Lorraine Twohill,Google’s global head of mar-keting.Ms Seddon echoes thisfocus on building brandsthrough technology thatempowers consumers. “If you look at the brands thatare doing really well, theyare not about telling the cus-tomer what to think or do,but offering the ingredientsof an experience the cus-tomer can own.”The relative success of technology brands, whilethose in financial servicesand the auto industry haveweakened, is a theme in thisyear’s rankings. The popu-larity of smart phones haspushed Vodafone into thetop 10 for the first time – thefirst UK brand to break in – and has benefited AT&T, thenetwork provider for Apple’siPhone in the US.The degree to which tech-nology brands can not onlyboost their parent company’sfortunes, but also dominaterivals in a “winner takes all”manner is evident.Nintendo, an also-ran inthe second generation of video games consoles, hashad such success with thethird generation Wii that theconsole’s brand value of $8.3bn dwarfs the $341mbrand value of Sony’s Play-Station 3.Technology is one driverof emerging brands; theother is geography.This year’s rankings con-tinue the shift to emerging market brands that haveexpanded globally and takenon western incumbents. Thechanging balance of powerwas most pronounced infinancial services, where USand European banks struckby the financial crisis madeway for new competitors.These include China Mer-chants Bank, a rapidly grow-ing private sector bank inChina, and Bradesco of Bra-zil. Such institutions havegained not only from beinin growth economies, but byhaving lower exposure tointernational capital mar-kets and credit derivatives.In other ways, the rank-ings represent something of a return to tradition. Manyof the strongest brands areold-timers from westerncompanies that have takenadvantage of their recogni-tion in emerging markets toexpand geographically.Brands such as Coca-Cola,Pampers, Nivea and KFC arealmost as much emerginmarkets properties now aswestern ones.Tradition has also workedin favour of luxury names,such as those owned byLVMH and Gucci, comparedwith premium-priced massbrands that are struggling tostop customers defecting tovalue products.“Traditional brands thathave not compromised andgone to the mass market,such as Rolex, are surviving the crisis remarkably well,”says Ms Seddon.Allied to this is the tradi-tional trend in recessions of companies that specialise insmall vices – such as liquorsand chocolate – doing well.When people have run outof money for extravaganttreats, they can still comfortthemselves with a shot of branded whisky at home:Johnnie Walker’s brandvalue has risen by 42 percent in a year to $2.5bn.One global brand thatcombines at-home luxury,technology, internationalreach and giving power toconsumers is Nespresso,Nestle’s home expressomachine and coffee. Its valueis estimated to have risen by27 per cent to $2.5bn, leaving Starbucks which is beinsqueezed by being in themid-market – appearing rela-tively puny with a brandvalue of $850m.At the other end of the
Global top 10
By valueRank Brand Value($m)1Google
100,039
2Microsoft
76,249
3Coca-Cola*
67,625
4IBM
66,622
5McDonald’s
66,575
6Apple
63,113
7China Mobile
61,283
8GE
59,793
9Vodafone
53,727
10Marlboro
49,460
* Includes Diet Coke, Coke Light andCoke Zero.
Source: Millward BrownOptimor (including data from BrandZ,Datamonitor and Bloomberg)
scale are the value offerings.Aldi, the German discountsupermarket chain thatowns Trader Joe’s in the US,is one of the 15 entrants tothe top 100. Meanwhile, “fastfashion” discount brandssuch as H&M and Zara nowfigure strongly in theapparel category, alongsideNike and Ralph LaurenFor marketers and brandspecialists, therefore, theserankings provide plenty of clues about how disparatebrands – with varying formsof consumer appeal – canturn themselves into globalgiants. But it also revealssomething worrying for com-panies that seek to enter thetop 100 and stay there.This year’s volatility, with15 new entrants comparedwith an average of six orseven in past years, may bea product of the financialcrisis and the implosion of Wall Street banks.But the number of newentrants shows how competi-tive the market is becoming.That competition is com-ing from new arrivals butequally from the parents of traditional brands that arefinding other ways to creategrowth whether throughnew forms of marketing orentering new markets.“To stay at the top of yourgame, you have to injectfreshness and surprise,” saysMs Twohill of Google. “Wedon’t feel big. We still workin little, scrappy teams andwe feel very small.”If the world’s biggestbrand is not taking iteasy, everyone else mustwork harder to catch up.
