You are on page 1of 63

All brands

are not
created equal
Best Global Brands 2007
If brands are managed
correctly they can
move seamlessly across
geographies, creating demand
for their goods and services
around
the world.
Best Global
Brands 2007

Interbrand is delighted to once again publish our choice and sustaining margins.
annual ranking of the Best Global Brands by brand value, in
co-operation with BusinessWeek magazine. We regard brand valuation as a proactive tool. The process
of showing an organization the earnings attributable to
We’re proud that over the course of the past decade our Best intangibles, assessing the role that the brand plays in purchase
Global Brands study has become the barometer of successful decisions and the relative competitive strength of the brand
brand management. The environments in which brands within its markets, focuses attention on building the brand’s
operate, and the challenges and opportunities they face, have value. Indeed, our experience shows that by simply recognizing
changed dramatically during this time; however, we believe the brand as an economic asset, like other business assets,
the one constant has been the notion that a brand has the activity can be created, managed
ability to create significant economic value for the business it and implemented to enable the brand to grow in value.
serves, and that we can measure the created value.
It is now common knowledge that branding is fundamental to
Interbrand pioneered the technique of measuring brands as business success, which is why Best Global Brands
business assets twenty years ago and draws upon a wealth of is one of the top published business rankings in the
valuation experience and brand expertise in producing this world. At Interbrand we have always placed great
annual report. In this time, we have conducted some 5,000 emphasis upon the need for a balance between the logical and
valuations for brands around the world. The clearest output of the creative. Brands, after all, live in our heads and
this exercise is the asset value of the brand to the organization. our hearts. But ultimately, brands are value generators
But understanding what is driving this brand value is far more for business. Increasingly, we need to understand how brands
important to the business. The insights gained through brand deliver value and use this information to better inform business
analytics and measurement focus brand management around decisions.
the elements that will effectively increase the brand’s value
and allow it to fulfill its ultimate potential to the organization
and its stakeholders. This reveals how
a brand can drive revenue and profitability by influencing
In this year’s Best Global Brands report, we have focused
on the business themes that we see as being intrinsically
linked to brand value creation. In their own right these themes
should encourage business leaders to act, but they also acutely
reveal the tenets of growing the economic value of a brand,
and thereby help to maximize the intangible wealth of an
organization.

As ever, we are delighted to lead the debate. We recognize, and
indeed relish, the responsibility that it places upon us as an
organization. We thank our partners at BusinessWeek for their
constant support in providing the platform for broadcasting this
study to the business community and
look forward to sharing these insights and ideas with you
for many years to come.

Regards,

Jez Frampton
Group Chief Executive
Interbrand
TABLE OF
CONTENTS

Page

Chapter 1. Insights on Global Branding 1

2. Best Global Brands 2007 Ranking 12

3. Lessons from the Risers and Decliners 20

4. How We Did It 44

5. Why the Ranking is Important 46

Appendices 6. Frequently Asked Questions 49

7. About Interbrand 57

8. Contacts & Additional Information 58
1.
INSIGHTS ON
GLOBAL BRANDING

Our continued analysis of the world’s most valuable goods and services while securing future revenues. This, in turn,
brands enables us to provide insight and diagnosis for impresses the financial communities that enable investments in
any organization that is keen to manage and grow the the
value of its brand. future. This is the essence of brand value.

We’ve entitled this study ‘All brands are not created equal’ Whether you work for a global business, an international
because even though every brand starts with a notional value organization, or a company that is purely focused on
of zero, the brands that succeed are born into an environment its domestic or regional markets, everyone can learn
where they are seen as assets by their organizations. Leaders lessons from the Best Global Brands.
plan for their success by creating, managing and implementing
strong strategic visions that make businesses stand out and By studying leading market indicators, such as the MSCI
command attention. The successful brands recognize and World Index and the S&P 500, we can see that the Best Global
commit to this as a cycle Brands index has consistently outperformed the markets by a
of activity, prospering while they deliver economic value considerable margin.
to the brand and their organization.

The brands in our study are rightly recognized as leaders across
the world, but as global brands they face unique challenges.
While they have consumers who come from different cultures
and geographies, they are driven by a desire to ‘own’ a single-
minded global brand positioning.
So they’re continuously challenged to sustain brand consistency
across diverse geographies, cultures and market segments.

In light of this challenge, organizations must commit to, and
implement, focused and realistic brand strategies in multiple
geographies. This demands that brands transform the
information and input they receive along the way into activities
that build a global reputation. It requires constant measurement
to ensure that actions complement, and holistically push, the
brand towards its strategic goals.

The rewards are worth the effort. If brands are managed
correctly they can move seamlessly across geographies, creating
demand for their goods and services around the world. They can
create magnetism, attracting the best talent to work for them.
Most importantly, they’ll be able to achieve a premium for their

Best Global Brands 2007 
1. Insights on Global Branding

INTERBRAND TOP 100 PORTFOLIO 80
MSCI WORLD INDEX

S&P 500 INDEX
60

40

20
% change
since 2000
0

-20

-40

-60
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Interbrand Top 100 vs the Such performance may be expected of category-leading
leading market indicators companies, but the source of value is interesting and requires a
closer look. How do these brands achieve a ranking within the
top 100 most valuable brands in the world, and all the economic
rewards that go with it?

What drives brand value?

As we share our brand valuation process with you, we also want
to highlight the insights that we see building brand value for the
organizations profiled in this report. Put simply, brand valuation
draws together a financial analysis, a role of brand analysis and
a brand strength score to arrive at a financial brand value. The
resulting value is important, but understanding the themes
or forces behind this value is what really drives the brand’s
performance. Effective brand management means orchestrating
these forces to drive the business forward.

To focus the study, we talk about these themes in isolation from
one another. In truth, it’s the combination of these themes and
ultimately their successful execution that creates value. We have
shown particularly strong brands to exemplify each, but in reality a
valuable brand will show some strength across all of the identified
themes. 

Best Global Brands 2007
PUT IT AT
THE HEART

Brand Management

Every organization with expertise in brand management Google
understands the complexity that the execution of great brand Google is a particularly good exponent of this sort
management requires. of brand management. From relatively obscure and
humble beginnings, the company has grown dramatically,
Effective value creation comes to life in the hearts and minds of achieving 45% year over year growth in brand value since
consumers. More often than not it requires 2005. Despite rapidly expanding its offering beyond search
a journey inside the organization: a journey that reveals the to encompass a range of other added-value services (such as
characteristics and behaviors that distinguish one organization news, financial information and geo-mapping), Google has
from another. It requires an understanding that great brands managed to maintain a sincere and consistent feel to everything
are founded on hard numbers as well as imagination. This that it does. But beyond its product portfolio, Google has
combination of analytic and creative business techniques is revolutionized the way it screens employees to ensure that
mirrored in the Interbrand product portfolio, which envelops everyone who comes through its door is ‘Google-worthy’.
rigorous business understanding with emotive execution to Inevitably, it’s become bigger and more complex, but this has
unlock the true potential of brands. At this point, the brand done nothing to dilute the recognition and desire that the
steps out of the marketing department’s domain and embraces business is still held together by Google ‘glue’. This is what makes
everything the business does. Ultimate responsibility for Google the brand it is. This is
delivering the brand to stakeholders rests with the whole why it has been able to break into the world’s 20 most valuable
company. HR, Finance, Operations, Marketing and Sales must all brands within just two years. Yahoo! by contrast, was born with
feel a sense of ownership of the brand so that it lives throughout similar potential, but lacks (or perhaps lost) this singular, unifying
the organization, and that’s why the leadership of the business purpose. Its pursuit of co-branded partnerships may have
must be the primary ambassadors for the brand. Great brand seemed attractive in purely financial terms, but this detracted
management sees the brand as a go-to-market strategy and from the company’s sense of
action driver, not just a planning tool or theory. Each activity self, causing the brand to fade.
the company undertakes should holistically reinforce the idea
of the brand itself. So the CEO should take ownership of the
brand and act as its steward. Talking about brands in terms of 2007 17,837 +44%
financial value strengthens the bonds between marketing and Google

2006
the modern day demands 12,376

for accountability to shareholders and business leaders. 0 5000 10000 15000 20000

Brand Value ($m)

2007 3,221 +16%
Burberry
2006 2,783
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

Brand Value ($m)

2007 7,730 +18%
Nintendo Pizz

2006 6,559
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

Brand Value ($m)

2007 4,866 +17%
Audi Mo

2006 4,165
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Brand Value ($m)
2007 17,837 +44%
2007 5,481
Google Gap
-15%
2006 12,376 2006 6,416
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
0
Brand Value ($m) Brand Value ($m)

2007 3,221
EveRY Single 2007 3,874
Experience
+16%
Burberry Kodak
-12%
2006 2,783 2006 4,406
0 500

Brand Value ($m)
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Counts 0
Brand Value ($m)
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

2007 7,730 +18%
2007 4,254
Pizza Hut
Touch Point Development
Nintendo
-9%
2006 6,559 2006 4,694

BMW
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
In today’s 2007 1000
17,837 2000 3000 4000 5000

Google world, to say there is a multitude of ways
0 +44%
Brand Value ($m) Brand Value ($m)

BMW is another great example. The business is directed by a we can reach2006people is an understatement. 12,376 How does
clear value system that guides management actions. If actions a brand recognize the relative value of these opportunities?
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
2007 4,866 2007 4,149
submitAudito the values, they’re recognized as being ‘on-brand’. This +17%
The best brands follow
Motorola Brand Value ($m)their stakeholders’ journeys so that

means they 2006 will cumulatively build the organization’s 4,165 desired they provide effective, 2006 consistent and appropriate messaging 4,569
-9%

long-term reputation (entering a team into the world of Formula
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 throughout 2007 the experience. Effective Touch
0
1000
3,221 2000
+16%
3000 4000 5000

1 is a good example). But if a proposal doesn’t match BMW’s
Brand Value ($m) PointBurberry
Development is Brand about branding the customer experience.
Value ($m)

2006
values, like sponsoring a marathon, BMW appreciates that it risks These experiences are sometimes within the brand’s 2,783 domain
fragmenting2007 what it wants the brand to stand for, so29,398 it won’t do
+7%
(such as retail environments),
0
2007
500
but often
1000
they are not and
1500
10,087
2000 2500 3000 3500
+15%
Ikea Brand Value ($m)
it, however
McDonald’s
compelling the idea. This doesn’t mean the brand travel by word-of-mouth. How can a brand embrace these
2006 2006
is rigid, nor does it deny BMW opportunities; rather,27,501 it serves as complexities to ensure that it comes out 8,763

a framework for decision-making, enabling the business to feel
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
on top and that its desired messages are getting through?
Nintendo
2007 0
2000
7,730
4000
+18%
6000 8000 10000 12000

Pi
Brand Value ($m) Brand Value ($m)
confident that all its operational decisions are building the brand 2006 6,559
towards its long-term ambitions. This year BMW has once more Starbucks 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

grownNokia 2007
its brand value by 10%. 33,696 +12% Starbucks has mastered2007
the challenges of ensuring a consistent11,037 +21%
Apple Brand Value ($m)

2006 30,131 sense of ‘Starbucks’2006 permeates consumers’ worlds. From 9,130 its
retail environments and non-traditional advertising policy, to
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
2007 0
2000
4,866 4000
+17%
6000 8000 10000 12000

Brand Value ($m) its fair Audi
trade coffee, theBrand experience
Value ($m) is unmistakably Starbucks. M

One brand transcends it all. The Starbucks brand4,165
2006
is now worth
2007 21,612 over $3.5 billion dollars. 0
2007
To broaden its retail offer, but more
1000 2000
5,165
3000 4000 5000
+10% +22%
BMW importantly to Zara communicate
Brand Value ($m)
and provide the accessories for the
2006 2006
19,617 ‘third space’, Starbucks now sells and recommends books that
4,235
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
invariably scale
2007 the bestsellers lists.0
1000
29,398 2000
+7%
3000 4000 5000 6000

Brand Value ($m) McDonald’s Brand Value ($m)

2006 27,501
Having successfully taken coffee retailing across the world,
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
2007 3,631 +17% Howard SchultzBrand is reportedly
2007
Value ($m)
wary of the message becoming32,070 +15%
Starbucks Toyota

2006 3,099
stale, and is considering 2006 ways of maintaining a contemporary
27,941
edge to the brand. We applaud the sense of leadership that
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
2007 5000
33,696
10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000

Brand Value ($m) demandsNokia an on-goingBrand freshness
0
Value ($m) to an already successful brand. +12%

Starbucks is 2006
now blessed with such a scale, infrastructure 30,131 and
embedded role in people’s lives that any evolution of the brand
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
2007 8,982
Ford can be truly wrapped around its customers, rather than simply
Brand Value ($m)
-19%
2006 11,056 broadcast in 30 seconds and the Sunday circular.
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
2007 21,612 +10%
Brand Value ($m) BMW

