Slashdot Mirror

In every one of these threads you claim Apple phones are expensive when they're priced on par with the competing Samsung Galaxy devices.

Also you're a hypocrite, how many times have you dismissed Apple as fashion, look at your bloody comment history you troll.

In a state the fact that Apple is a cheap Chinese phone on cost and an expensive on price, what Samsung offer is Better Value Phones. Although personally I will be looking at the LG Nexus this time.

I don't discuss fashion although it is related. I discuss Brand and Mindshare which Apple spend a lot of time and trouble cultivating, and it worth more than any other brand on the planet. http://www.interbrand.com/en/knowledge/blog/post/2013-10-08/Apple-Tiger-Woods-and-the-burden-of-brand-expectations.aspx

First we get the ultrasaturated green in iOS7, and now blinking squares of ultrasaturated red to obfuscate what would otherwise be fully detailed in a table.

There's a reason that everyone hated the blink tag and MySpace. It appears the design philosphy is, however, alive and well in marketing.

For those who would prefer not to burn their eyes out: http://www.interbrand.com/en/best-global-brands/2013/top-100-list-view.aspx

The comment about the 'Top 10 brands' in the post is very misleading.

"...the sites of 10 out of 10 leading worldwide brands don't display on the iPad..."

What is actually demonstrated is that "...the sites of 10 out of 10 leading [LUXURY] brands don't display on the iPad..."

The top 10 brands (listed here: http://www.interbrand.com/best_global_brands.aspx) are:
Coca-Cola, IBM, Microsoft, GE, Nokia, McDonalds, Google, Toyota, Intel, Disney

The top 10 luxury brands reviewed in the article are:
Prada, Fendi, Moet, Cartier, Hennessy, Rolex, Channel, Gucci, Hermes, Louis Vuitton

Could we get a summary correction to specify that it's actually the Luxury brands that are looked at, not 'normal' brands? I think it's a pretty important distinction, as the luxury brands likely have much less traffic, and have traditionally not been designed for content consumption but are more advertising platforms.

The methodology for this is pretty silly. Interbrand is the known leader in research-based brand valuation and brand strength. Check out their reports at the links below. Also, note that other famous technology brand names aren't even on the list-including the beloved Apple and Google.

http://bwnt.businessweek.com/brand/2006/
http://www.interbrand.com/surveys.asp (source for the Business Week report)
http://www.ourfishbowl.com/images/surveys/Interbrand_BGB_2007.pdf

...the marketing of "Intel Inside" has lost alot of it's luster.

That is an incorrect assumption. The Interbrand survey for 2004 for top global brands put Intel at #5 with a brand value of $33.5 Billion. This is pure brand value completely apart from any product sales.

Saying "Intel Inside" still has enormous value in the marketplace.

OK, is this is rapidly evolving into a propaganda warfare by Mac fanbois. This is NOT the worldwide top brand list. The linked article is actually is based on an online poll of the readers of a certain magazine. It ends there.

The REAL leading brands in 2004 was:

1.COCA-COLA
2.MICROSOFT
3.IBM
4.GE
5.INTEL
6.DISNEY
7.McDONALDS
8.NOKIA
9.TOYOTA
10.MARLB ORO

Apple is #43 in the list. See for yourself: http://www.interbrand.com/best_brands_2004.asp. You can see the brand value in US$. An online poll is worthless in determining the brand values.

You can argue with statistics.
Isn't science, in part, the pursuit of proving theories, laws, and 'facts' false?

You have to look at A) How were the statistics gathered? B) How were the statistics analyzed? C) How were the statistics presented?
FTA, they were gathered by asking readers to respond to an online survey. Seeing as the website is called 'brandchannel.com', I would be led to believe that the majority of their readers were very brand-conscious to begin with. Also FTA, one can gather that the majority of their subscribers live in North America followed by Europe and S. Africa.

Here's some more interesting information: brandchannel.com is a subsidiary of Interbrand. Interbrand is an advertising agency some of whose clients are included in the article. Interbrand is in turn owned by the Omnicom Group. Omnicom Group is one of those scary Disney/GE-like mega-conglomorates.

