Advertisement: Kensington Windshield Mount for iPhone (K33412US) only $16.99
“Calculating the value of a company’s brand is as much an art as a science because it requires looking at an array of factors,” McIntyre writes. “The two largest brand valuations firm — BrandZ and Interbrand — come up with radically different numbers for the same companies or products. Each of the brand valuation operations give general descriptions of their methodologies, but keep many details of their calculations secret.”
McIntyre writes, “Using the firms’ data as a reference, 24/7 Wall St. chose 10 big-name brands operating in the U.S. that have lost substantial chunks of their brand valuations in the first half of this year. We then examined a whole host of other criteria, including the value the brand has to its parent company’s market capitalization, the change in stock price over the first six months of the year compared to both the S&P 500 and firms in its peer group (each of these company’s stocks underperformed the broader market during the time) and the company’s earnings for the 2009 calendar year and the first quarter of 2010. Of course, another consideration was whether the company had a major negative event that made headlines.”
The 10 Biggest Brand Disasters of 2010:
1. BP (BP)
Brand value Jan. 1, 2010: $20 billion.
Brand value June 30, 2010: $0.
Change: -100%
2. Dell (DELL)
Brand value Jan. 1, 2010: $16 billion.
Brand value June 30, 2010: $9 billion.
Change: -44%.
3. Adobe (ADBE)
Brand value Jan. 1, 2010: $7 billion.
Brand value June 30, 2010: $4 billion.
Change: -43%.
Apple has damaged the prospects of several of the companies on this list, but none more than Adobe. Its Flash player has been the dominant multimedia software on the PC, a position it took from Microsoft and RealNetworks (RNWK) years ago. But Flash needs to migrate to mobile devices, where Apple has very effectively blocked a portion of that migration by refusing to allow Flash software onto its iPhones, iPods and iPads.
In April, Jobs wrote: “Flash was created during the PC era for PCs and mice. The mobile era is about low power devices, touch interfaces and open Web standards, all areas where Flash falls short.” Ouch.
Adobe’s stock dropped from $35 the day that Jobs wrote the statement to $32.50 five trading days later. Apple’s App store, which has over 200,000 applications and claims in excess of 3 billion downloads, allows Jobs’s company to almost entirely control what kind of software and multimedia technology runs on its products. Apple also forbids Adobe’s Creative Suite software to run on its devices.
MacDailyNews Note: Apple does not “forbid Adobe’s Creative Suite software to run on its devices.” Apple forbids Adobe’s crappy mobile Flash from running on iOS devices.
Google’s Android, however, runs Flash — so all is not lost in mobile devices.
Adobe recently posted strong sales, but concerns about its mobile future still dog the company
4. Sony (SNE)
Brand value Jan. 1, 2010: $12 billion.
Brand value June 30, 2010: $7 billion.
Change: -42%.
5. Goldman Sachs (GS)
Brand value Jan. 1, 2010: $16 billion.
Brand value June 30, 2010: $10 billion.
Change: -38%.
6. Research In Motion (RIMM)
Brand value Jan. 1, 2010: $25 billion.
Brand value June 30, 2010: $16 billion.
Change: -36%.
RIM’s BlackBerry dominated the smartphone market from 2002 until 2009. But then it began losing its grip thanks largely to the Apple’s (AAPL) iPhone. Google’s Android-based phones, as well as smartphones from LG, Motorola and Samsung have also helped erode RIM’s lead. Recent data from Changewave, a well-regarded wireless research firm, showed that in June, 52% of people polled said they planned to buy an iPhone (up from 31% in March), 19% planned to buy an Android-powered HTC phone (up from 12%) and only 6% planned to buy a BlackBerry (down from 14%). Recent data from research company Comscore show a similar shift but not nearly as dramatic.
7. Nokia (NOK)
Brand value Jan. 1, 2010: $40 billion.
Brand value June 30, 2010: $27 billion.
Change: -33%.
Even though Nokia reins [sic] as the largest manufacturer of mobile handsets in the world and claims up to 37% of the global market, it has failed to gain traction in high-end smartphones. Its shares have plummeted 67% in the three years since Apple started selling the iPhone, and now it’s rumored that Nokia’s board is shopping around for a new CEO to replace current chief Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo.
Nokia has virtually surrendered the high-end smartphone market to the iPhone, BlackBerry and Android-powered handsets. The loss in market share is beginning to take a toll on Nokia’s financial performance.
8. Johnson & Johnson (JNJ)
Brand value Jan. 1, 2010: $45 billion.
Brand value June 30, 2010: $33 billion.
Percent change: -27%.
9. Google (GOOG)
Brand value Jan. 1, 2010: $100 billion.
Brand value June 30, 2010: $74 Billion.
Change: -26%.
10. Toyota (TM)
Brand value Jan. 1, 2010: $30 billion.
Brand value June 30, 2010: $24 billion.
Change: -20%.
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Apple the Destroyer.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Wirehead” for the heads up.]
J&J you got to be kidding me? For what? No I don’t think so. This is one of Buffets largest holdings.
They forgot FreeCreditReport.com, who got sued and lost for not really being free, couldn’t re-sign their popular lipsyncing French Canadian band, changed their brand to FreeCreditScore.com – which still isn’t free so will be sued/fined again plus is also being sued by freescore.com – and got only a handful of bad bands to audition for their new band competition.
JJ
Apple sells matte screens on their laptops as an option. Apple isn’t arrogant, by what standard? Like others comment, Apple gives the best consumer experience. That’s what sells. Apple has pride not arrogance.