2006 19,617
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

Brand Value ($m)

2007 3,631 +17%
Starbucks

2006 3,099
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

Brand Value ($m) 

Best Global Brands 2007
2007 8,982
Ford
-19%
2006
IF YOU BRAND IT,
THEY WILL COME

Demand Creation

Ikea is another great example of Touch Point Development. We’re exposed to thousands of brand messages every day.
The product design communicates the simple sense of Estimates vary as to exactly how many, but what’s undeniable
Scandinavian style at affordable prices; but the store experience, is that a vast surplus of brands are trying to engage with us.
with its themed spaces, restaurants and kids’ areas, further Indeed, it’s considerably more than any human being can
communicates and amplifies the Ikea brand proposition. Ikea’s cope with. So how does one brand successfully reach out and
brand value has risen 15% this year. engage with us when another fails to do so? This is the principle
of Demand Creation. It’s not simply about communication; it’s
about making the right customer desire the brand’s products or
services over and above all competitors, today and tomorrow,
and ideally encouraging their friends to do the same. In short,
it’s about making sure that a brand’s messages receive a warm,
favorable and engaged welcome from its audience so that
they’re then acted upon.
1. Insights on Global Branding

+44%
2007 5,481
Gap
-15%
2006 6,416
000 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

Apple Nintendo
0
Brand Value ($m)

Apple is the supreme master of Demand Creation. Consumers Nintendo was a brand that seemed to be losing its appeal
are now happy 2007
to own multiple iPods that are styled for
3,874
with consumers but the launch of the Wii console and hugely
+16%
particular
Kodak functions: home, video or exercising. And in a world
-12%
successful DS range has heralded a significant bounce-back
filled with technology,
2006
the expectation created around 4,406 the in consumer interest. The brand has rediscovered its ability to
00
launch of the iPhone demonstrates the supreme desirability
0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
create demand for its products. While competitors focused on
this brand has created. With iPhone, Apple plays a double trick
Brand Value ($m)
technology, Nintendo
on its competitors. It transcends the problems of the highly spotted the opportunity to theme the brand around the simple
+18% saturated communications
2007 environment by creating
4,254 products enjoyment of gaming. With new game consoles, Nintendo is
Pizza Hut
with such extraordinary
2006
customer pull that there’s no need to -9% actively targeting new consumer segments
4,694
00
push. At the same time, the phenomenon of the product launch
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
and has differentiated itself from traditional competitors.
pulls free mediaBrand toward
0
Value ($m)
it, proliferating brand impressions and The Wii console, with its physically active and convincing
flooding media channels with branded messages. Essentially, interface, has created a real stir in the marketplace and is
it has created such a profound demand that the product itself shifting attitudes towards the whole gaming category. Rather
2007 4,149
+17%
generates
Motorola a media blitz. It’s a high profile demonstration than being something that ‘teenage boys play’, Nintendo is
-9%
of the convergence of technology. It was unthinkable
2006 some
4,569 encouraging people to think of gaming as an activity that can
00 years ago that Apple could make a phone. Consumers wouldn’t
0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 be enjoyed by anybody at any time. The supporting media
have given the brand permission to do so. But now Apple
Brand Value ($m)
communications have been instrumental in generating demand,
can transcend the ‘old thinking’ of limited boundaries. In this showing the products being used by a broader demographic,
+7%
sense the brand 2007 has become its passport, to roam wherever its+15%
10,087 including parents and thirty-somethings. Indeed, to a degree,
proposition
Ikea
can be applied. Wii surpassed expectations. Stories of lines forming
2007
around the
17,837
2006 8,763 +44%
blockGoogle
when new products arrived were not uncommon this year.
Consoles were selling on eBay for twice the retail price.
000 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 2006
0 12,376
Brand Value ($m)
0 5000 10000 15000 20000

The next challenge for Nintendo may well focus on the Brand
Brand Value ($m)

+12%
2007 11,037 +21% Management theme: defining the relationship between the
Apple

2006 9,130 hugely popular
2007 sub-brand Wii and the parent brand in order to
3,221 +16%
Burberry
000 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 generate long-term
2006
value.
0 2,783
Brand Value ($m)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

Brand Value ($m)

+10%
2007 5,165 +22%
Zara

2006 4,235
2007 7,730 +18%
Nintendo Pi
000 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 2006
0 6,559
Brand Value ($m)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

Brand Value ($m)

+17%
2007 32,070 +15%
Toyota

2006 27,941
2007 4,866 +17%
Audi M
00 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 2006
0 4,165
Brand Value ($m)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Brand Value ($m)

-19% 2007 29,398 +7%
McDonald’s
000 2006 27,501
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
 Best Global Brands 2007 Brand Value ($m)
2007 17,837 +44%
2007 5,481
Google Gap
-15%
2006 12,376 2006 6,416
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
0
Brand Value ($m) Brand Value ($m)

2007 3,221 +16%
2007 3,874

Think about what
Burberry Kodak
-12%
2006 2,783 2006 4,406

can be, not what
0 500

Brand Value ($m)
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
0
Brand Value ($m)
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

might have been
2007 7,730 +18%
2007 4,254
Nintendo Pizza Hut
-9%
2006 6,559 2006 4,694
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Modeling Contingencies
Brand Value ($m)
0
Brand Value ($m)

Toyota
As we’ve suggested, thorough brand management is deep and A recent example is the confluence of environmental concerns
2007 4,866 2007 4,149
complex.
Audi Organizations need to understand what drives+17%their and Motorola
rising oil prices. Ten years ago any company talking about
-9%
market performance so that they can plot4,165
2006 a path to generate these two issues in the automotive industry would have
2006 4,569 largely
and grow brand value. Winning brand managers simulate future
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 been thought of as foolish or eccentric. SUV sales were growing,
0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

opportunities to anticipate the potential fields-of-play. They use
Brand Value ($m)
cars were getting bigger, engines less efficient, and gas was
Brand Value ($m)

models that reveal the range of possible outcomes instead of the cheap. In the wider world, the political climate was stable; global
allure2007
of a single big idea, and align resources 29,398 and investments
+7%
GDP growth2007 was moderate, the impact of China just emerging,+15%
10,087
to scenarios
McDonald’s

2006
with the highest likelihood of making an impact. and worldIkea
oil2006
supplies high. As forward-looking brand managers,
27,501 8,763
Estimation, probabilities, risk – these are new additions to the Toyota considered these factors and built a scenario that now
branding Brand
lexicon and a challenge for those content to play it all differentiates them from the pack. Recognizing the value of
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
0
Value ($m) Brand Value ($m)
from the hip. Having foresight helps companies make informed leading the ‘green’ agenda, it positioned itself to capitalize on
choices about their brand and frees leaders up to make bold this significant driver of demand that has been accelerated by,
2007 33,696 2007 11,037
moves with full knowledge of the implications
Nokia
– essential
+12%
and conjoined
Apple
with, the rapid rise in gasoline prices. Brands +21%
to thriving
2006 in a competitive environment. 30,131 cannot lead 2006 through reaction. They must anticipate 9,130 the needs of
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 the future and be ready for it when 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
0
Brand Value ($m) it arrives. The Toyota Prius
Brand Value ($m) has become a statement
of environmental care, as well as achieving staggering
2007 21,612 +10%
sales in its own 2007 right. But better still for the Toyota brand,
5,165 +22%
BMW
it castsZara
a ‘green halo’ across its entire portfolio.
2006 19,617 2006 4,235
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
0
Brand Value ($m) Brand Value ($m)

2007 3,631 +17%
2007 32,070 +15%
Starbucks Toyota

2006 3,099 2006 27,941
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
0
Brand Value ($m) Brand Value ($m)

2007 8,982
Ford
-19%
2006 11,056
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Brand Value ($m)

Best Global Brands 2007 
1. Insights on Global Branding

2007 17,837 +44%
2007 5,481
Google Gap
-15%
2006 12,376 2006 6,416
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
0
Brand Value ($m) Brand Value ($m)

Make ReSOURCES
2007 3,221 +16%
2007 3,874
Burberry Kodak
-12%
2006 2006

CO-OPeRATE,
2,783 4,406
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
0

NOT COMPETE
Brand Value ($m) Brand Value ($m)

2007 7,730 +18%
2007 4,254
Nintendo Pizza Hut
-9%
2006 6,559 2006 4,694
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

PlanningBrand
Efficiencies
0
Value ($m) Brand Value ($m)

The last
2007theme that we have identified as influencing 4,866 brand Zara 2007 4,149
+17%
value
Audi creation is that of Planning Efficiencies. Essentially, this ZaraMotorola
is a paragon of planning efficiency. Focusing the -9%
2006 2006
is understanding where and how to invest4,165
for the best return brand’s reputation for rapid product turnover and a 4,569great
of brand value. It involves models that optimize competing
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
in-store experience, Zara recognized the efficiency of
0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Brand Value ($m) Brand Value ($m)
alternatives, resulting in solutions that cut spend in one area its retail stores as a media channel and consequently invested
to reapportion it in another, or grow spend across the brand’s most of its spending there. By maintaining relevant design in its
domain 2007to deploy resources and deliver brand29,398 value most+7% locations and keeping people coming back for10,087
2007 more, Zara was+15%
McDonald’s Ikea
efficiently.
2006 If you get things working together,27,501 a little spending able to keep2006 its spending on traditional advertising
8,763
channels
can go a long way.
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
down to just 0.3% of sales, compared to competitors’ 3-4%. The
2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Brand Value ($m) results were theBrand envy
0
of the industry with customers visiting
Value ($m)

Zara’s stores an average
of 17 times per year, and with same store sales rising 5.5% in the
2007 33,696 2007 11,037
last year.
Apple This breaks all records for moving fashion
+12% +21%
Nokia

2006 30,131 en masse from the catwalk to the main street.9,130
2006

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
0
Brand Value ($m) Brand Value ($m)

2007 21,612 +10%
2007 5,165 +22%
BMW Zara

2006 19,617 2006 4,235
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
0
Brand Value ($m) Brand Value ($m)

2007 3,631 +17%
2007 32,070 +15%
Starbucks Toyota

2006 3,099 2006 27,941
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
0
Brand Value ($m) Brand Value ($m)

2007 8,982
Ford
-19%
2006 11,056
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Brand Value ($m)

 Best Global Brands 2007
Make it clear,
make it live and
keep it moving

Conclusions

The fundamentals of brand value creation, exemplified by the
top 100 Best Global Brands, show leading global organizations
managing their brand’s value as a series of actions and initiatives
that promote the brand agenda within the business. Whether
these initiatives focus on a communication output or an internal
program to engage employees with the brand, all of our
evidence suggests
that the brand strategy itself has the ultimate impact on
the brand’s ability to create and build its value.

But brands don’t operate in passive environments. They must
live and respond to the world to stay relevant. Markets are
dynamic; influences on the brand will constantly change,
so any brand strategy needs to articulate its right to own a
market position. Brands must manage their way through the
influences and forces that determine the ownership of that
market position. Brand management is a constant process.
Activities are created to achieve distinction. They are managed
and implemented, and then their success must be measured
and used to influence future strategy. Brand valuation is a great
measure of this success, but as our report has shown, each year
some organizations do better than others. Those that do best
recognize the dynamic needs of effective brand management
and hardwire these actions. It becomes a cyclical process where
there’s an acceptance that to truly own a strategic position in
customers’ hearts and minds, activity must be ongoing
and constant. As much as anything, this is an attitude towards
understanding and continuous improvement.