Financial servicesapart, many areasshow resilience to the economic storm,says
John Gapper
Part of a 1920s advertisement for Johnnie Walker whisky. Many of this year’s strongest brands are from older western companies that have taken advantage of their recognition in emerging markets to expand geographically 
‘We think aboutthe consumerfirst and expecteverything else tofall into placeafter that’
 
2
FINANCIAL TIMES
WEDNESDAY APRIL 29 2009
Global Brands
RankRankingchangeBrand Brand value 09($m)Brand value 08($m)Brand value 07($m)Brand contributionBrand momentum% Brand value change 09vs.08
1=Google
100,039 86,05766,434 3 3 16
21Microsoft
76,249 70,887 54,951 3 8 8
31Coca-Cola
1
67,625 58,208 49,612 4 8 16
42IBM
66,622 55,335 33,572 3 5 20
53McDonalds
66,575 49,499 33,1384 6 34
61Apple
63,113 55,206 24,728 3 9 14
7-2China Mobile
61,283 57,225 41,214 3 8 7
8-6GE (General Electric)
59,793 71,379 61,880 2 3 -16
92Vodafone
53,727 36,962 21,107 3 2 45
10=Marlboro
49,460 37,324 39,166 49 33
112Wal-Mart
41,083 34,547 36,8802 9 19
126ICBC
38,056 28,004 16,460 2 N/A 36
13-4Nokia
35,163 43,975 31,670 3 4 -20
14-2Toyota
29,907 35,134 33,427 4 6 -15
15*UPS
27,842 30,492 * N/A 3 5-9
1635BlackBerry
27,478 13,734 2,802 2 6100
17-1HP
26,745 29,278 24,987 3 5 -9
18-1BMW
23,948 28,015 25,751 4 9 -15
1910SAP
23,61521,669 18,103 2 5 9
203Disney
23,11023,705 22,572 3 5 -3
214Tesco
22,938 23,208 16,649 4 9 -1
228Gillette
22,919 21,523 17,954 5 6 6
234Intel
22,851 22,027 18,707 2 2 4
247China Construction Bank
22,811 19,60310,757 2 N/A 16
251Oracle
21,438 22,904 17,809 2 5 -6
2635Amazon
21,294 11,511 5,964 3 10 85
275Bank of China
21,192 19,418 13,689 2 N/A 9
2827AT&T
20,059 12,030 9,260 3 7 67
29*Louis Vuitton
19,395 18,446 * N/A 4 7 5
305HSBC
19,079 18,479 17,457 2 N/A 3
31NewPampers
18,945 N/A N/A 5 5 N/A
32NewNintendo
18,233 N/A N/A 3 5 N/A
33-11Cisco
17,965 24,101 18,812 2 5 -25
34-1Verizon Wireless
17,713 19,202 16,261 38 -8
35-7Porsche
17,467 21,718 13,3725 3 -20
36NewVisa
16,353 N/A N/A 3 N/A N/A
37-16Wells Fargo
16,228 24,739 24,284 2 N/A -34
3810Santander
16,035 14,549 12,094 2 N/A 10
396NTT DoCoMo
15,776 15,048 19,450 2 35
40-4Mercedes
15,499 18,044 17,813 4 4-14
41-27Bank of America
15,480 33,092 28,767 2 N/A -53
42-1Dell
15,422 15,288 13,903 3 3 1
436Accenture
15,07614,137 10,534 3 3 7
44-5Pepsi
2
14,996 15,404 11,756 3 8 -3
45-7LOréal
14,991 16,459 12,303 4 6 -9
46-26American Express
14,963 24,816 23,113 3 N/A -40
47-3Carrefour
14,961 15,057 11,710 3 5 -1
48-14RBC
14,894 18,995N/A 3 N/A -22
49-34Citi
14,608 30,31833,706 3 N/A -52
50-13Honda
14,571 16,649 15,465 3 7 -12
51-4Siemens
13,562 14,665 9,111 2 2 -8
5218Budweiser
3
13,292 10,839 9,977 3 5 23
53-3Orange
13,242 14,093 9,9222 6 -6
RankRankingchangeBrand Brand value 09($m)Brand value 08($m)Brand value 07($m)Brand contributionBrand momentum% Brand value change 09vs.08
5411Ebay
12,970 11,200 12,927 2 5 16
5522BBVA
12,5499,457 N/A 3 N/A 33
5615Colgate
12,39610,576 7,711 4 8 17
57-11Target
12,25414,738 11,560 3 7 -17
588H&M
12,06111,182 8,711 2 8 8
59-6Nike
11,99912,499 10,290 4 7 -4
6013Subway
10,99710,335 7,433 4 106
61NewTD
10,991N/A N/A 3 N/A N/A
6226Movistar
10,9118,117 4,686 2 434
6320T-Mobile
10,8648,940 8,047 2 722
