Slashdot Mirror
Google Overtakes Apple As the World's Most Valuable Brand
mrspoonsi (2955715) writes in with news that global market research agency Millward Brown has proclaimed Google as the world's most valuable brand. "US search engine Google has overtaken rival technology titan Apple as the world's top brand in terms of value, global market research agency Millward Brown said Wednesday. Google's brand value shot up 40 percent in a year to $158.84 billion (115 billion euros), Millward Brown said in its 2014 100 Top BrandZ report. 'Google has been extremely innovative this year with Google Glass, investments in artificial intelligence and a range of partnerships,' said Benoit Tranzer, the head of Millward Brown France. Apple, which dominated the top position for three straight years, saw its brand value fall by 20 percent to $147.88 billion."
20 years ago, Cisco was the world's most-valuable company.
Open source friendly company as most expensive brand out there... I wonder what MS fans will say now?
"Brand value is calculated on the basis of the firms' financial performance and their standing among consumers."
Their methodology is completely proprietary and unpublished so I'm not sure how much faith I have in the ranking.
http://www.millwardbrown.com/B...
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Something is wrong, somewhere, IMO. This Slashdot story is apparently about a PR release by Millward Brown, which is owned by Kantar Group, which is owned by WPP. Notice that the WPP web site is badly coded. It doesn't adjust for font size choices in browser configuration. The web site has, to my eyes, an ugly, cheap look.
See this Slashdot story: Google Foresees Ads On Your Refrigerator, Thermostat, and Glasses. Look at the comments. I'm not the only person to think something has become crazy at Google. Here are more: Why I'm Sending Back Google Glass and Apple, Google Agree To Settle Lawsuit Alleging Hiring Conspiracy.
Maybe this Slashdot story is about a PR release paid for by Google? Or Millward Brown is trying to advertise itself? Apparently "brand value" doesn't say much that is logical about how a company is managed, but just means that you should respect a company because a company is getting a lot of attention.
I can buy an iPhone, iPad, Windows OS, Microsoft Office (or it's subscription). What exactly does Google sell apart from Ads (and our data)? Google Fiber is not available worldwide. Gmail is awesome even when free. Google glass does not seem like it will be usable because of the backlash. How does Google's brand value serve them when compared to the likes of Apple & Microsoft?
...it is destroying society. What a great marketplace we have.
Using brand value to characterize the performance of a company is roughly equivalent to using Kerbal Space Program to plan supply missions to the ISS,
Can I get some flame war butter for my fan boy popcorn please.
I might not understand, but how is it that an advertising company can be so profitable? More profitable than the companies who make the actual products?
Ads are demanded by business, espcially big business. It doesn't matter if society wants ads, if ads are harmful by distorting society's views, creating false demand (see broken window fallacy), or at least wasting everyone's time.
If corporations pay for ads, ads will happen. And corporate money matters much more than society does in today's world.
--Coder
I suppose it really depends on your definition of "value."
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
From the report: Brand Value Change: Google +40%
In a huge company, what changes 40% in a year?
If it weren't free, I wouldn't bother with it.
In other words, it isn't worth paying for.
And in some cases, it isn't even worth registering for an account - like Slashdot. I mean really, register or worse, subscribe to read stories that I've read days ago? And on very rare occasions, read a comment from an insider.
You ask "what exactly does google sell apart from ads". This misses the point. Google makes loads of money from ads. Everything else is really there to make sure that nothing interferes with that. Android? Google doesn't care about 'phones per se... what they care about is loads of Iphones that don't have google as the default search provider. Chrome? same thing, get a decent market share of the web browser market and you're protected against directing traffic away from google one way or the other... and so it goes.
" that a battery company would hold the throne"
They used to call artillery the 'king of battle' but in todays urban combat environment you still need the 'boots on the ground' of the infantry company to go house to house door to door etc and of course find and spot the targets for the artillery battery
A new face for EVIL.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
"We're a PR company and we'd really like to win Google's business, so we hereby announce that Google is the bestest brand in the world. According to our secret criterion. Which we can't tell you because then it wouldn't be secret."
Their list http://www.millwardbrown.com/brandz/2014/Top100/Docs/2014_BrandZ_Top100_Chart.pdf talks about Top 100 Most Valuable "Global" Brands 2014
How are Verizon and Wells Fargo so high in "Global" ranking when their operations are primarily in the US!
Most of the world would not have even heard of them!
"... why WPP is so successful - it makes a fortune running FUD campaigns against a target for a client with one subsidiary then gets another to sell a counter campaign to the target of the original FUD campaign."
"... running an arms race where you're selling to both sides of the battle with thinly veiled pretenses of independence of subsidiaries of the parent company, but it's not ethical, and it's not new."
Maybe that is the explanation I was hoping to find. It certainly seems that we must look deeper than just the article. Something is wrong.
Translation: We've been trying to get Apple's business for the past few years without luck. Time to see if Google will bite.
And really, they noticed Google Glass only now?
Yes, in theory government should check the power of corporations. However, in most capitalist democracies sooner or later corporations gain enough power and influence and governments stop serving people and starts serving interests of big business.
:)
That happens especially easily in small countries when huge multinationals come in. Or in places like USA where lobbying (aka bribes for politicians) is fully legal and two party system makes it impossible to get the corrupt politicians out of government.
I used to believe that communism doesn't work. Well, it doesn't. But what they forgot to tell us is that capitalist democracies don't work that well either... They degenerate into corporate oligarchies...
Sorry for the rant
--Coder
No single company is truly worth what they say. It's a racket, like health care. Google could disappear tomorrow and the world would adapt almost immediately. Same for Apple. There is always somebody waiting in the wings. Nothing is irreplaceable. I say this somewhat lightly because I actually use no services or hardware/software from either vendor. I dislike the notion of walled in gardens, so I don't use anyone's ecosystem. And, no, I don't use Android, iOS, or Windows. I'm rather a spartan techie by choice. I do IT for a living, but I somewhat despise dealing with computers outside of work. I don't even carry a mobile phone on the weekends, nor do I check my mail. Marketers hate me, techies think I'm anathema. I have to deal with the digital world for a few days a week, but short of that time, I ignore technology for family, fishing, books, a little TV.
Apple's done real damage to the usefulness of their brand with the idiotic reskin of iOS (iOS 7) and the dumbing down of the Mac OS with a focus on adding useless distracting animations that are difficult (or near impossible to turn off) and a worse looking UI (all white, less detail, less functional area delineation, less crisp) post Snow Leopard.
Apple is now clearly putting fluff ahead of function and isn't allowing users to disable new unwanted and distracting features that offer no benefit to usability.
It bums me out.
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...