Best Global Brands 2007 
Brands which place high
importance on managing
the economic value of
their intangible assets,
and primarily their brands,
consistently outperform
basic economic measures.
2.
BEST GLOBAL
BRANDS
2007 Ranking

12 Best Global Brands 2007
2007 2006 brand country sector 2007 brand change in
rank rank of origin value ($m) brand value

1 1 coca-cola us beverages 65,324 -3%

2 2 microsoft us computer software 58,709 3%

3 3 Ibm us computer services 57,091 2%

4 4 ge us diversified 51,569 5%

5 6 nokia finland consumer electronics 33,696 12%

6 7 toyota Japan automotive 32,070 15%

7 5 Intel us computer hardware 30,954 -4%

8 9 mcdonald’s us restaurants 29,398 7%

9 8 disney us media 29,210 5%

10 10 mercedes germany automotive 23,568 8%

11 11 citi us financial services 23,443 9%

hewlett-
12 13 us computer hardware 22,197 9%
packard

13 15 bmw germany automotive 21,612 10%

14 12 marlboro us tobacco 21,283 0%

american
15 14 us financial services 20,827 6%
express

16 16 gillette us personal care 20,415 4%

louis
17 17 france luxury 20,321 15%
vuitton

18 18 cisco us computer services 19,099 9%

19 19 honda Japan automotive 17,998 6%

20 24 google us Internet services 17,837 44%

best global brands 2007 13
2. best global brands

2007 2006 brand country sector 2007 brand change in
rank rank of origin value ($m) brand value

republic of
21 20 samsung consumer electronics 16,853 4%
korea

merrill
22 21 us financial services 14,343 10%
lynch

23 28 hsbc uk financial services 13,563 17%

24 23 nescafé switzerland beverages 12,950 4%

25 26 sony Japan consumer electronics 12,907 10%

26 22 pepsi us beverages 12,888 2%

27 29 oracle us computer software 12,448 9%

28 32 ups us transportation 12,013 12%

29 31 nike us sporting goods 12,004 10%

30 27 budweiser ®
us alcohol 11,652 0%

31 25 dell us computer hardware 11,554 -6%

32 33 Jpmorgan us financial services 11,433 12%

33 39 apple us computer hardware 11,037 21%

34 34 sap germany computer software 10,850 8%

goldman
35 37 us financial services 10,663 11%
sachs

36 35 canon Japan computer hardware 10,581 6%

morgan
37 36 us financial services 10,340 6%
stanley

38 41 Ikea sweden home furnishings 10,087 15%

39 42 ubs switzerland financial services 9,838 13%

40 40 kellogg’s us food 9,341 6%

14 best global brands 2007
2007 2006 brand country sector 2007 brand change in
rank rank of origin value ($m) brand value

41 30 ford us automotive 8,982 -19%

42 48 philips netherlands diversified 7,741 15%

43 44 siemens germany diversified 7,737 -1%

44 51 nintendo Japan consumer electronics 7,730 18%

harley-
45 45 us automotive 7,718 0%
davidson

46 46 gucci Italy luxury 7,697 8%

47 new aIg us financial services 7,490 new

48 47 ebay us Internet services 7,456 10%

49 new axa france financial services 7,327 new

50 49 accenture us computer services 7,296 8%

51 53 l’oréal france personal care 7,045 10%

52 50 mtv us media 6,907 4%

53 54 heinz us food 6,544 5%

54 56 volkswagen germany automotive 6,511 8%

55 55 yahoo! us Internet services 6,067 0%

56 57 xerox us computer hardware 6,050 2%

57 58 colgate us personal care 6,025 7%

58 61 chanel france luxury 5,830 13%

59 59 wrigley us food 5,777 6%

60 60 kfc ®

us restaurants 5,682 6%

best global brands 2007 15
2. best global brands

2007 2006 brand country sector 2007 brand change in
rank rank of origin value ($m) brand value

61 52 gap us apparel 5,481 -15%

62 65 amazon.com us Internet services 5,411 15%

63 63 nestlé switzerland food 5,314 8%

64 73 Zara spain apparel 5,165 22%

65 62 avon us personal care 5,103 1%

66 68 caterpillar us diversified 5,059 10%

67 67 danone france food 5,019 8%

68 74 audi germany automotive 4,866 17%

69 71 adidas germany sporting goods 4,767 11%

70 64 kleenex us personal care 4,600 -5%

71 72 rolex switzerland luxury 4,589 8%

republic of
72 75 hyundai automotive 4,453 9%
korea

73 81 hermès france luxury 4,255 10%

74 66 pizza hut us restaurants 4,254 -9%

75 80 porsche germany automotive 4,235 8%

76 78 reuters uk media 4,197 6%

77 69 motorola us consumer electronics 4,149 -9%

78 77 panasonic Japan consumer electronics 4,135 4%

79 82 tiffany & co. us luxury 4,003 5%

80 new allianz germany financial services 3,957 new

16 best global brands 2007
2007 2006 brand country sector 2007 brand change in
rank rank of origin value ($m) brand value

81 85 Ing netherlands financial services 3,880 12%

82 70 kodak us consumer electronics 3,874 -12%

83 86 cartier france luxury 3,852 15%

84 76 bp uk energy 3,794 -5%

moët &
85 87 france alcohol 3,739 15%
chandon

86 79 kraft us food 3,732 -5%

87 83 hennessy france alcohol 3,638 2%

88 91 starbucks us restaurants 3,631 17%

89 84 duracell us consumer electronics 3,605 1%

Johnson
90 88 us personal care 3,445 8%
& Johnson

91 93 smirnoff uk alcohol 3,379 11%

92 92 lexus Japan automotive 3,354 9%

93 89 shell netherlands energy 3,331 5%

94 96 prada Italy luxury 3,287 14%

95 98 burberry uk luxury 3,221 16%

96 99 nivea germany personal care 3,116 16%

republic of
97 94 lg consumer electronics 3,100 3%
korea

98 90 nissan Japan automotive 3,072 -1%

99 new polo rl us luxury 3,046 new

100 new hertz us automotive 3,026 new

best global brands 2007 17
The best brands follow their
stakeholders’ journeys so
that they provide effective,
consistent and appropriate
messaging throughout the
experience.
2007 17,837 +44%
2007 5,481
Google Gap
-15%
2006 12,376 2006 6,416
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
0
Brand Value ($m) Brand Value ($m)

2007 3,221 +16%
2007 3,874
Burberry Kodak
-12%
2006 2,783 2006 4,406
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
0

3.
Brand Value ($m) Brand Value ($m)

2007 7,730 +18%
2007 4,254
Nintendo Pizza Hut
2007
2006 17,837 +44%
2007
2006 5,481 -9%
Google 6,559 Gap 4,694

Lessons from
-15%
2006 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
12,3765000 6000 7000 8000 2006 1000 2000 3000
6,4164000 5000
0
Brand Value ($m)
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
2007 Brand Value ($m)
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 600017,8377000 8000 +44%
Google 0 Ga
Brand Value ($m) Brand Value ($m)

the Risers and
2006 12,376
2007 4,866 +17%
2007 4,149
Audi Motorola 0 5000 10000 15000 20000

2007
2006 3,221 +16%
2007 Brand Value ($m)
2006 3,874 -9%
4,165 Kodak 4,569

DECliners
Burberry
-12%
2006 0 1000 2000 3000
2,7834000 5000 2006 1000 2000 3000 4000
4,406 5000
0
Brand Value ($m)
2007 Brand Value ($m)1000 3,221
0 500

Brand Value ($m)
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

The TOP Risers
Burberry
2006
0
Brand Value ($m)
2000 3000 4000 5000 +16%
Koda

2,783
2007 29,398 +7%
2007 10,087 +15%
McDonald’s Ikea 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

2007
2006 7,730 +18%
2007 Brand Value ($m)
2006 4,254
Nintendo
27,501 Pizza Hut 8,763
-9%
2006 0 5000 10000 15000 20000
6,55925000 30000 2006 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
4,694 12000
0
Brand Value ($m)
2007 Brand Value ($m)1000 4000 7,730
All businesses are under immense pressure to provide results
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Nintendo 0
2000 3000 5000 +18%
Pizza Hu
2007 Brand Value ($m) 17,837
quickly.Brand
The Best Global Brands study provides a compelling
Value ($m)
Google 2006 6,559
+44%
Ga

case that
2007
those which place high importance 33,696
on managing
+12% the 2007
2006 11,037 +21%
Nokia Apple 0 1000 2000 3000 12,3765000
4000 6000 7000 8000

economic
2007
2006 value of their intangible assets, and
30,131
primarily
4,866 +17% their
2007 0Brand Value ($m)
2006 5000 10000 4,149
15000
9,130 20000
Audi Motorola
brands,
2006 0
consistently outperform basic economic measures.
5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 2006
Brand Value ($m)
2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
-9%
4,165 0 4,569
Brand Value ($m) Brand Value ($m)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
2007 1000 2000 3000 40004,866 5000 +17%
Tangible asset growth is often a slow process that requires deep
Brand Value ($m)
Audi 0
2007 Brand Value ($m) 3,221 +16%
Motoro

and2007
resource-intensive long term planning. Intangible asset Burberry 2006 4,165 Koda
21,612 +10%
2007
2006 5,165 +22%
BMW growth, on the other hand, involves getting the best out of Zara 0 1000 2000 3000 2,7834000 5000

2007 29,398 2007 0Brand Value500 10,087 3000
McDonald’s something that the company already owns. It’s a
2006 +7% 2006 ($m) 1000 1500 2000 3500 +15%
19,617 Ikea
4,2352500
2007 Brand Value ($m) 17,837
case of managing these assets more effectively,
2006 0 5000
27,501 and it’s
10000 15000 20000 25000
Google
2006
0
1000 2000 3000 4000
8,763 5000 6000 +44%
Ga

an efficient0 method of adding very real value to business.
Brand Value ($m)
5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
2007 Brand Value ($m)
2006
0
2000 4000 6000
12,376
8000 29,398 12000 +7%
10000
McDonald’s Ike
Brand Value ($m) 2007 Brand Value ($m) 7,730 +18%
Nintendo 2006 0 5000 10000 15000
27,501 20000 Pizza Hu
In this
2007 section we will look for lessons that can be learned
3,631 +17% from 2007 Brand Value ($m)
2006 32,070
6,55925000 +15%
Starbucks Toyota 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 30000
more
2007 of the brands that have thrived in the
2006
last
33,696 year and
+12%
those 2007 0Brand Value
2006 ($m)
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 11,037
7000 8000 +21%
3,099 27,941
Nokia
that have struggled. What did the brands that prospered get so Apple
2007 Brand Value5000
($m)
3,221
2006 0 500 1000 1500
30,131 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 2006 10000 15000 20000 25000
9,130 30000 35000 +16%
right and the brands that declined fail
Brand Value ($m)
Burberry
0 Koda
2007 Brand Value ($m) 33,696
to deliver?
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
Nokia
2006
0
2000

2007 Brand Value ($m)
4000 6000 8000
2,783
10000

4,866
12000 +12%
App
Brand Value ($m) +17%
Audi 2006 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
30,1313000 3500 Motoro
2007 8,982 2006 Brand Value ($m)
Ford 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 250004,165 30000 35000

2007
2006 21,612 -19%
+10%
2007 0Brand Value ($m)1000 2000 3000 5,165
4000 5000 +22%
BMW
11,056 Zara

2006 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
2007 Brand Value ($m)
2006 7,730
19,617 4,235 +18%
Nintendo Pizza Hu
Brand Value ($m)
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
2007
2006 1000 2000 3000 4000 21,6125000 6000 +10%
BMW 0 6,559 Zar
Brand Value ($m) 2007 Brand Value ($m) 29,398 +7%
McDonald’s 2006 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
19,617 7000 8000 Ike

2006 Brand Value ($m) 27,501
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

2007 3,631 +17%
2007 0Brand Value ($m)
5000 10000 15000 20000 32,070
25000 30000 +15%
Starbucks Toyota

2006 2007 Brand Value ($m)
2006 4,866
3,099 27,941 +17%
Audi Motoro

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
2007
2006 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 3,631
30000 35000 +17%
Starbucks 0 4,165 Toyot
Brand Value ($m) 2007 Brand Value ($m) 33,696 +12%
Nokia 2006 0 1000 2000 3000
3,099 4000 5000 App

2006 Brand Value ($m) 30,131 3500
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 4000

2007 8,982 0Brand Value5000
($m) 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
Ford

2006
-19% 2007 Brand Value ($m) 29,398
11,056 +7%
McDonald’s Ike
2007
2006 8,982
See pages 3-8 for more detail
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Ford
27,501
Brand Value ($m) 2007 21,612 +10%
-19%
BMW 2006 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
11,056 30000 Zar

2006 Brand Value ($m) 19,617
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

0Brand Value ($m)5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

2007 Brand Value ($m) 33,696 +12%
Nokia App

2006 30,131
2007 3,631 +17%
Starbucks 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 Toyot

2006 Brand Value ($m) 3,099
20 Best Global Brands 2007 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

2007 Brand Value ($m) 21,612 +10%
BMW Za

2006 19,617
+44% +17%
Google Audi Gap Motoro
-15%
2006 2006 2006 4,165
12,376 6,416
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 0 1000 1000 2000
2000 3000 3000 4000 4000
5000 6000 5000
7000 8000
0
Brand Value ($m) Brand Value ($m)
Brand Value ($m)

2007 3,221 +16%
2007 2007 29,398
3,874 +7%
Burberry McDonald’s Kodak Ike
-12%
2006 2006 2006 27,501
2,783 4,406
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 0 5000 10000
1000 15000 2000 20000 3000 25000 400030000 5000
0
Brand Value ($m) Brand Value ($m)
Brand Value ($m)