64NewWrigley’s
10,841N/A N/A 5 8N/A
6530Auchan
10,586 7,148 5,570 3 848
66-14Chase
10,582 12,782 11,182 2 N/A-17
67-8Nissan
10,206 11,707 11,189 2 4-13
68NewDHL
9,719 N/A N/A 3 519
69*FedEx
9,491 11,486* 9,310 37 -17
70-30Home Depot
9,280 15,378 18,335 23 -40
7118MTS
9,189 8,077 N/A 37 14
72NewBeeline
8,884 N/A N/A 38 N/A
73-19Canon
8,779 12,398 11,413 22 -29
74NewAldi
8,638 N/A N/A 28 49
7519Avon
8,631 7,209 6,558 34 20
768Zara
8,609 8,682 6,469 28 -1
77NewO
2
8,601 N/A N/A 26 36
7822Standard Chartered
8,219 6,855 3,9552 N/A 20
79NewRed Bull
8,154 N/A N/A3 6 N/A
80NewChina Merchants Bank
8,052 N/A N/A2 N/A 168
81-19Yahoo
7,927 11,465 13,2012 2 -31
82*Hermès
7,862 6,951* N/A4 6 13
83-8JP Morgan
7,852 9,762 8,4902 N/A -20
843Ariel
7,777 8,437 N/A4 5 -8
85-3Tide
7,512 9,123 N/A5 6 -18
86*Gucci
7,468 6,479* N/A 4 5 15
8712MasterCard
7,427 6,970 4,593 3 N/A 7
88-31Goldman Sachs
7,415 11,944 8,239 2 N/A -38
89-33Starbucks
7,260 12,011 16,057 4 5 -40
903Barclays
6,992 7,382 6,612 2 N/A -5
91-13State Farm
6,922 9,425 8,738 2 N/A -27
92-29Morgan Stanley
6,765 11,327 11,204 2 N/A -40
93-50ING
4
6,743 15,08011,539 2 N/A -55
94NewKFC
6,721 6,1004,485 3 7 10
95-9Ikea
6,713 8,5077,373 3 3 -21
96NewNivea
6,572 5,2943,148 3 4 24
97-7Esprit
6,571 7,9075,411 3 6 -17
98NewBradesco
6,565 N/AN/A 2 N/A N/A
99-8Tim
6,409 7,903 8,440 2 3 -19
100NewLowes
6,394 N/A N/A 2 5 N/A
1
The brand value of Coca-Cola includes Diet Coke, Coke Light and Coke Zero
2
The brand value of Pepsi includes Diet Pepsi and Pepsi
3
Budweiser’s value includes both Bud Light and Bud
4
ING value includes ING Bank and ING Insurance* Restated to reflect additional data inputs. Ranking change therefore not comparable
Source: Millward Brown Optimor (including data from BrandZ, Datamonitor and Bloomberg)
Global top 100
By value
 
Contributors
John Gapper
FT Columnist
Andrew Baxter
Senior Writer, Special Reports
Emma Jacobs
FT Contributor
Nigel Hollis
Millward Brown Chief Global Analyst
Joanna Seddon
Millward Brown Optimor Chief Executive
Ursula Milton
Commissioning Editor
Steven Bird
Designer
Andy Mears
Picture EditorFor advertising, contact:
Ade Fadare-Chad
on:tel: +44 020 7873 4418;e-mail: ade.fadare-chard@ft.com, or your usual FT representative
 A detailed and quantified view 
I
n the current economic situ-ation, as other assets fall invalue, brand represents alarger portion of the valueof the business. Understanding its value becomes an increasinglyimportant source of financialreturns. The key to successresides in the minds of its cus-tomers, but a brand is valuableonly if it can translate customersentiment into financial returns.The BrandZ Top 100 is the onlyranking based on a brand valua-tion methodology that isgrounded in quantitative cus-tomer research and in-depthfinancial analysis.Customer behaviour and brandequity insights come from WPP’sunique BrandZ database – thelargest repository of brand equitydata in the world. Covering thou-sands of names and based onmore than 1m in-depth inter-views, it provides a detailed andquantified understanding of cus-tomer decision-making the worldover.Financial data is sourced fromBloomberg, analyst reports, Data-monitor industry reports, andcompany filings with