I have just uploaded to Slideshare my comparison of the 2015 brand valuations of the top 100 brands published by Brand Finance, Millward Brown, Eurobrand and Interbrand. You can see the deck here.
The overall picture is similar to that of previous years (here are the links to the same analysis I posted for the 2014 league tables and the 2013 league tables) in that more than 200 different brands appear across the four top 100 brands; only around 30 brands appear on all four lists; and only 10 brands appear in the top 30 of each list.
For 2015 these 10 “mega brands” are Apple, Google, Microsoft, Coca-Cola, IBM, Amazon, GE, Toyota, Facebook and Disney. Based on the average of their values across the four lists, they represent over $700 billion in value, of which Apple alone accounts for 25% ($175 billion).
Samsung, McDonald’s, BMW and Intel do not make the cut in 2015:
- Samsung is rated as the #2 most valuable brand in the world by Brand Finance but appears at #44 on the Millward Brown list with a value only 26% of the $82 billion brand value attributed to it by Brand Finance
- McDonald’s is in the top 15 brands for Interbrand, Eurobrand and Millward Brown, but is only ranked in 37th place by Brand Finance
- BMW makes the top 15 for Interbrand and Brand Finance but does not make the top 30 for either Eurobrand or Millward Brown
- Intel makes the top 30 for Interbrand, Eurobrand and Brand Finance but is not even in the top 50 for Millward Brown
Given this inconsistency, my recommendation is that marketers be wary about how much trust they place in any one of the four lists, or in the values attributed to specific brands. I do, however, believe that in aggregate these lists provide a helpful indication of how the economic importance of brands varies across different industries. I therefore included as the final slide in the deck my calculation of the industry-specific proportion of enterprise value represented by brand value. This provides an indication of the scale of impact that brand strategy can have in different industries and therefore, I believe, represents a better starting point for discussions about the business impact of marketing than do conversations about valuing brands as if they were standalone assets.