2007 7,730 +18%
2007 2007 33,696
4,254 +12%
Nintendo Nokia Pizza Hut App
2007
2006 17,837 +44% 2006 2007
2006 5,481
30,131
-9%
Google 6,559 Gap 4,694
-15%
2006 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
12,3765000 6000 7000 8000 0 20065000 10000 1000 15000 20000
2000 25000
3000 30000
6,4164000
35000 5000
0
Brand Value ($m)
2007 0Brand Value ($m) 5000 10000 17,837
15000 20000 +44%
2007 Brand Value ($m)
1000 2000 3000 4000 5,481
5000 6000 7000 8000
Google Gap 0
Brand Value ($m) Brand Value ($m) -15%
2006 12,376 2006 6,416
2007 4,866 +17%
2007 2007 21,612 4,149 +10%
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 BMW Motorola 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 Za
Audi 0
2007 Brand Value ($m)
2006 3,221 +16% 2006 2007 Brand Value ($m)
2006 19,617
3,874 -9%
Burberry
4,165 Kodak 4,569
-12%
2006 0 1000 2000 3000
2,7834000 5000 0 2006 5000 100010000 200015000 300020000 400025000
4,406 5000
0
Brand Value ($m)
2007 Brand Value ($m)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3,221
3000 3500 +16%
2007 Brand Value ($m)
1000 2000 3000 3,874 4000 5000
Kodak 0
Burberry
Brand Value ($m) Brand Value ($m)

OTHER NOTABLE Performers The DECLINERS
-12%
2006 2,783 2006 4,406
29,398
2007
+7%
2007 2007 3,631
10,087 +17% +15%
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 Starbucks 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Toyo
McDonald’s Ikea 0
2007 Brand Value ($m)
2006 7,730 +18% 2006 2007 Brand Value ($m)
2006 3,099 8,763
4,254
Nintendo
27,501 Pizza Hut
2007
2006 5000 10000 15000 20000 17,837 30000 +44% 0 2007
2006
500 1000 2000 1500 2000 2500 5,481
3000 8000 3500 4000
-9%
Google
0
6,55925000 Gap 0
4000 6000 10000
4,694 12000

Brand Value ($m)
2007 0Brand Value
2006
($m)
1000 2000 3000 4000 7,730 +18%
2007
2006
Brand Value ($m)
4,254 -15%
Nintendo
12,3765000 6000 7000 8000
Pizza Hut 0
1000 2000 3000
6,416 4000 5000

Brand Value ($m) Brand Value ($m) -9%
2006 0 5000 10000 15000
6,559 20000 2006 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
4,694 8000
0
2007 Brand Value ($m) 33,696 +12%
2007 2007 Brand Value ($m) 8,982 11,037 +21%
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 Ford 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Nokia Apple 0
2007 Brand Value ($m)
2006 4,866 +17% 2006 2007 Brand Value ($m)
2006 4,149
11,056
-19%

Audi
30,131 Motorola 9,130
2007
2006 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 3,221
30000 35000 +16% 0 2007
2006 2000 4000
2000 6000
4000 8000
6000 80003,874
10000 12000
10000 12000
-9%
4,165 Kodak 0 4,569
Burberry
Brand Value ($m)
2007 0Brand Value ($m)
2006 1000 2000 3000 4,866 +17%
2007
2006
Brand Value ($m)
4,149 -12%
Audi
2,7834000 5000
Motorola 0
1000 2000 3000 4000
4,406 5000

Brand Value ($m) Brand Value ($m) -9%
2006 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
4,165 3000 3500 2006 1000 2000 3000 4000
4,569 5000
0
2007 Brand Value ($m) 21,612 +10%
2007 Brand Value ($m) 5,165 +22%
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
BMW Zara 0
2007 2007 Brand Value ($m)
2006 17,837 29,398
+44% +7%
2007 2007 Brand Value ($m)
2006 5,481 10,087 +15%
Google McDonald’s 19,617 Gap Ikea
4,235
2007
2006 2007
2006 0 5000 10000 1500017,837 20000 7,730
+44% 25000 +18%
2007
2006 2007
2006 1000 2000 5,481
3000 4000 4,2545000 -15%
6000
Google 12,376 27,501 Gap Pizza Hut 0 6,4168,763
Nintendo
2007
2006 0 2007 0Brand Value
2006
($m)
5000 5000 10000
10000 15000 17,837
15000 20000 29,398
20000 +44% 30000 +7%
2007
2006 2007
2006
1000
Brand Value ($m)
2000 2000 3000 4000 5,481
5000 6000 8000 10,087
7000 8000
-15% -9%
+15%
Google McDonald’s 12,376 6,55925000 Gap Ikea 0 0
4000 6000
6,416 10000
4,694 12000

2007 0Brand Value ($m)
2006 2006 0
Brand Value ($m)
5000
1000 2000 10000
3000 4000 17,837
15000
5000 6000 20000+44%
7000 8000
2007 Brand Value
2006 2006
($m)
1000
Brand Value ($m)
2000 3000
1000 5,481
4000 2000 5000 6000
3000 7000 4000 8000
-15%
5000
Google 12,376 27,501 Gap 0 0 6,416 8,763
Brand 2007
Value ($m)
Brand Value ($m) 3,631 +17% Brand 2007
Value ($m)
Brand Value ($m) 32,070-15% +15%
2006 0
Starbucks 0 5000 5000 10000
10000
12,376 15000 15000 20000 25000
20000 30000 2006
Toyota 0 1000 2000 2000 3000 4000
4000 6000
5000 6000
6,416 80007000 10000
8000 12000
0
2007 Brand 2007 Brand Value ($m)
Value ($m)
2006 3,221 33,696
+16% +12%
2007 Brand 2007
Value
2006($m)Brand Value ($m) 3,874 11,037 +21%
Burberry Nokia 0 5000 10000 15000 3,099 20000 Kodak Apple 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 27,941
7000 8000

2007 2007
2006 Brand Value
2006($m) 3,221 4,866 2007 2007
2006 Brand Value
2006($m) 3,874 4,149 -12%
Burberry Audi
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
2,783 3000
30,131 3500+16% 4000 +17%
Kodak Motorola 0
5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
4,406
9,130 30000 35000

2007
2006 0 2006 0
Brand Value ($m)
2007500 1000
5000 1500
10000 2000
15000 2500
20000
2,783
3,221
3000
25000 33,696
3500 +16%
30000 35000 +12%
2007
2006 2007 Brand
2006 1000
Value ($m)
2000 2000 4000 3,874
3000 6000 4000
8000
4,406
11,037
5000
10000
-12%
12000
-9%
+21%
Burberry Nokia
4,165 Kodak Apple 0 0 4,569
2007 0Brand Value500
2006 2006 0
($m)
Brand Value ($m)
1000 1000 1500 2000
2000 2500
3000 3,221
3000 4000 3500 +16% 5000
2007 Brand Value ($m)
2006
Brand Value ($m)
2006 1000 1000 2000 2000 3000 3,874
3000 4000 4000 5000
-12%
5000
Burberry
2,783 30,131 Kodak 0 0 4,406
9,130
Brand 2007
Value ($m)
Brand Value ($m) 8,982 Brand Value ($m)
Brand Value ($m) -12%
2006
Ford 0 0
500 5000
1000 10000
1500 15000
2000 20000
2500
2,783 25000
3000 30000
3500 35000 2006 1000 2000 2000 4000 3000 6000 8000
4000
4,406 10000
5000 12000
0 0
2007 Brand 2007
Value
2006 Brand
($m) Value ($m) 7,730
21,612 +18%
-19%
+10%
2007 Brand 2007 Brand Value ($m)
Value ($m) 4,254 5,165 +22%
Nintendo BMW 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 11,056
3500 Pizza Hut Zara 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

2007 2007
2006 Brand Value
2006($m)
0 2000 4000 6000 7,730 10000
29,398
+18% 12000 +7%
2007 2007
2006 Brand Value
2006($m) 4,254 10,087 -9%
+15%
Nintendo McDonald’s
6,5598000
19,617 Pizza Hut Ikea
4,2354,694
2007
2006 0 2007
2006
10000
Brand Value ($m)
2000 3000
5000 400010000 5000 6000
15000
6,559
21,612
7,730
7000 200008000 +18% 25000 +10%
2007
2006 2007
2006 1000 1000 2000 2000 3000 3000 4,254
4000
4000 5,165
5000
4,694 5000
-9%
6000 +22%
Nintendo BMW
27,501 Pizza Hut Zara 0 0 8,763
2007 0Brand 2007
2006
Value ($m)
2006
10000
Brand Value ($m)
2000 5000 3000 4000
10000 5000
15000 6000 20000 7000 7,730
17,837
8000 +18%
25000 30000 +44%
2007 Brand 2007
2006
Value ($m)
Brand Value ($m)
2006 1000 2000 2000 4000 3000 6000 4,254
5,481
4000
8000 5000
10000
-9%
12000
Nintendo Google 6,559 19,617 Pizza Hut Gap 0 0 4,2354,694
Brand Value ($m)
Brand Value ($m) Brand Value ($m)
Brand Value ($m) -9% -15%
2006 0 2006
10000 2000 5000
3000 400010000 5000 15000
6000
6,559 7000 200008000 25000 2006 2006 1000 1000 2000 2000 3000 3000 4000
4000
4,694 5000
5000 6000
12,376 0 0 6,416
2007 Brand 2007 Brand Value ($m)
Value ($m) 4,866
3,631 +17% +17%
2007 Brand 2007 Brand Value ($m)
Value ($m) 4,149 32,070 +15%
Audi Starbucks 0 10000 2000 3000
5000 4000 5000
10000 6000 7000
15000 8000 20000 Motorola Toyota 0 0
1000 1000 2000
2000 3000 3000 4000 4000
5000 6000 5000
7000 8000

2007 2007
2006 Brand Value
2006($m)
Brand Value ($m) 4,866 33,696
+17% +12%
2007 2007
2006 Brand Value
2006($m)
Brand Value ($m) 4,149 11,037-9% +21%
Audi
4,165 3,099 Motorola 4,569
27,941
Nokia Apple
3000 3,631
4,866 4000 25000 32,070
4,149
2007 2007 2007 2007 -9%
2006 0 2006 0 1000 500 2000
1000 1500 3000 2000 4000
2500
4,165 5000
3500+17% 4000 +17% 2006 2006 1000 5000 2000
10000 3000
15000 20000
4,569 5000
30000 35000 +15%
Audi Starbucks
30,131 Motorola Toyota 0 0 9,130
2007 0Brand 2007
2006
Value ($m)
Brand Value ($m)
2006 0 1000 5000 2000
10000 3000
15000 20000 4000
25000 4,8663,221
5000
30000+17% 35000 +16%
2007 Brand 2007
2006
Value ($m)
Brand Value ($m)
2006 1000 2000 2000 4000 3000 6000 4,149 3,874
4000
8000 5000
-9%
Audi Burberry
4,165 3,099 Motorola Kodak 0 0 27,941 10000
4,569 12000

Brand Value ($m)
Brand Value ($m) Brand Value ($m)
Brand Value ($m) -9% -12%
2006 0 2006 0 1000 500 1000
2000 1500 3000 2000 2500
4000
4,165 3000 3500
5000 4000 2006 2006 1000 5000 200010000 15000
3000 20000 4000 25000
4,569 30000
5000 35000
2,783 0 0 4,406
2007 Brand 2007 Brand Value ($m)
Value ($m) 29,398
8,982 +7%
2007 Brand Value ($m)
Brand Value ($m) 10,087 +15%
0 0 1000 500 20001000 3000
1500 2000 4000 2500 5000
3000 3500 1000 10002000 20003000 30004000 40005000 5000
McDonald’s Ford Ikea 0 0
2007 2007
2006 Brand Value
2006($m)
Brand Value ($m) 29,398
21,612 -19% 2007 2007($m)
2006 Brand Value Brand Value ($m) 10,087 5,165
McDonald’s BMW
27,501 11,056+7% +10%
Ikea Zara
8,763 +15% +22%