regulatorybodies. A team of MillwardBrown Optimor’s analysts thenprepare financial models for eachbrand that link perceptions of itto company revenues, earnings,and ultimately shareholder andbrand value.The BrandZ Top 100 Most Valu-able Global Brands study valuesmarket-facing brands, whichdirectly generate revenues andprofits through the sale of goodsand services to customers. Corpo-rate brands, such as Procter &Gamble, Unilever and Nestléwhich have significant value,especially with the investmentcommunity, are not included inthe ranking.Millward Brown Optimorapplies an economic useapproach to brand valuation,using a methodology similar tothat employed by analysts andaccountants. We take a funda-mental approach, based on theintrinsic value of the brand,derived from its ability to gener-ate demand. The dollar value of each brand in the ranking is thesum of the future earnings that itis forecast to generate, dis-counted to a present day value.Given the high volatility of financial markets over the past12 months, the valuation gener-ated by this intrinsic approach is,in some cases high, relative tocurrent market capitalisation,reflecting true value rather thancurrent market swings.The brand value is calculatedin three steps:●First, the proportion of a com-pany’s earnings that is generated“under the banner of the brand”is determined. In the case of Coca-Cola, for instance, someearnings are not branded Coca-Cola, but come from Fanta,Sprite or Minute Maid. Fromthese branded earnings, we sub-tract capital charges. Thisensures we take account only of the value, above and beyondwhat investors would requireany investment in the brand toearn: the value the brand adds tothe business. This provides uswith a bottom-up view of theearnings of the business.●Second, only a portion of theseearnings can actually be consid-ered as being driven by brandequity. This is the “brand contri-bution”: the degree to which itplays a role in generating earn-ings. Millward Brown Optimorestablishes it through analysis of country-, market-, and brand-specific customer research fromthe BrandZ database.This guarantees that the brandcontribution is rooted in real-lifecustomer perceptions and behav-iour, rather than subjective opin-ion. This allows us to assess dif-ferences in the importance of brands by category and by coun-try, changes in customer priori-ties, and the role of brand versusother factors such as price andlocation. Brand contribution isdisplayed as an index from 1-5 (5is the highest).●In the final step, the growthpotential of these branded earn-ings is taken into account. Thisprovides an earnings multiplethat is aligned with the methodsused by the analyst community,and also takes into accountbrand-specific growth opportuni-ties and barriers.To capture the weaker eco-nomic outlook, all projectionshave been validated using IMFeconomic growth forecasts.The momentum indicator thatshows each brand’s growth isbased on this evaluation. Brandmomentum is displayed as anindex from 1-10 (10 is the highestscore).Millward Brown Optimorhas refined its analysis over thepast four years to enhance theranking’s ability to help financeand marketing departmentsunderstand and develop theirbrands.
