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."

Comments

Brand value?

[Sockatume]

"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Their methodology is completely proprietary and unpublished so I'm not sure how much faith I have in the ranking.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...

Re:Sic transit gloria mundi.

[Bob_Who]

20 years ago, Cisco was the world's most-valuable company.

Bombay Company stock is down, too.

Misleading?

[Futurepower(R)]

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.

Re:Misleading?

[Sockatume]

It's definitely Millward Brown trying to advertise itself, or rather its "Brand Value" metric, rather than Google or anyone else. The financial metrics are all public information, but an analysis firm needs something proprietary to sell; all the better if it's ostensibly quantitative.

Re:Misleading?

[clarkkent09]

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.
 
Not sure what your point is regarding the web site design. There is no way to accurately measure the brand value but these rankings are legit as far as being respected and widely reported in serious press each year.

Here is a better story than the one linked: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/d8ea...

Here are the full rankings: http://www.millwardbrown.com/b...

Brand Value?

[ketomax]

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?

Re:And...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't blame the market for supplying what society demands.

Re:And...

[justthinkit]

People demand free.
Ads pay for free.

Re:And...

[CastrTroy]

The question is, how much would you pay to access Google without ads? If they started offering a solution without ads for $2 a month would it be worth it to you? Sure, they probably don't make $2 worth of ad clicks off most people, but arranging the billing system for millions for users would make the system much more costly to run. So, now we got Google without ads. That's $2 a month. Then add Slashdot. Maybe they only charge $0.50 a month. Add on facebook, that's another $2 a month. Reddit might be $1 a month. New York Times, there's another $1. Pretty soon the number start to add up and you're easily paying $20 a month just to access websites without ads. Maybe somebody gets a whole bunch of sites together so you can pay 1 fee to access all the sites that use this service ad free. But there's sites still not using this service so you end up paying others to be ad-free.

To make any of the above work, you have to be logged in any time you are accessing the ad-free sites you are paying for, so they have a flawless way of tracking all the pages you are visiting on their site. Currently I can go to Google in Incognito mode, do some searches, and then next time I come back, I'm a completely different person, so tracking is limited. With a service you pay for, you are logged in, so they are able to accumulate a lot of information about you.