2007
2006 0
2007
2006 5000
0 10000
2000 15000
4000 20000
6000 8,982
29,398 30000
25000
8000
27,501 10000 +7% 12000
2007
2006 2006 2000 4000 6000 8000
8,763
10,08710000 12000 +15%
McDonald’s Ford
19,617 Ikea
0 4,235
2007 0Brand 2007
2006
Value ($m)
0
Brand Value ($m)
2006 5000 10000
5000 1500010000 20000 15000 29,398
25000 7,730
2000030000 +7%
-19%
25000 +18%
2007 Brand2007
2006
Value ($m)
2000 4000
1000 6000
2000 8000
3000 10,08710000 4,254
4000 12000 +15%
5000 6000
McDonald’s Nintendo
27,501 11,056 Ikea Pizza Hut 0 0 8,763
Brand Value ($m)
Brand Value ($m) Brand Value ($m)
Brand Value ($m) -9%
2006 0 2006 5000
0 2000
10000 4000
15000 6000
20000 8000
25000
27,501 10000
30000 12000 2006 2006 2000 4000 6000 8000
8,763 10000 12000
6,559 0 4,694
2007 Brand Value ($m)
Brand Value ($m) 33,696 +12%
2007 Brand Value ($m) 11,037 +21%
Nokia 0 5000
0 1000 10000 2000 15000
3000 20000
4000 5000 25000 6000 30000
7000 8000 Apple 2000 4000
1000 6000 2000 8000 3000 10000 400012000 5000
0 0
2007 2007($m)
2006 Brand Value Brand Value ($m) 33,6963,631 +12% +17%
2007 2007($m)
2006 Brand Value Brand Value ($m) 11,037 32,070+21% +15%
Nokia Starbucks
30,131 Apple Toyota
9,130
2007
2006 0 20065000 10000 15000 20000 25000 33,696
30000
30,131 35000 +12% 2007
2006 2006 2000 4000 6000 8000
9,130
11,037
10000 12000 +21%
Nokia
3,099 Apple
0 27,941
2007 0Brand 2007
2006
Value ($m)
5000
0 10000
500 15000
1000 150020000 2000 25000 2500 33,696
30000
3000 4,866
35000 +12%
3500 4000 +17%
2007 Brand2007
2006
Value ($m)
2000 50004000 10000 6000 15000 8000 20000 11,0374,149 12000
10000
25000 30000+21% 35000
Nokia Audi
30,131 Apple Motorola 0 0 9,130
Brand Value ($m)
Brand Value ($m) Brand Value ($m)
Brand Value ($m) -9%
2006 0 20065000 10000 15000 20000 25000
30,131300004,165 35000 2006 2006 2000 4000 6000 8000
9,130 10000 12000
0 4,569
2007 Brand Value ($m) 21,612 +10%
2007 Brand Value ($m) 5,165 +22%
BMW 0 5000
0 10000 1000 15000 20000
2000 25000
3000 30000 400035000 5000 Zara 2000 4000
1000 6000 2000 8000 3000 10000 400012000 5000
0 0
2007 2007($m)
2006 Brand Value Brand Value ($m) 21,612
8,982 +10%
2007
2006 Brand Value ($m)
Brand Value ($m) Best Global
5,165 Brands 2007
+22%
21
BMW Ford
19,617 Zara
4,235
2007
2006 0 2006 5000 10000 15000 21,612
19,61720000 25000 +10%
-19% 2007
2006 1000 2000 3000 4000
4,235
5,165
5000 6000 +22%
BMW
11,056 Zara
0

2007 0Brand 2007
2006
Value ($m)
0 5000 2000 10000 4000 150006000 21,612
20000
8000 29,398 12000
25000 +10%
10000 +7%
2007 Brand 2007
2006
Value ($m)
1000 2000 3000 4000 5,165 10,087 6000 +22%
5000 +15%
19,617 0 4,235
3. lessons from the risers and decliners

2007 17,837 +44%
Google

2006 12,376
0 5000 10000 15000 20000

Brand Value ($m)

2007 3,221 +16%
Burberry
2006 2,783
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

Brand Value ($m)

2007 7,730 +18%
Nintendo Piz

2006 6,559
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

Brand Value ($m)
valued at $33.7bn this year, nokia’s 12% increase has been brand nokia
driven by a renewed focus on the brand. consumer insights
have steered product design back on course. In short, it has country of origin
2007 finland 4,866 +17%
Audi M

rediscovered the theme of demand creation by focusing on sector 2006 consumer electronics
4,165
simple, easy-to-use handsets that are sleek and stylish. 0
brand value ($m) 33,696
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Brand Value ($m)

nokia has not enjoyed quite as much success in the us, where rank 2006 6
motorola has been the dominant player. It will be interesting rank 2007 2007 5 29,398 +7%
to see how this unfolds. nokia’s improvement in product and McDonald’s

design innovation should challenge motorola’s raZr, but the 2006 best27,501
global brands 2007

recently launched apple iphone has the potential to change 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000

perspectives. the device has created a lot of excitement and it Brand Value ($m)

seems set to be popular with technology-savvy and fashion-
conscious consumers alike. 2007 33,696 +12%
Nokia

2006 30,131
In recent years, handset design has emerged as an increasingly 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
important demand driver. competitors such as lg and samsung Brand Value ($m)

have created stylish products and gained market share, some
of it at nokia’s expense. the brand’s ‘bounce back’ this year has
2007 21,612
been driven by a reinvigorated focus on product design and BMW
+10%

feature innovation. for example, the nokia n95 was hugely 2006 19,617
successful, integrating mail, web and music in a single handset. 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

It has become the equivalent of the blackberry for the consumer Brand Value ($m)

market.
2007 3,631 +17%

to maintain its leadership position, nokia should focus on Starbucks

2006 3,099
defining a cohesive visual style to differentiate its entire offering,
rather than being driven by individual models.
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

Brand Value ($m)

2007 8,982
Ford
-19%
2006 11,056
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Brand Value ($m)

22 22 best global
best global
brandsbrands
2007 2007
Nokia has rediscovered the
theme of Demand Creation by
focusing on simple, easy-to-
use handsets that are sleek
and stylish.
3. lessons from the risers and decliners

mcdonald’s resurgence picks up on all the themes of brand starbucks customers than parents who are merely there to keep
value creation, from demand creation through to brand their children company. Its coffee range has been ranked best in
management, modeling contingencies and planning class in consumer reports.
efficiencies. while the brand is still on a journey, it has done
many things right, and this is reflected in its 7% increase Instead of expanding its number of outlets (which do still
in brand value. continue to expand at 3-5% per year) the focus has been on
improving the total customer experience. the changes have
firstly, it refocused corporately on being a single-brand allowed mcdonald’s to open up a clear gap between itself and
company, mcdonald’s, by de-emphasizing pret a manger, burger king,2007
which has not gone down the same 17,837
‘healthy food’+44%
divesting chipotle and beginning the process of selling boston road. Google
2006
market. this sense of focus is also demonstrated in the b2c brand 12,376

through its consistent use of the global advertising theme, ‘I’m mcdonald’s is successfully managing to move the brand along,
0 5000 10000 15000 20000

Brand Value ($m)
loving it’. while not losing sight of what it has always stood
for: quality, value and convenience.
the mcdonald’s brand continues to reinvent itself in 2007 3,221 +16%
Burberry
the face of changing consumer preferences towards healthy 2006 2,783
eating. It has shown that being responsive to customers is critical 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

to success. mcdonald’s is providing healthier alternatives and Brand Value ($m)

the nutritional profile of everything it offers. the introduction of brand mcdonald’s
new sandwiches, salads and fruit items to the menu has created 7,730
country of2007
origin us +18%
a ‘halo’ effect that augments the traditional mcdonald’s offering. Nintendo Pi

these items add a healthy ‘accent’ to the mcdonald’s image and sector 2006 restaurants 6,559

create demand. brand value ($m)
0 1000 2000 3000
29,398
4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

Brand Value ($m)

but the success is deeper than simply creating rank 2006 9
demand. the brand has been managed and planned well rank 2007 2007
8 4,866 +17%
Audi M
too. the broader menu, coupled with remodeled/more 2006
best global brands 2007
4,165
stylish restaurants, is helping mcdonald’s to shift traditional
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
perceptions of the brand and encourage existing customers Brand Value ($m)

to engage with it more frequently. rather than being a place
where people go to grab a quick snack on the go, mcdonald’s
2007 29,398
is trying to attract diners who appreciate better quality, better McDonald’s
+7%

tasting food and are willing to pay a premium for it. the range 2006 27,501
of high-quality coffees, for example, is more likely to appeal to 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000

Brand Value ($m)

2007 33,696 +12%
Nokia

2006 30,131
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000

Brand Value ($m)

2007 21,612 +10%
BMW
24 best global brands 2007 2006 19,617
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

Brand Value ($m)
The McDonald’s brand continues
to reinvent itself in the face of
changing consumer preferences
towards healthy eating.
3. lessons from the risers and decliners

2007 17,837 +44%
Google

2006 12,376
0 5000 10000 15000 20000

Brand Value ($m)
audi’s success builds on a story of demand creation, brand audi
brand management and planning efficiencies.
country of2007
origin germany 3,221 +16%
Burberry
by applying a consistent design philosophy based around sector 2006 automotive 2,783
quality, sophistication and performance, audi has developed a 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
brand value ($m) 4,866
unique, distinctive personality in the marketplace. the brand is Brand Value ($m)

considered to be hip, cool and understated. In the mind of the rank 2006 74
consumer, audi is now a genuine alternative 7,730
rank 20072007 68 +18%
to bmw and mercedes-benz, with the brands going head-to- Nintendo Pi

2006
head in many categories. best global brands 2007
6,559
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

Brand Value ($m)
audi has recently completed a design overhaul of its entire
product line. this is a bold move, which modernizes the range
with a consistent look, feel and attitude while still maintaining 2007 4,866 +17%
M
Audi
the valuable equity of “vorsprung durch technik”. 2006 4,165
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

with the refreshed a6 and a8 models, audi has succeeded in Brand Value ($m)

moving up the value chain and has created a buzz around its
top-of-the-range saloon cars. the company also launched an 2007 29,398
suv at the high-end, which has been well-received. McDonald’s
+7%

2006 27,501

the strength of the brand has enabled audi to stretch 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000

into the coupe and sports car segments; the hugely successful Brand Value ($m)

tt and the new r8 are testament to this. the design credentials
of the tt and the performance credentials of the r8 cascade 2007 33,696 +12%

throughout the entire audi range and provide greater clarity Nokia

2006 30,131
to audi’s overall positioning in the marketplace. this portfolio
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
strategy is a model example of how to use marketing and Brand Value ($m)
product development resources to efficiently generate brand
value.
2007 21,612 +10%
BMW

2006 19,617
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

Brand Value ($m)

2007 3,631 +17%
Starbucks

2006 3,099
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

Brand Value ($m)

2007 8,982
Ford
-19%
2006 11,056
26 best global brands 2007 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Brand Value ($m)
The design credentials of the TT
and the performance credentials
of THE R8 cascade throughout
the entire Audi range and provide
greater clarity to Audi’s overall
positioning in the marketplace.
3. lessons from the risers and decliners

burberry has re-established itself as a credible fashion brand for brand burberry
a younger generation. It has successfully refreshed its image,
while maintaining true to its ‘british’ heritage. country of origin uk

sector luxury
a few years ago the burberry brand in the uk became confused
brand value ($m) 3,221
after being adopted by football hooligans and minor celebrities.
It quickly acquired associations of thuggishness and became a rank 2006 98
conspicuous emblem of rank 20072007 95 17,837 +44%
new wealth, which repelled many of its traditionally Google

loyal customers. 2006 12,376 best global brands 2007
0 5000 10000 15000 20000

however, since that set-back, the brand has revitalized Brand Value ($m)

itself and gone from strength to strength, appealing
to new customers in new markets all over the world, regardless 2007 3,221 +16%
Burberry
of the pr backlash around its factory closure 2006 2,783
in wales. 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

Brand Value ($m)

burberry has achieved this success by carefully managing
customer perceptions and experiences at all touch points
2007 7,730
– in-store, online, through advertisements and sponsorship. It Nintendo
+18%
Pi

has positioned itself as young, modern and fashionable, while 2006 6,559
maintaining the ‘british’ essence of its appeal. 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

Brand Value ($m)

It is a great example of touch point development,
modeling contingencies and planning efficiencies. 2007 4,866 +17%
Audi M

2006 4,165
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Brand Value ($m)

2007 29,398 +7%
McDonald’s

2006 27,501
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000

Brand Value ($m)

2007 33,696 +12%
Nokia

2006 30,131
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000

Brand Value ($m)

2007 21,612 +10%
BMW

2006 19,617
28 best global brands 2007 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

Brand Value ($m)
Burberry has achieved success
by carefully managing customer
perceptions and experiences at
all touch points.
3. lessons from the risers and decliners
2007 17,837 +44%
Google

2006 12,376
0 5000 10000 15000 20000

Brand Value ($m)

2007 3,221 +16%
Burberry
2006 2,783
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

Brand Value ($m)

2007 7,730 +18%
Nintendo Pi

2006 6,559
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

Brand Value ($m)

2007 4,866 +17%
Audi M

2006 4,165
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Brand Value ($m)

2007 29,398
the lessons from ford are highly indicative of the themes of theMcDonald’s
mini is an example of a classic car with cult appeal that +7%
value creation. the brand lacks focus on demand creation, re-launched2006
itself very successfully. the ford mustang carries
27,501 an
and its product range would indicate that it has not planned equally strong following in the us. In the same vein as the mini,
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000

effectively to have a portfolio that is in tune with the ford could re-launch
Brand Value the
($m) mustang as a flagship model and use

movements of consumer attitudes and behaviors. the momentum to rejuvenate the entire ford brand.
2007 33,696 +12%
the ford brand continues its long-term decline demonstrating Nokia

2006
how an iconic brand can lose its way. despite reasonable 30,131

success in europe with the focus 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000

Brand Value ($m)
and mondeo, performance in the core us market has been less brand ford
impressive and a permanent discount policy
has eroded the value of the ford brand. country of2007
origin us 21,612 +10%
BMW

sector 2006 automotive 19,617
heavy reliance on big suvs, pick-ups and its american 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
brand value ($m) 8,982
heritage increasingly look out of touch with the needs Brand Value ($m)

of us car buyers. as gas prices remain high, demand for gas- rank 2006 30
guzzling suvs has waned and the construction of factories in 3,631
rank 20072007 41 +17%
the us by foreign brands means that the “made in america” Starbucks

positioning is no longer differentiated. 2006 3,099best global brands 2007
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

ford, unlike the competition, has not invested in Brand Value ($m)

distinguishing itself in any meaningful way. toyota, for
example, has become synonymous with quality, reliability and 2007 8,982
Ford
more recently for being ‘green’; bmw stands for precision and 2006
-19%
11,056
driving experience. ford lacks an equivalent differentiating
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
position and is in search of a central meaning and sense of Brand Value ($m)

identity.

to regain momentum, ford could learn from bmw’s
experience. by applying a more holistic approach to managing
the brand and sub-brands and using a handful of core
principles to guide product design, ford could develop a
distinctive positioning that resonates with consumers.