Also: JJ isn’t @JJ
@JJ is correct. Google turned evil.
It already happened to Apple back in the 90’s, and it’ll only happen if they become controlled by marketers a la Microsoft or, well, Apple in the 90’s…
Speaking of which, sorry but no, Apple isn’t the new Microsoft as they’ve done nothing to warrent that title. The new Microsoft would most definitely be Google. They’ve done plenty to warrent it.
Now how about an example of Apple being “arrogant”? That meme gets thrown around an awful lot by atroturfers like you, but when it comes time to actually prove it, you always come up curiously blank.
Glossy screens sure don’t count, because as your petition shows, the outrage against Apple for favouring them is laughably small. Hmm… Maybe that’s because people with functioning braincells realize that they can just swap out their Macbook’s screen for a matte one, or connect a second monitor to their iMac if they hate glossy? Or use an anti-glare film, or not have their computers face a window, or check the option for a matte screen when they buy a 15/17 inch Macbook Pro?
Like Antennagate, Glossy Screen Outrage(TM) is artifically manufactured backlash. Also like Antennagate, it failed to work.
So why are you beating this deader-than-dead horse again, exactly?
MW: give. As in give it up, JJ.
No worries. DELL STREAK will make its mark on the market… On second thought, yuck, phew, stinky.
To those simpletons who label Apple as being the new Microsoft, just because Apple is now bigger… my sympathy to you for being locked in your tiny world of confusion. Please, don’t try to walk and breathe at the same time…
@Jersey_Trader
FULL-HDTV 1080p streaming is ALL about bandwidth. And that we ain’t got. And THAT we won’t see for quite some time. And out in the boonies, they may NEVER see it.
The US simply has too much land mass, unlike Japan and Europe, to hit every corner with that type of technology. Some form of high-bandwidth satellite broadcast is probably the only viable solution for that.
As for a mythical and oh-so Microsoftian concept of a “Home Media Center”, EVERY Mac does ALL that except for Full-HD and Blu-ray support. A $100 Blu-ray player covers the FULL-HD part of it quite nicely AND they upsample DVDs to 1080p. My Sony Blu-ray player cost $300, BTW and BFD.
Apple is Recession Proof !!!
Thats a Fact !!!!!!
The bigger they are the harder they fall. Pay attention apple.
Wow. Six of these ten disasters (Dell, Adobe, Sony, RIMM, Nokia, Google) are due to the inertia these companies are experiencing in the wake of Apple’s recent seismic movements.
Apple has moved the ground under their feet and they don’t know which way is up anymore. Quite unbelievable.
nice detailed post!!!
SAP Online Training
Apple is going after Johnson & Johnson next!
And any ‘Professional’ who is doing color correction on any laptop screen by eye is no professional. Real professionals shoot grey cards and pay attention to histograms.
During tough times people really look very hard for value when making purchases and this reflects heavily on the brand value. They don’t think “if this one sucks I’ll get a new one next year” – they are thinking “I better get something that is high quality and won’t be obsolete within a year, because I need it to last 2 years.”
Take the Blackberry for example – the trackball thingy always breaks – I know so many people with disabled Blackberry’s… now they’ve introduced a phone with a slider keyboard and trackball thingy, the Torch – so there’s one more thing to break – but hey, when it does, you’ve got a crappy iPhone imitation.
Sony used to release iconic products with daring high concept designs. Sony got conservative in design and overly complex in product interface with buttons and features multiplying like guppies and then Apple out-Sony’d the original Sony with the iPod replacing the WalkMan brand. The Wii is a much more elegant and simple design than the PS3, so it is more fun for more people while the PS3 limits its audience due to complexity.
Google – does google understand what a brand is? Do they understand QA?
“… Brand recognition has been recognized as having measurable value since before I studied Marketing in college. That would be in the 60s. Brand most certainly DOES have value and it must be recorded in the books. Companies occasionally twiddle with this number a bit when they are in some sort of trouble or are up for sale, but this can bite them in the end.”
I’m not saying that brands in general have value. I’m saying that almost no part of Adobe’s value as a corporation is attributable to their brand.
People will choose a Coke or a hamburger from McDonalds based on their perception of the brand, they’ll buy a custom integrated back office solution from IBM, simply because of the value embodied in their brand. The promise that comes with the name and history attached to the product or service.
You can slap the Polaroid name can be slapped on a cheap Chinese DVD player to add $15 to the selling price. That’s as good an example of a brand having a real, tangible value as I can think of (and the only thing of note that Polaroid had done since Dr. Land died was go bankrupt).
Adobe doesn’t seem to work that way. Every new product or platform Adobe has launched has had to stand (or fail) on it’s own merits (or was purchased after having established a market). The closest example I can think of where Adobe’s brand really played a role was when they launched InDesign. The brand definitely helped them move into that market (the brand, and the fact that there was good integration with 2 existing products with wide adoption). On the other hand, that was a long time ago.
Could someone leverage Adobe’s brand to the tune of $4 billion? Sure. I suppose so. But not Adobe’s current management.
Oops. That should read “I’m not saying that brands in general have NO value.”
JJ you say brands don’t last I beg to differ, Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, Kellog, Dupont, J P Morgan, Morgan Stanly, Exxon (Standard Oil), Coca Cola, Ford, I think by now you get my point many of these companies started in the 1800’s the younger ones in the early 1900’s.
A recnet academic study of the most influential brands in history does not even list Apple it’s to young to have created the economic impact of
companies like Ford.