So, before saying "Its [sic] just science.", you really want to look at the source of those unarguable stats.

Microsoft may be the second most widely known brand in the world, but that link doesn't even come close to proving it. Read their Criteria and Methodology. Their rating brand value, not name recognition. So people buy Microsoft products because it is Microsoft more often than they buy Sony products because they are Sony products. This does not mean that the Microsoft name is more widely recognized than Sony's is.

I've heard that John Deere is actually the second most well known brand, though I don't even pretend I have any proof for that.

Actually, Sony is not the second most-widely known brand in the world: Microsoft is. Microsoft's also the world's second largest game publisher. So what was your point again?

Lo siento mucho.

Interbrand starts with the economic profit generated by the brand to the underlying business, a similar concept to economic value added (EVA). The valuation process examines three areas: the future economic earnings the branded business is expected to generate, the role of the brand in generating those earnings, and the risk profile of the brand's expected earnings....There must be sufficient marketing and financial data publicly available for preparing a reasonable valuation (since no internal company data could be used).

Notice, brand recognition is not a factor here. Companies like Ferrari probably don't have enough publicly available information.

Not sure how well you can decouple a business model from a brand. Whereas there's stiff competition in the cola wars, the mainstream Operating System/Application markets are dominated by Microsoft. So, how can one distinguish between brand value and the value created through business practices and market position, using publicly available marketing and financial data?

Unfortunately, I don't think that answer is possible without more detailed information.

Top 75 list here. Duracell is 41st but Ferrari, Mercedes-Benz and Harley-Davidson are not on the list, surprised?

A simple perusal of Interbrand, including their summary of the survey in the BBC article, demonstrates one thing:

These guys are hardly impartial.

It's clearly a conflict of interest to produce a brand survey, obstensibly to fairly and accurately gauge the strength of well-known brands, and to promote oneself as a Brand Name Developer. I mean, these are the guys that came up with Prozac!

The above notwithstanding, it's also somewhat ludicrous to rank the Top Brands(tm) across all products and industries. How can anyone compare Coke to MS, or Intel to General Mills (the maker of Cheerios, which doesn't seem to appear in the top 10)? This list really needs to broken out into industry sectors.

I suppose that if we accept that the American (or global, perhaps) consumer is dumb enough to be swayed by the power of a brand, rather than the quality of a product, then the American manufacturer's Marketing department will be dumb enough to buy this report.

- Richie

A simple perusal of Interbrand, including their summary of the survey in the BBC article, demonstrates one thing:

These guys are hardly impartial.

It's clearly a conflict of interest to produce a brand survey, obstensibly to fairly and accurately gauge the strength of well-known brands, and to promote oneself as a Brand Name Developer. I mean, these are the guys that came up with Prozac!

The above notwithstanding, it's also somewhat ludicrous to rank the Top Brands(tm) across all products and industries. How can anyone compare Coke to MS, or Intel to General Mills (the maker of Cheerios, which doesn't seem to appear in the top 10)? This list really needs to broken out into industry sectors.

I suppose that if we accept that the American (or global, perhaps) consumer is dumb enough to be swayed by the power of a brand, rather than the quality of a product, then the American manufacturer's Marketing department will be dumb enough to buy this report.

- Richie

But in the article, the Interbrand consultants say that for many companies, their brands are their most important asset, estimated at more than half their total stock market value.

Maybe there's a relationship between stock market valuation and total tangible assets? But Microsoft lost over $100bn in market cap recently, while Microsoft's brand value increased by 24%.

Hmmm. Maybe the only way to learn about their brand valuation methodology, is to spend $10K on a presentation ;)

But in the article, the Interbrand consultants say that for many companies, their brands are their most important asset, estimated at more than half their total stock market value.

Maybe there's a relationship between stock market valuation and total tangible assets? But Microsoft lost over $100bn in market cap recently, while Microsoft's brand value increased by 24%.

Hmmm. Maybe the only way to learn about their brand valuation methodology, is to spend $10K on a presentation ;)