METHODOLOGY
 The ranking is basedon customer researchand in-depth financialanalysis, explains
 Joanna Seddon
 The retro brandwagon rolls in
The decision to revive the ArcticRoll, the frozen dessert that lastenjoyed popularity when the BayCity Rollers were top of the UKcharts, may have perplexed gour-mands.Nigel Slater, the chef and foodwriter, once described the 1970sfamily favourite as a “sponge-covered tube of vanilla ice-cream,its USP [unique selling point]being the wrapping of wet spongeand ring of red jam so thin itcould have been drawn on withan architect’s pen . . . [which]managed to taste of cold card-board.”But food producer Birds Eye’sconfidence that the dessert wouldbe a hit turned out to be well-founded. Since its re-release lastDecember, sales are estimated at£3.5m or 3m boxes.Or to put it another way, anestimated 250 miles of Arctic Rollhave made it to dinner tables,enough to stretch from Londonto Newcastle.The secret of the recent popu-larity of the “cold cardboard” liesnot just in it being a cheap treatfor credit-crunched UK familiesbut because it taps into a reces-sionary trend for nostalgia.As Rita Clifton, chairman of Interbrand, the branding consul-tancy, says: “When you gothrough an economic downturnyou find that people go to brandsthat provide comfort and evokehappy memories of securetimes.”Don Williams, chief executiveof pi global, the branding consul-tancy, explains: “Brands, by theirvery nature are comforting; webuy them because we are reas-sured by their promise, becausethey are familiar and becausethey often become ‘part of thefamily’.”Andy Bond, president and chief executive of Asda, the supermar-ket group comments on thetrend: “At a time when peopleare having to watch the pennies,many are reverting back to doing things like their parentsdid . . . As a result we’re seeinthe sales of brands like Kellogg’s,Bird’s custard and Vimto rising faster than others, as people harkback to their youth.”Ms Clifton says that in the cur-rent climate, “Johnny-come-lately brands offering excitementand novelty are not necessarilygoing to do well.”Nostalgia shopping is not anew phenomenon.Robert Opie, founder of theMuseum of Brands, Packaging and Advertising, says that, in theDepression, brands sought toassociate themselves with a past,happier era.When Nestlé launched its boxof Quality Street chocolates inthe late 1930s, it created a brandsteeped in Victoriana. Mr Opieexplains: “Then there was a lot of sentiment for Victorian timesbecause they represented an eraremembered as stable andcalm . . . so Quality Street usedimages of ladies in crinolines andstagecoaches.”Given the recessionary trendfor nostalgia, should companiesmake efforts to evoke a pastgolden age in their branding andpackaging?PepsiCo is certainly hoping so.It started an eight-week cam-paign last week for “throwback”versions of two soft drinks, Pepsi-Cola and Mountain Dew. Thepackages and formulas, alonwith advertising and promotions,will evoke the 1960s and 1970s.This might work for PepsiCo,which has a history to delve intobut Mr Williams believes compa-nies should be cautious of leap-ing on to this nostalgia “brand-wagon”.Such moves may provide ashort-term fillip to sales but thedanger is that brand owners jump on trends that have “littlerelevance to the brands essenceor personality [and] may causelong-term confusion and dam-age”. If that were to happen,“someone, at some point in thenear future, has to virtually res-cue the brand”.Robert Jones, head of newthinking at Wolff Olins, thebrand consultants, points outthat consumers are quick todetect inconsistency and a lackof authenticity. “Generationshave grown up with advertising,they’re much more savvy nowthan in the past. People like his-tory if it is authentic and true tothe brand.”He cites the example of Hovisbread which ran a series of tele-vision adverts showing a boydelivering bread in a golden-huedmill town in the north of Eng-land. “I don’t think people wouldfall for their advertising now. It’sbased on a false history. Peoplewant to know about what’s inthe bread. They don’t want tohear a fake story.”This scepticism over the storyof brands is in part, he says, dueto the internet: “People can docomparisons on the internet andread about brands there.”Moreover, the nature of thisrecession, he suggests, is making people much more suspiciousabout corporations: “The bank-ing crisis has meant that anti-corporatism is seeping in.” Thismakes it even more likely thatconsumers will smell a fake.It does not do a brand anyfavours to stagnate in the past.“Brands will only survive if they
NOSTALGIA
But companies should be cautious of jumping on to it, explains
Emma Jacobs
Year-on-year growth
CategoryIncreasein brandvalue (%)Mobile operators
28
Soft drinks
24
Coffee
18
Fast food
16
Beer
15
Luxury
10
Retail
7
Spirits
5
Technology
2
Personal care
2
Water
2
Motor fuel
-5
Apparel
-9
Financial Institutions
-11
Cars
-22
Insurance
-48
Source: Millward Brown Optimor (including data from BrandZ,Datamonitor and Bloomberg)
Happy memories: sales of certain ‘old-fashioned’ products are rising
Museum of Brands, Packaging and Advertising
‘When you go througha downturn you findthat people go tobrands that providecomfort and evokehappy memories’
Sectors reveal asearch for value
The impact of the creditcrunch and the globalrecession it has caused isapparent from a detailed lookat the category breakdowns inthis year’s BrandZ Top 100rankings, writes
AndrewBaxter.
