I have now had the chance to look at the latest Interbrand list in some detail. The results seem plausible - double digit rises in the brand value of Google and Apple, halving of the brand value of Citi and UBS. Some brands ekeing out gains in value of less than 5%, but many showing declines in the 5 to 10% range. Net result: a 5% decline in the aggregate brand value of the top 100 brands to $1.16 trillion.
So far, so good. The worrying development is the increase in the inconsistency between the Interbrand list and those published by Millward Brown and Brand Finance earlier in the year:
- There are only 33 brands that appear on all three top 100 lists this year, down from 45 last year and 46 in 2007
- The three providers only agree on the direction of the sign change in the value of 6 of the top 20 brands versus their value in 2008
- The inconsistencies are as great versus the Millward Brown list (compiled using the same “earnings split” methodology as Interbrand) as they are versus the Brand Finance list (compiled using the “relief from royalty” methodology)
On balance, I am glad that these brand league tables exist – they help to highlight the economic significance of brands, even if in the process they also demonstrate that brand valuation is a discipline in its infancy.