30 best global brands 2007
Heavy reliance
on big SUVs,
Pick-Ups and its
American heritage
increasingly look
out of touch with
the needs of US car
buyers.

Best Global Brands 2007 31
3. lessons from the risers and decliners

the gap brand has failed to secure or own a positioning within brand gap
the apparel marketplace. It is a story that indicates
an inability to create demand for its brand. country of origin us

sector apparel
gap continues to feel the pressure from low price suppliers
brand value ($m) 5,481
offering the same american staple of t-shirts, jeans and chinos.
forays into a more fashionable positioning failed, rank 2006 52
and the brand was left with an irrelevant positioning and rank 2007 61
an overpriced product line.
best global brands 2007

In the us, gap has further confused its consumers by offering
less expensive, fun-oriented options at old navy and higher
quality, more up-market items at banana republic. these
alternative
2007
stores – often located in 17,837 +44%
2007 5,481
Google Gap

close proximity
2006 to gap outlets –12,376
have cannibalized sales. 2006 6,416
-15%

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

the brandBrandhas
Valuebecome trapped between several trends
0
($m) Brand Value ($m)

in the fashion market. consumers are increasingly looking to mix
low priced
2007
basics (from the likes of Zara, target or wal-mart) with
3,221 2007 3,874
+16%
expensive signature pieces from premium brands. gap is neither
Burberry Kodak
-12%
of these;
2006
it has lost its ability to segment2,783
and to identify its target 2006 4,406

customers. 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Brand Value ($m) Brand Value ($m)

to regain relevance with consumers, gap could learn
from other
2007 mass-market fashion brands. abercrombie 7,730 &+18%
fitch, 2007 4,254
Nintendo Pizza Hut
for example,
2006
has used a deep understanding of the consumer 2006
-9%
6,559 4,694
to make its brand sexier. the company knows what makes its
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
customersBrand
‘tick’ and offers a distinctive
Value ($m)
0
Brand Value ($m)

look and attitude that genuinely resonates.
2007 4,866 2007 4,149
an
Audi alternative strategy would be to follow the lead
+17%
Motorola

of fast-fashion retailers, like h&m or Zara, stocking
-9%
2006 4,165 2006 4,569
more of-the-moment fashion designs at lower price
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

points. toBrand
doValue
this,
($m)
it would need to differentiate itself Brand Value ($m)

from these brands, or reconsider its current corporate
brand2007architecture in some meaningful way. 29,398 +7%
2007 10,087 +15%
McDonald’s Ikea

2006 27,501 2006 8,763
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
0
Brand Value ($m) Brand Value ($m)

2007 33,696 +12%
2007 11,037 +21%
Nokia Apple

2006 30,131 2006 9,130
32 best global
0
brands
5000
200710000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
0
Brand Value ($m) Brand Value ($m)
Gap continues to feel the pressure
from low price suppliers offering
the same American staple of t-
shirts, jeans and chinos.
3. lessons from the risers and decliners

the kodak brand has been too late to read the signals
brand kodak
of the marketplace and is therefore another story that highlights
a lack of demand creation. country of origin us

sector consumer electronics
the kodak brand still feels rooted in traditional film. the
company is trying to reinvent itself as being about digital brand value ($m) 3,874
imaging. unfortunately, a lack of any real point of difference, rank 2006 70
coupled
2007
with a relatively late entrance, has17,837
meant that 2007 5,481
+44% rankGap2007 82
the brand has struggled to gain a significant foothold in
Google
-15%
the digital market.
2006 12,376 2006 6,416
best global brands 2007
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
0

despite launching innovative products such as the simple dock
Brand Value ($m) Brand Value ($m)

interface and, more recently, the printer with very affordable
print cartridges,
2007 consumers have not embraced kodak as
3,221 a
+16%
Kodak
2007 3,874
Burberry
digital2006
brand because it lacks a cohesive 2006
-12%
2,783 4,406
promise that the customer understands or cares about.
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
0
Brand Value ($m) Brand Value ($m)

the ‘kodak moment’ positioning which was created
over many years, does not seem to be transferable to
2007 7,730 2007 4,254
the digital world.
Nintendo
+18%
Pizza Hut
-9%
2006 6,559 2006 4,694
other brands have negotiated similarly large shifts in customer
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

demandsBrandsuccessfully
Value ($m)
in the past and kodak Brand Value ($m)

could learn from these experiences. Ibm’s move into business
consulting,
2007 for example, was achieved through4,866 acquisition
+17%
of 2007 4,149
Motorola
pwc’s
Audi
consulting
2006
business and supported 2006
-9%
4,165 4,569
by a strong global advertising campaign. Intel has similarly
shifted from storage to processing and more recently
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
0
Brand Value ($m) Brand Value ($m)
from desktop pcs to handheld devices.
2007 29,398 +7%
2007 10,087 +15%
McDonald’s Ikea

2006 27,501 2006 8,763
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
0
Brand Value ($m) Brand Value ($m)

2007 33,696 +12%
2007 11,037 +21%
Nokia Apple

2006 30,131 2006 9,130
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
0
Brand Value ($m) Brand Value ($m)

2007 21,612 +10%
2007 5,165 +22%
BMW Zara

2006 19,617 2006 4,235
34 best global
0
brands 2007
5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
0
Brand Value ($m) Brand Value ($m)
Consumers have not embraced
Kodak as a digital brand because
it lacks a cohesive promise that
the customer understands or
cares about.

Best Global Brands 2007 35
3. lessons from the risers and decliners

pizza hut also tells a tale that lacks demand creation. brand pizza hut

pizza hut
2007 17,837
is still one of the leading brands in the fast-food
+44% country of2007
origin us 5,481
Google Gap

industry.
2006 however, the industry 12,376
as a whole has been under sector 2006 restaurants 6,416
-15%

pressure as consumer preferences have shifted towards healthier
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
brand value ($m)
0 4,254
alternatives.
Brand Value ($m) Brand Value ($m)

rank 2006 66
minor2007
changes to its product range (e.g. vegetarian
3,221 options) rank 20072007 74 3,874
+16%
and new services (e.g. deliveries and internet orders), have failed
Burberry Kodak
-12%
2006 2006
to revitalize the brand and it now looks tired
2,783 in all of its touch best global brands 2007
4,406

points. the chain has struggled to maintain share of wallet
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

against new ‘fast casual’ competitors, which offer higher quality
Brand Value ($m) Brand Value ($m)

food in more attractive surroundings at a higher price point.
2007 7,730 +18%
2007 4,254
Nintendo Pizza Hut
In an age
2006 where customers demand quality, wholesome, natural, 2006 4,694
-9%
6,559
nutritional food, pizza hut has held onto its
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

outdatedBrand
menu and restaurant format. It needs to return
Value ($m)
0
Brand Value ($m)

to basics by providing good pizzas, delivered in a more
contemporary setting.
2007 4,866 +17%
2007 4,149
Audi Motorola
-9%
the brand
2006 should look to mcdonald’s for some 4,165 ideas – 2006 4,569
many of pizza hut’s customers are also customers of mcdonald’s,
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

after all. mcdonald’s
Brand Value ($m)
has re-energized its Brand Value ($m)

brand by contemporizing a number of its restaurants
and signifi
2007 cantly updating its menu to appeal 29,398 to a +7%
2007 10,087 +15%

broader
McDonald’s

2006
demographic. Ikea

2006
27,501 8,763
5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
starbucksBrand
could also provide some clues. the ubiquitous
0
0
Value ($m) Brand Value ($m)
coffee chain understands the importance of ambience and
environment in attracting and retaining loyal customers.
2007 33,696 +12%
2007 11,037 +21%
Nokia Apple

2006 30,131 2006 9,130
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
0
Brand Value ($m) Brand Value ($m)

2007 21,612 +10%
2007 5,165 +22%
BMW Zara

2006 19,617 2006 4,235
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
0
Brand Value ($m) Brand Value ($m)

2007 3,631 +17%
2007 32,070 +15%
Starbucks Toyota

2006 3,099 2006 27,941
36 best global
0
brands
500
2007
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
0
Brand Value ($m) Brand Value ($m)
In an age where customers
demand quality, wholesome,
natural, nutritional food,
Pizza Hut has held onto its
outdated menu and restaurant
format.
3. lessons from the risers and decliners

the motorola story is an interesting one. having successfully motorola would be well advised to carry out data mining to gain
created demand for the raZr, it seems to have sat back on its a deep understanding of what drives its consumers
laurels. more efficient planning for the motorola brand itself and to keep on top of emerging trends.
could2007
have delivered a stronger corporate 17,837
brand, which in its 2007 5,481
+44%
own right could return
Google Gap
-15%
2006 2006
more value. 12,376 6,416
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
0

motorola is fundamentally an engineering company, rather
Brand Value ($m) Brand Value ($m)

brand motorola
than a consumer-focused brand. In recent years, it has enjoyed
success
2007with one-off products, but has failed3,221 to develop+16%
a country of2007
Kodak
origin us 3,874
Burberry
pipeline
2006 of exciting replacement products to maintain upward sector 2006 consumer electronics4,406
-12%
2,783
momentum. the raZr, for example, was highly successful at
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

launch and brand value ($m) 4,149
Brandsignifi
Value ($m) cantly raised the profile of the brand. however,
0
Brand Value ($m)

the company failed to launch any “blockbuster” handsets before rank 2006 69
the raZr approached the end of its lifecycle.
2007 7,730 +18% rank 20072007
77 4,254
Nintendo Pizza Hut
-9%
In the2006
ever-changing world of consumer electronics,
6,559 2006 4,694 brands 2007
best global
it’s important to invest in developing a strong corporate brand,
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

rather than product brands. Investing in product brands is risky,
Brand Value ($m) Brand Value ($m)

because they can be quickly superseded by superior offerings as
technology
2007 evolves. motorola’s falling brand value 4,866is due to the
+17%
2007 4,149
Motorola
close
Audi
association
2006
between the corporate brand and the raZr 2006
-9%
4,165 4,569
phone. as raZr has lost relevance with consumers, so too has
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
motorola.Brand Value ($m) 0
Brand Value ($m)

motorola could take some lessons from nokia, which
2007 29,398 2007 10,087
has managed its brand architecture very successfully
McDonald’s
over
+7%
the Ikea
+15%

years.2006
the nokia masterbrand remains the focal point for the
27,501 2006 8,763
consumer and is always more prominent than the handset
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
0
2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

sub-brands. similarly,
Brand Value ($m) bmw, through disciplined management Brand Value ($m)

of brand assets, has created a masterbrand that supports and
enhances
2007 individual model brands. 33,696 +12%
2007 11,037 +21%
Nokia Apple

2006 2006
customer insight is at the heart of the successful branding. 30,131 9,130
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
0
Brand Value ($m) Brand Value ($m)

2007 21,612 +10%
2007 5,165 +22%
BMW Zara

2006 19,617 2006 4,235
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
0
Brand Value ($m) Brand Value ($m)

2007 3,631 +17%
2007 32,070 +15%
38 best global brands 2007
Starbucks Toyota

2006 3,099 2006 27,941
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
0
Brand Value ($m) Brand Value ($m)
Motorola has failed
to develop a pipeline
of exciting replacement
products to maintain upward
momentum. As RAZR has lost
relevance with consumers, so
too has Motorola.
3. Lessons from the Risers and Decliners

Conclusions

The turnaround brands all show a rise in their brand value
because they have understood and adopted the theme of brand
value creation and the brand management practices associated
with this.