Consumers are seekingvalue by shopping at cheapersupermarkets and savingmoney by eating lessfrequently at smart restaurantsand more often at fast foodchains.There is evidence of tradingdown in the recession – inpersonal care and, to a lesserextent, in spirits. Activities thatcan be done easily at homeare popular – playingvideogames, drinking coffeeand mixing a whisky, forexample.Even the strong showing fortoothpaste brands could belinked to saving money – it isa cheaper way to look after your teeth than going to thedentist. In the luxury category,some top brands haveresponded to currentconditions by bringing outsmaller products that cost lessbut do not compromise onquality.Some longer-term trendsremain apparent, however.Consumers’ interest in healthis evidenced by the continuedstrong showing for light beersand energy/sports drinks, andmobile operators’ brands arestill surging ahead, powered bythe growing demand for dataservices.The ranking values brands in17 categories, ranging fromapparel, beer, bottled water,cars and coffee to fast food,financial institutions, gamingconsoles, insurance, luxurygoods, mobile operators, motorfuel, personal care, retail, softdrinks, spirits and technology.The one new category this yearis gaming consoles.Across the categories, thereare many brands included inthe individual category tablesthat do not make it into theTop 100, for which the cut-offpoint is a brand value of about$6.4bn.
For detailed category analysis,comment from Millward BrownOptimor and BrandZ, andindividual rankings go to:www.ft.com/global-brands-2009
keep innovating,” says Mr Jones.Ms Clifton agrees: “The trick isnot to stay static.“Take Tesco, for example, itmay trade on its old-fashionedvalues – cheap, reliable productsand services. But it also inno-vates, for example by providinnew store technology or productlines.“The brands that do best man-age to balance evoking memorieswith innovating.”
 
FINANCIAL TIMES
WEDNESDAY APRIL 29 2009
3
Global Brands
Insurance
Top 10 by brand valueRankBrandBV 09($m)BCBV as % ofmarket cap*1State Farm
6,922 2 N/A**
2Allianz
5,669 2 15
3Axa
3,701 1 9
4ING
2,936 2 15
5Allstate
2,371 2 17
6Geico
1,916 2 N/A***
7MetLife
1,856 2 8
8Zurich
1,659 2 6
9AIG
1,488 1 6
10Sumitomo Life Insurance
1,073 2 4
Insurance
Top 10 by BV as % of market capitalisationRank Brand BV as % of marketcapitalisation*BV ($m)1Allstate
17 2,371
2ING
15 2,936
3Allianz
15 5,669
4Axa
9 3,701
5MetLife
8 1,856
6AIG
6 1,488
7Zurich
6 1,659
8Sumitomo Life Insurance
4 1,073
State Farm
N/A** 6,922
Geico
N/A*** 1,916
** State Farm is a private company. *** Not applicable as Berkshire Hathaway’s market cap is not reflective of the Geico brand
.
Financial institutions
Top 15 by brand valueRankBrandBV $mBCBV as % of mar-ket cap*1ICBC
38,056 2 21
2China Construction Bank
22,811 2 18
3Bank of China
21,192 2 20
4HSBC
19,079 2 15
5Visa
16,353 3 37
6Wells Fargo
16,228 2 15
7Santander
16,035 2 24
8Bank of America
15,480 2 20
9American Express
14,963 3 61
10RBC
14,894 3 34
11Citi
14,608 3 33
12BBVA
12,549 3 30
13TD
10,991 3 36
14Chase
10,582 2 9
15Standard Chartered
8,219 2 43
Financial institutions
Top 15 ranked by BV as % of market capitalisation
 
RankBrandBV as % of marketcapitalisation*BV 09 ($m)1American Express
61 14,963
2Standard Chartered
43 8,219
3Visa
37 16,353
4TD
36 10,991
5RBC
34 14,894
6Citi
33 14,608
7BBVA
30 12,549
8Santander
24 16,035
9ICBC
21 38,056
10Bank of China
20 21,192
11Bank of America
20 15,480
12China Construction Bank
18 22,811
13Wells Fargo
15 16,228
14HSBC
15 19,079
15Chase
9 10,582
*For financial institutions and insurers, we have chosen not to calculate brandmomentum, given capital markets’ difficulty in assessing even near-term growthin the industry. We have instead chosen to publish brand value as a percentage ofmarket capitalisation, to show that most brands can uphold the business in difficulttimes.
