Apple is a more valuable brand than Google, according to rankings from marketeers. Confusingly, Apple's brand is worth less than the stock market reckons and Google is also valued more highly by financial analysts than by the marketing department. The "Brandz 2011" survey valued Apple's brand at $153bn, up 84 per cent on last …
If they think they are being cool by substituting the perfectly good letter 's' with a cutesy 'z', then they are sadly mistaken.
@ Brandz 2011
Makes me think of the Bratz line of dolls and therefore something designed to appeal to little children.
Hardly an image to inspire confidence in their expertise.
Brandz 2001 (TM)
"If they think they are being cool by substituting the perfectly good letter 's' with a cutesy 'z', then they are sadly mistaken."
As a brand-research firm, they likely think they are creating a brand which can be trademarked, so they are probably not mistaken (sadly or otherwise). Obnoxious, perhaps, but not mistaken.
So what if...
... apple's brand valuation rises to equal their market cap?
At that point, can they do away with actually producing anything, for people will pay plenty for empty boxes with just their logo on it? Or how does that work then?
Enterprising minds want to know.
Why is it confusing that Apple's (or Google's, coming to that) brand value is less than their Market cap?
Market cap is simply a measure derived from multiplying all the publicly tradable shares (not necessarily 100% of a company) by the share price. A good estimation of the value of a company. The brand value is just measuring 'good will' -- i.e. the intangible worth of the company once all tangible assets (buildings, data centres, licenses, etc.) have been discounted. It would be weird if this was the other way around.
Good will is really just a measure of a companies reputation and a measure of the likelihood of past and new customers doing business with the company based upon this. Market cap essentially includes good will.
feeling pessimistic for humanity's future.
"and works out what percentage is due to branding" I wonder how they do that?
I don't think it really matters; anyone who coins the name "Brandz" (presumably) with no implied irony, is clearly swivel-eyed, drooling and retarded. I'll treat their pronouncements in that light.
It seems they have done something which basically involves making up numbers and calling it research.
All very Web 2.0.