The principal strength is evidently Demand Creation:
a simple theme that requires the brand to move and evolve
with consumer attitudes and behaviors and create a motivating
strategy that it delivers against. Once demand
is created, management processes need to be put in place to
ensure the brand lives through all its touch points, and that the
business plans ahead effectively and efficiently to build value
into its brand. The themes are intrinsically linked, and to master
them all takes leadership and an organization-wide commitment
to building the value of the brand. As we’ve seen, the rewards
are high.

Correspondingly, the brands that have suffered a decline
in brand value seem to have lost the ability to create demand.
They have all been hugely successful businesses and brands
in the past and the future is there for them to dictate. The
turnaround brands all show a sense of understanding
consumers’ needs and desires, and rediscovering the appetite to
meet their customer promise. After all, what is a brand if not a
promise to the customer? The brands that have failed to do this
need to rediscover
the connection with their markets and focus on the themes of
brand value creation.

40 Best Global Brands 2007
Brands are important assets
requiring proactive and consistent
investment, management, and
measurement.

Best Global Brands 2007 41
Having foresight helps companies
make informed choices about
their brand and frees leaders up
to make bold moves in the full
knowledge of the implications.
4.
HOW WE DID IT

Criteria For Consideration Methodology

Using our database of global brands, populated with critical The Interbrand method for valuing brands is a proven,
information over the past 20 years of valuing brands and more straightforward and profound formula that examines brands
than 30 years of consulting with organizations, Interbrand through the lens of financial strength, importance in driving
formed an initial consideration set. All were consumer selection and the likelihood of ongoing branded
then subject to the following criteria that narrowed candidates revenue. Our method evaluates brands much like analysts would
significantly: value any other asset: on the basis of how much they’re likely
to earn in the future. There are three core components to our
• There must be substantial publicly available proprietary method:
financial data
• The brand must have at least one-third of revenues Financial Analysis
outside of its country-of-origin
• The brand must be a market-facing brand Our approach to valuation starts by forecasting the current
• The Economic Value Added (EVA) must be positive and future revenue specifically attributable to the branded
• The brand must not have a purely b2b single audience products. The cost of doing business (operating costs, taxes)
with no wider public profile and awareness and intangibles such as patents and management strength are
subtracted to assess what portion of those earnings is due to the
These criteria exclude brands such as Mars, which is privately brand.
held, or Wal-Mart, which is not sufficiently global
(it does business in some international markets but not under All financial analysis is based on publicly available company
the Wal-Mart brand). information. Interbrand culls from a range of analysts’ reports to
build a consensus estimate for financial reporting.

Role of Brand Analysis

A measure of how the brand influences customer demand at the
point of purchase is applied to the intangible earnings to arrive
at Branded Earnings.

For this study, industry benchmark analysis for the role brand
plays in driving customer demand is derived from Interbrand’s
database of more than 5,000 prior valuations conducted
over the course of 20 years. In-house market research is used
to establish individual brand scores against our industry
benchmarks.

44 Best Global Brands 2007
Brand Strength Score

This is a benchmark of the brand’s ability to secure ongoing
customer demand (loyalty, re-purchase and retention) and
thus sustain future earnings, translating branded earnings
into net present value. This assessment is a structured way of
determining the specific risk to the strength of the brand. We
compare the brand against common factors of brand strength,
such as market position, customer franchise, image and support.

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS BRAND VALUE CALCULATIONS
Forecasted current and future
revenue specifically attributable
to the brand.

Role of
Branded Revenues Brand
ROLE OF BRAND ANALYSIS Analysis
A measure of how the brand
Intangible Earnings
influences customer demand
at the point of purchase.
Brand Earnings

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

BRAND STRENGTH ANALYSIS
A benchmark of the brand’s Brand Strength Analysis BRAND
ability to secure ongoing = Discount rate VALUE
customer demand (loyalty,
repurchase, retention).

Best Global Brands 2007 45
5.
WHY THE RANKING
IS IMPORTANT
Significance of the ranking

The Best Global Brands study provides a brand value that is It tells you whether you are investing adequately
a top-line measure of economic performance driven by the in your brand. Putting an economic value on a brand
brand, stating what the brand is worth overall and among (overall and by segment) can help make a strong business case
competitors. Brand value brings to marketing what “revenue for marketing investments, overall and across a company’s
goals” or “financial hurdle rates” bring to other aspects of the portfolio.
business.
It tells you whether you have a marketing strategy that positions
The payoff comes when one looks behind the number your brand around the right messages. Your customers make
– a single number only tells you so much. It’s important decisions every day between you and your competitor;
to understand what drives brand value: intangible earnings analyzing the role of brand in those decisions helps focus
(the cash flow of a business not associated with tangible your strategy on the attributes that differentiate your brand
assets such as equipment or materials), the role of brand (a from others and strengthen your relationship with your best
measure of how much brand influences purchasing decisions) customers, ensuring future earnings.
and brand strength (a benchmark of a brand’s relative risk
compared to competitors). It tells you whether you have the right short-term
tactics to drive value. By analyzing the strength of your brand,
Understanding the drivers of brand value can inform you can target marketing campaigns to the most valuable
management action, from overall business strategy to specific customers and against your most formidable competitors,
marketing tactics. It’s an easy-to-understand metric to help driving short-term sales.
brand owners determine where they are, where they’re going
and how to get there. It helps to make branding a more There are many insights from this ranking, but the core message
important aspect of global is clear: brands are important assets requiring proactive and
business management. consistent investment, management, and measurement.

46 Best Global Brands 2007
Best Global Brands 2007 47
APPENDICES

48 Best Global Brands 2007
6.
FREQUENTLY ASKED
QUESTIONS

The purpose of this section is to address the questions that you
might be asking in relation to the Best Global Brands.

Contents

What is brand value? 50
Why value brands? 50
How does Interbrand derive the value of brands? 50
What was the basis of the financial assessments? 51
What was the basis for the marketing assessments? 51
What was BusinessWeek’s role in the Best Global Brands ranking? 52
Why are certain brands not on the list? 52
Certain obvious global brands are missing. Were they considered? 52
Within certain large industry sectors there are no brands that appear on the list. Why? 52
A number of insurance companies appear on the league table for the first time – why is this? 53
What % of the branded business needs to be outside the home country to be considered global? 53
Was this the only test for being global? 53
Was there a limit to the number of brands included from any one industry? 53
Are there any brands that have a sufficient brand value but did not make the list? 54
How did you take account of the fact that brands are run through franchisees? 54
What is the relationship between the following terms: brand awareness, brand equity, brand share and brand value? 54
Do the valuations reflect the underlying state of the economy? 54
How should one understand the brand value as a % of market capitalization? 54
How does brand value rank against ad spending? 55
Is it possible to recognize brand value on a balance sheet? 55
What is Interbrand’s view on brands appearing on balance sheets? 55
Why is Interbrand an expert in assessing brand value? 56
Does Interbrand conduct other brand studies? 56
What is the difference between the valuations in Best Global Brands and consulting valuations for clients? 56

Best Global Brands 2007 49
6. Answers to the most frequently asked questions

What is brand value? How does Interbrand derive the value of brands?

Brand value is the dollar value of a brand, calculated as Our valuation approach is a derivative of the way businesses and
Net Present Value (NPV) or today’s value of the earnings financial assets are valued. It fits with current corporate finance
the brand is expected to generate in the future. Like any other theory and practice. There are three key elements and they are
financial value, brand value is at a point in time based on the detailed below:
assumptions and information available at that point
in time. Brand value is calculated according to the most widely Financial Forecasting
accepted and used valuation principles. This makes brand value
comparable to business – and all NPV-based asset values. We identify the revenues from products or services
that are generated with the brand. From these Branded
The valuations of brands appearing in the Best Global Brands Revenues we deduct operating costs, applicable taxes and a
(BGB) are calculated in their current use to charge for the capital employed to derive Intangible Earnings.
their current owner. They, therefore, do not necessarily represent Intangible Earnings are the earnings that are generated by all
the potential purchase, extension or licensing value of the of the business’s intangibles such as brands, patents, R&D and
brands. management expertise. This is
a prudent and conservative approach as it only rewards the
Why value brands? intangible assets after the tangible assets have received their
required return. The concept of Intangible Earnings
The purpose of these valuations is to demonstrate to the is therefore similar to value-based management concepts such
business community that brands are very important business as economic profit or EVA (Economic Value Added is Stern
assets and in many cases the single most valuable company Stuart’s branded concept). Based on reports from financial
asset. We also aim to show that branding and marketing analysts we prepare a forecast of Intangible Earnings for six
are key business issues that have direct shareholder value years.
impact. Through six years of publishing Best Global Brands
in BusinessWeek magazine we have created the world’s most Role of Branding
significant and influential brand and marketing study. In
fact, PRWeek magazine produced a study that showed the Since Intangible Earnings include the returns for all intangibles
BusinessWeek/Interbrand Best Global Brands ranking was the employed in the business, we need to identify the earnings
third most sought-after benchmark report by CEOs and CFOs. that are specifically attributable to the brand. Through our
proprietary analytical framework called Role of Branding, we can
calculate the percentage of Intangible Earnings that are entirely
generated by the brand. In some businesses (e.g. fragrances or
packaged goods), the Role of Branding is very high as the brand
is the predominant driver of the customer purchase decision.
However, in other businesses (in particular b2b) the brand is only
one purchase driver amongst many and the Role of Branding is

50 Best Global Brands 2007
therefore lower. For example, people are buying Microsoft not against a notional ideal and score it against common factors of
only because of the brand but mostly because the company brand strength. The ideal brand is virtually ‘risk free’ and would
has an installed base of 80% of the market and it would be for be discounted at a rate almost as low as government bonds or
most users extremely difficult to switch their existing files to a a similar risk free investment. The lower the Brand Strength the
new software platform. In the case of Shell people buy not only further it is from the risk-free investment and so the higher the
because of the brand, but also because of the location of the discount rate (and therefore the lower the net present value).
petrol stations. For each of the brands (and categories) we have
assessed the Role of Branding. What was the basis of the financial assessments?

The Role of Branding is derived as a percentage – Published annual reports were used to examine the revenues,
thus if it is 50%, we take 50% of the Intangible Earnings as earnings and balance sheets of the brand-owning companies.
Brand Earnings. If it is 10%, we only take 10% of the Intangible Analyst reports from JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and Morgan
Earnings. Stanley are used as the basis for identifying the specific brand
revenues and earnings and for forecasting future earnings.
Brand Strength
What was the basis for the marketing assessments?
For deriving the net present value of the forecast Brand Earnings,
we need a discount rate that represents the risk profile of these Unlike other brand value league tables, Interbrand does not
earnings. There are two factors at play: firstly, the time value of rely on a single source of marketing information. Using a single
money (i.e. $100 today is more valuable than $100 in five years brand study would limit the type of information (usually limited
because one can earn interest on the money in the meantime); to perceptual data) and the type of customer (usually general
and secondly, the risk that the forecast earnings will actually public) that can be considered. Because many leading brands
materialize. The discount rate represents these factors as it operate in specific customer segments (especially b2b), only
provides an asset-specific risk rate. The higher the risk of the considering the general public can be very restrictive. Instead,
future earnings stream, the higher will be the discount rate. Interbrand refers to a wide array of primary and secondary
sources which are applicable to each brand. These include
To derive today’s value of a future expected earnings stream amongst others Datamonitor, ACNielsen, Gartner and Hall &
it needs to be ‘discounted’ by a rate that reflects the risk of the Partners. Moreover, Interbrand utilizes its network of brand
earnings actually materializing and the time for which it is valuation experts from offices around the world to ensure that
expected. For example, $100 from the Coca-Cola brand in five the league table considers the brands from a global perspective.
years requires a lower discount rate than $100 from the Fanta
brand in five years, as the Coca-Cola brand is stronger and What was BusinessWeek’s role in the Best Global
therefore more likely to deliver the expected earnings. Brands ranking?
The assessment of Brand Strength is a structured way of
assessing the specific risk of the brand. We compare the brand BusinessWeek did not influence the selection of brands or the
determination of any of the values. Their role was to publish

Best Global Brands 2007 51
6. Answers to the most frequently asked questions

the study and to tie the reported performance of brand value Certain obvious global brands are missing. Were
to some of the wider issues affecting these brands. They also they considered?
provided the specific one-line comments that appear in the
table. Interbrand is not responsible for these and they do not In each case there was a reason why they could not
necessarily represent our views. be evaluated based on purely public data.

Why are certain brands not on the list? BBC – A unique organization since it’s a government-owned
corporation that is not supposed to generate a profit.
This is a frequent question especially from companies There are, however, parts of it which are commercial and which
who would expect their brands to be on the list. There do generate profits but these are still the minority
are five reasons: of the business.