Source: Millward Brown Optimor (including data from BrandZ,Datamonitor and Bloomberg)
Asia
Top 10 by brand value
RankBrandBV 09 $mBCBM1China Mobile
61,283 3 8
2ICBC
38,056 2 N/A
3Toyota
29,907 4 6
4China Construction Bank
22,811 2 N/A
5Bank of China
21,192 2 N/A
6Nintendo
18,233 3 5
7NTT DoCoMo
15,776 2 3
8Honda
14,571 3 7
9Nissan
10,206 2 4
10Canon
8,779 2 2
Source: Millward Brown Optimor (including data from BrandZ, Datamonitor andBloomberg)
North America
Top 10 by brand value
Rank Brand BV 09 $m BCBM1Google
100,039 3 3
2Microsoft
76,249 3 8
3Coca-Cola*
67,625 4 8
4IBM
66,622 3 5
5McDonald’s
66,575 4 6
6Apple
63,113 3 9
7GE (General Electric)
59,793 2 3
8Marlboro
49,460 4 9
9Wal-Mart
41,083 2 9
10BlackBerry
27,478 2 6
*The brand of Coca-Cola includes Diet Coke, Coke Light and Coke Zero
.
Source: Millward Brown Optimor (including data from BrandZ, Datamonitor  and Bloomberg)
UK
Top 10 by brand value
RankBrandBV 09 $mBCBM1Vodafone
53,727 3 2
2Tesco
22,938 4 9
3HSBC
19,079 2 N/A
4O
2
8,601 2 6
5Standard Chartered Bank
8,219 2 N/A
6Barclays
6,992 2 N/A
7Marks & Spencer
6,029 4 8
8BP
5,936 2 2
9Asda
5,413 3 9
10Smirnoff
5,201 3 4
Source: Millward Brown Optimor (including data from BrandZ, Datamonitor andBloomberg)
Europe including UK
Top 10 by brand value
Rank Brand BV 09 $m BC BM1 Vodafone
53,727 3 2
2 Nokia
35,163 3 4
3 BMW
23,948 4 9
4 SAP
23,615 2 5
5 Tesco
22,938 4 9
6 Louis Vuitton
19,395 4 7
7 HSBC
19,079 2 N/A
8 Porsche
17,467 5 3
9 Santander
16,035 2 N/A
10 Mercedes
15,499 4 4
Source: Millward Brown Optimor (including data from BrandZ, Datamonitor andBloomberg)
Five newcomers reach regional top 10s
While the four regional BrandZ top 10s arelargely unchanged, five brands have brokenin, highlighting some of the broaderchanges in Millward Brown Optimor’srankings over the past year, writes
Andrew Baxter.
In North America, Bank of America hasbeen displaced by BlackBerry. The brandentered the top 100 in last year’s rankingafter its brand value rose a massive390 per cent. In this year’s ranking,the brand value has merely doubled –an achievement eclipsed only by the168 per cent rise at China Merchants Bank.In Asia, Nintendo – a new entrant to theoverall top 100 – is in sixth spot regionally,and Samsung has slipped out of the top 10.When split into individual product brands,the older Nintendo DS handheld gameconsole edges out the Wii for top place inthe gaming consoles category, new to theranking this year, but it is the Wii that hasbeen responsible for the huge recentgrowth in the brand.The Europe (including UK) top 10 seesSantander, with a brand value of just over$16bn, pushing out L’Oréal, which suffereda 9 per cent fall in brand value in what wasa very mixed performance by personal carebrands.Vodafone, the UK mobile operator,remains firmly at the top of the UK table,increasing its lead over Tesco in secondplace. New entrants are O
2
, another mobileoperator, and Smirnoff, Diageo’s vodkabrand and leading spirits brand overall.