- The brand is not sufficiently global Red Cross – As a not-for-profit, it’s not possible to value the
- The brand has a pure b2b single audience and has no brand based on an earnings model. This would be true of other
wider public profile and awareness global not-for-profit brands such as Greenpeace, National
- The company does not produce public data that enables Geographic or Unicef. It is however possible to assess the
us to identify the branded business (the company has financial value of such brands but using a different kind of
multiple brands or has unbranded production) model.
- The brand is not big enough (brand value below $3.0
billion falls below the 100 brand ranking) Mars – This is a privately held and highly secretive organization.
- The business is driven by a number of intangible factors Other privately held brands such as IKEA are included since
and it is difficult to separate the brand from the rest appropriate financial data are publicly available.

Within certain large industry sectors there are no brands that
appear on the list. Why?

Airlines – There has clearly been significant investment in airline
brands (and many of them are, by definition, global) but they
are still operating in situations where the brand plays only a
marginal role. In most cases, the customer decides based on
price, route, schedule, corporate policy or frequent flyer points.
The brand may often only have a real impact when all these
other items are at parity. We have assessed the brand value for
airlines by using internal data to strip out the impact of these
other factors. But from purely public information this is difficult
to do reliably.

52 Best Global Brands 2007
Telecoms – Although there are many large telecom brands that the home country to be considered global?
are highly valuable, at present none of these brands fulfill our
‘global’ criteria. In most cases one-third, however if the home country of the
brand is small (e.g. the Netherlands) we required a higher
Pharmaceuticals – There are no pharmaceutical brands in this percentage. For US brands, the overseas sales ratio can be
year’s league table. Pfizer and Novartis – which were both smaller due to the size of the US market, which is nearly as big as
included in the 2006 table – have been excluded following all of Europe. Applying the one-third overseas sales requirement
a review of our approach. Our review concluded that brands would penalize US brands for being successful in their domestic
should only be included where they resonate with consumers market.
on a global level. In the pharmaceutical industry, it is the
product brand rather than the corporate brand with which the Was this the only test for being global?
consumer builds a relationship. The lack of global recognition
of pharmaceutical companies is fundamentally driven by No, we also wanted evidence that the brand was established in
regulatory differences around the world: in the US, for example, a wide number of markets around the world. At the very least it
pharmaceutical companies are able to communicate and needed to have a substantial presence
advertise directly to consumers, whereas in the EU this is in at least one country in each of the following 4 regions: North
forbidden. America, Latin America, Europe and Asia-Pacific. It also needed
to be managed consistently as a global brand. As an example,
A number of insurance companies appear on the league table Wal-Mart is a valuable brand however it is not consistently
for the first time – why is this? branded as Wal-Mart around the globe.

Three insurance companies – AIG, AXA and Allianz – have Was there a limit to the number of brands included from
entered the league table this year. Whilst insurance has any one industry?
traditionally been seen as a commodity product, the major
players have invested significantly in differentiating themselves No, however, one of the requirements of a leading global brand
over the last year by using a range of brand-building measures. is that it is in fact leading. The mark of leadership is not just
For example, they have developed centralized brand about market share but also about behaving as a leader – setting
management functions to ensure global consistency of message trends, quality standards, authority, etc. Thus, there are brands
delivery and they have used global sponsorship to significantly that are in the top three of their category’s market share but
increase reach and recognition. These measures have raised the did not make the cut; and there are brands that are not top
profile of the brands, turning them into household names. three that did make the global ranking. The rules described are
guidelines and ultimately each brand was assessed for inclusion
on its own merits.
What % of the branded business needs to be outside

Best Global Brands 2007 53
6. Answers to the most frequently asked questions

Are there any brands that have a sufficient brand value the economy?
but did not make the list?
Yes – in two ways. The forecasts are prepared with
There are certainly strong national brands that have an overall view on economic growth at a point in time.
a value exceeding $3.0 billion but which did not make The formula for converting the Brand Strength Score
the list because they do not meet our global criteria. into a discount rate is tied to the underlying government
This would be true of many of the financial services and telecom bond yield.
brands, but also surprisingly true of a lot of food, beer and retail
brands. How should one understand the brand value as a %
of market capitalization?
How did you take account of the fact that brands are run
through franchisees? The market capitalization represents the market’s
valuation of all the equity of a company. In theory,
This was an issue with all the food retail brands – McDonald’s, the market capitalization is the value of all tangible and
Pizza Hut, KFC and Starbucks. We based our valuation on the intangible assets owned by the company less all the
earnings that the brand owner makes from the brand and debt owed by the company.
an estimate of the earnings that the franchisees make from The brand value/market capitalization relationship can
the brand (what is called a total-system view). As in all other be read in a number of ways:
valuations, these earnings were then reduced to take account of - If the brand value percentage of market capitalization
a return for the use of the tangible and other intangible assets. is low, it suggests that the business is driven by other
kinds of assets (tangible and intangible) and that the
What is the relationship between the following terms: brand is relatively unimportant. It could also mean that
brand awareness, brand equity, brand share and brand value? the business is failing to leverage the brand as much as
it should be and that investors should be concerned
Brand value is the only measure that looks at the economic about that.
benefit of the brand to its owner. In other words, it is an - If the brand value percentage of market capitalization is high,
end in itself. Brand awareness and brand equity are a means it suggests that the business is driven by the brand and that
to an end. Brand awareness is simply knowledge that a brand investors should take care of how the brand is being managed
exists, thus brand awareness may prompt customers to consider since this will have a very direct effect on shareholder value. It
buying a product. Brand equity is a measure of customer could also mean that the business is under-valued by the market
perceptions of a brand; thus it may give a customer reason to and that they are failing to reflect the true value of all the assets
prefer a product over the alternatives. Brand share is simply the of the business of which the brand is one (but only one).
market share achieved by the brand. Thus brand awareness,
equity and share are all measures of what a customer thinks or The comparison of brand value to market capitalization is mainly
does, it is not useful for mono-branded businesses as the market capitalization
an assessment of the economic value created by those thought relates to all company assets. For companies that own and
or actions. operate under many different brands, such
as Nestlé and J&J, a comparison with market capitalization
Do the valuations reflect the underlying state of

54 Best Global Brands 2007
is less useful. What is Interbrand’s view on brands appearing on
balance sheets?
How does brand value rank against ad spending?
We support the stance of the different accounting standards
It is not really appropriate to try to correlate these two. which recognize the value of brands on the balance sheet.
Brand value is a measure of the output from a series of Interbrand has been leading the debate on this issue for many
brand investments and initiatives over a long period of years. However, current accounting standards allow only for the
time. Advertising is one element in a wide spectrum of recognition of acquired brands, not internally developed brands.
communications companies employ. Other communications Also, the impairment test for brands on the balance sheet
include sponsorships, online, point of sale, customer service, and allows only for a potential value reduction but not increase. The
so on. In some cases brands are built with acquisition criterion means that the Gucci brand is recognized
very little or no advertising as in the case of Starbucks where on the balance sheet of PPR as an intangible asset while the
retail space and employees are the key communications Louis Vuitton brand does not show up on the balance sheet of
channels. LVMH.

Is it possible to recognize brand value on a balance sheet? We conclude that the recognition of acquired brands on the
balance sheet is a step in the right direction for providing
Several accounting standards – such as International Accounting shareholders with better information about the assets they
Standards (IAS) 36 and 38, US GAAP, FASB 141, UK FRS 10 – allow have invested in. However, it’s still not sufficient, as the value of
and/or require the recognition of acquired goodwill, including internally generated brands cannot be disclosed despite making
brands on the balance sheet. The standards clearly identify up the vast majority of the most valuable brands around the
brands as intangible assets with an infinite economic life. This world.
means unlike other intangible assets (e.g. patents, databases)
or goodwill (e.g. training, workforce) brand value does not have As the need for some formal statement about brand value (and
to be amortized through the income statement. However, they the value of other intangible assets) is becoming increasingly
are subject to an annual impairment test and their carrying important we would advocate some type of statement in the
value needs to be reduced if the value declined. The technique is annual report on the intangible business assets including
consistent with the way in which Interbrand has assessed brands brands. Whether this happens in the traditional balance sheet
for balance sheet inclusion – though of course using more or whether it happens in a new ‘Statement of Intangible Value’
extensive and proprietary data. would be a secondary concern. N.B. There is a precedent for this
in the way in which the Cash Flow Statement was developed to
complement, but not replace, the Profit & Loss Account.

Best Global Brands 2007 55
6. Answers to the most frequently asked questions

Why is Interbrand an expert in assessing brand value? What is the difference between the valuations in BGB and
consulting valuations for clients?
In 1988, Interbrand developed and introduced the first valuation
of a portfolio of brands that used a brand-specific valuation The valuation methodology is the same, however, the level of
approach. Since then we have continuously updated and detail and the data input significantly differ. The BGB valuations
improved our valuation approach to make are mostly consolidated top-line assessments based on publicly
it the global industry standard of brand valuation. The available marketing and financial data. We recognize segment
Interbrand brand valuation methodology is the widest endorsed differences for diversified brands by product or service but not
and used valuation approach around the world. Interbrand alone geography or any other classification (e.g. financial services or
has valued more than 5,000 brands in all industries worldwide. technology). As the valuations are based on publicly available
data, they are only as reliable as the data that the brand-owning
Our valuations have been endorsed by leading academic companies publish about themselves (in annual reports, analysts
institutions including Harvard, Thunderbird, Columbia, briefings, press articles, syndicated market research etc.).
Emory and St. Gallen. Our valuation approach has the
highest depth of applications including strategic brand Consulting valuations are based on detailed customer
management, marketing budget allocation, marketing ROI, segmentations, as well as in-depth marketing and financial
portfolio management, brand extensions, M&A, balance sheet analyses. They have a much higher level of accuracy and
recognition, licensing, transfer pricing and investor relations. granularity. The purpose of a consulting valuation goes well
Our valuations have been audited for inclusion on the balance beyond assessing financial worth. It identifies and quantifies
sheet by all leading accounting firms. Also, many tax authorities value drivers, and helps the company to manage its brand to
and law courts around the world have accepted our valuation increase the shareholder value of the underlying business.
approach. However, if clients undertake consulting valuations we are in a
much better position to identify publicly available data that are
Does Interbrand conduct other brand studies? likely to align the BGB valuation with the consulting valuation. In
cases where companies make our consulting valuations publicly
We have established national brand value league tables in available, for example through a note in the balance sheet, these
Switzerland, France, Spain, Australia, Singapore, China, Taiwan, values will also be published as
Mexico, Canada and Brazil. These follow an identical valuation the BGB ranking value.
process but only look at locally owned brands. A US specific
study would be redundant due to the great overlap with the
global table – 53 out of 100 are US-based. Thank you.

56 Best Global Brands 2007
7.
ABOUT

Creating and managing brand value
Interbrand is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Omnicom Group,
The Interbrand Brand Value Management ModelTM the industry leader in Marketing Communications.

Brands do not become and remain successful on their
own. Nor are they ensured ongoing leadership without
proactive, diligent and detailed management. Interbrand works
collaboratively with clients to consistently and continually
evaluate, create and manage their brand assets. We do this by BRAND
BRAND
employing the following model. PROTECTION
RESEARCH
GE

EV
NA

AL
The Brand Value Management model is a closed
MA

UA
loop with neither a specific beginning nor definite end. BRAND

TE
BRAND VALUATION
The model begins at a different point for every brand, IMPLEMENTATION
based on business need. However, one aspect does
remain constant: once in progress, the model actually
accelerates, by generating synergies and capturing new Brand
BRAND BRAND
opportunities through carefully crafted and integrated activities. CULTURE OPPORTUNITY
It becomes an inexhaustible source of energy
and competitive advantage for every brand.
BRAND BRAND
Brand Value Management comprises three distinct, yet DESIGN STRATEGY
interrelated, phases: Evaluate, Create, and Manage – three VERBAL
IDENTITY
phases where the brand and market opportunities are
painstakingly examined, creatively brought to life, and
thoroughly and holistically coordinated.
C R E AT E
For over 30 years, Interbrand has worked with leading global
brands to create and manage brand value through an integrated
set of offerings. We offer brand and business strategy, brand
valuation, quantitative and qualitative research, retail design,
brand architecture and portfolio optimization, naming,
corporate identity design, packaging design, communications
creation and online digital asset management tools.

Interbrand has 34 offices in more than 20 countries
around the globe and clients from among the most respected
businesses.

Best Global Brands 2007 57
8.
CONTACT US

General inquiries:

Jez Frampton
Group Chief Executive Officer
Tel UK: +44 (0)20 7554 1000
Tel US: +1 212 798 7777
jez.frampton@interbrand.com

Graham Hales
Global Chief Communications Officer
Tel UK: +44 (0) 20 7554 1169
Tel US: +1 232 798 7581
graham.hales@interbrand.com

Media inquiries:
Lisa Marsala
Global Communications Manager
Tel: + 212 798 7646
lisa.marsala@interbrand.com

Additional information on brands

www.interbrand.com
www.brandchannel.com