 All change for once-mighty financial names
 T
he headline facts in theBrandZ financial institu-tions category bear wit-ness to the carnage in thesector over the past year.Bank of America and Citi havepreviously slugged it out for topspot, but now they have fallen to8th and 11th respectively. In theirplace, the category is headed byChina’s ICBC, followed by its twocompatriots China ConstructionBank and Bank of China.Meanwhile Wachovia, MerrillLynch, Deutsche Bank and UBShave dropped out of the Top 100altogether.Scratch beneath the surface,however, and there is an interest-ing message about the value of brand and the importance of main-taining it. This is highlighted byMillward Brown’s decision not tocalculate brand momentum for thiscategory, given the capital mar-ketsdifficulty in assessing evennear-term growth prospects in theindustry, and to publish instead“brand value as a percentage of market capitalisation”.This metric shows that the big rises in the Chinese banks’ overallbrand values are due more to thestrong growth in their businesses – a key element in the overallBrandZ methodology – than to thepower of their brands per se. Con-versely, the sharp falls in overallbrand value for some of the west-ern banks reflects the ravages of the credit crunch on their businessrather than any issue with thebrand.“Many of the banks have main-tained their brand equity and theloyalty and trust of their custom-ers to a surprising degree,” saysJoanna Seddon, Millward BrownOptimor’s (MBO) chief executive.“The financial collapse is becauseof things that were nothing to dowith brand – it wasn’t the brandthat decided to make all those sub-prime loans.“Brand in general has gone downmuch less than the business; it isplaying an important part in someof these banks, keeping up theirvalue when times are rough.”Four big fallers in terms of over-all brand value AmericanExpress, RBC, Citi and Bank of America – all saw their brandvalue rise as a percentage of mar-ket capitalisation. Amexco andRBC – along with new entrant andfellow Canadian brand TD (Toron-to-Dominion) – head the rankingsif viewed on this basis, whereasHSBC’s fourth place in the cate-gory ranking is due more to itsenormous presence in China andelsewhere in Asia.Underlining the strength andgrowing influence of the Chinesebanks is China Merchants Bank,new to the BrandZ Top 100, butable to boast the biggest single risein brand value of any companycovered – 168 per cent. Its heavyfocus on customer service sets itapart from other Chinese banks,says Frederica Fok, consultant atMBO, while it has used a big expansion of its credit cards busi-nesses to develop its brand.Another entrant to the Top 100 isBradesco, the first from Brazil tomake it to the ranking, demon-strating the growing importance of another of the Bric nations – Bra-zil, Russia, India and China.Cristiana Pearson, associatedirector at MBO, highlights Bra-desco as “a very special brand inBrazil – they’ve benefited tremen-dously from both their financialstability and the country’s eco-nomic growth in Brazil, where thelower socio-economic groups inparticular experienced significantgrowth. Bradesco has always beenvery strong among this group,being known as ‘the bank withopen doors’”.The other notable new entrant inthis category is Visa, the world’slargest payment card network,which could not be valued for theBrandZ ranking before last year’sinitial public offering. (For more onthe development of the Visa brand,see the interview with AntonioLucio, its chief marketing officer,at
www.ft.com/global-brands-2009 
.)A bright spot was the perform-ance of Spanish banks BBVA andSantander, whose brand value rose33 and 10 per cent respectively.Quite how things will look a yearon remains to be seen: until theautumn, Spanish banks were being lauded for their strong capitalisa-tion but the outlook has darkenedin recent months.In the insurance sector top 10, bycontrast, every company has seenits brand value fall. Allianz saw amodest 9 per cent decline, whileMitsui Sumitomo and AIG fell awhopping 82 and 79 per cent,respectively.Here again, value as a percent-age of business value has been cal-culated rather than momentum,but the scores are much lowerthan for the banks and there is lessdifferentiation.Some insurers managed modestincreases in brand value as a per-centage of market capitalisation,but that is more a reflection of sharply falling capitalisation thanany inherent power in the brand.As Ms Seddon puts it: “None of them has a very strong brand.” Asa result, this sector is by a long chalk the biggest loser in terms of overall brand value, down 48 percent compared with just 11 percent for financial institutions.
BANKS AND INSURERS
 The rise of China’s banks is noteworthy,says
Andrew Baxter
China Merchants Bank – the single biggest riser
Bloomberg
None of the insurershas a very strongbrand, so this sector isthe biggest loser interms of brand value

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->