Best Global Brands 2006

A Ranking by Brand Value

Best

Global

Brands 2006

In co-operation with BusinessWeek, Interbrand is pleased to pres- ent our annual ranking of the Best Global Brands by brand value.

We firmly believe that brands are economic assets and must be managed as such. That is what makes our approach valuable and informative for those who own and manage brands for competitive advantage.

The most powerful ideas are simple, and brands adhere to the same rules. Creating simple, but powerful differentiation in the minds of your customers, your staff, indeed all of your stakeholders, requires a clear and compelling vision that is expressed in everything you do; from product to service, through environments, to the people you hire and the way you talk about yourself. Maintaining such simplicity throughout the complex systems, processes and politics that characterize modern business is a considerable task requiring absolute focus, passion and conviction. No wonder then, that as competition increases, brands are playing an ever increasing role in business strategy.

It is now common knowledge that branding is fundamental to busi- ness success, which is why the Best Global Brands is one of the top three published business rankings in the world. At Interbrand

Our valuation process allows us to establish the brand as a finan- cial asset that creates significant shareholder value. As branding experts, we commend the companies that have managed to create and sustain strong brands in today’s competitive market. It should be noted that this is not a ranking of the world’s most popular brands but, rather, of those brands that have generated the greatest economic return for their owners.

Global businesses still have lessons to learn about investing in and managing their brands for value creation, and we congratulate the companies on the list for their effective stewardship of this impor- tant corporate asset.

Sincerely,

Best

Global

Brands 2006

Lessons Learned from Global Branding 4

Why the Ranking is Important 8

The Interbrand Method for Valuing Brands 9

Best Global Brands 2006 11

Brand Commentary and Insights 15

Contacts and Additional Information 19

Frequently Asked Questions 20

About Interbrand 27

Creating and Managing Brand Value 28

Table

of Contents

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Appendices 7.

8.

9.

PAGE

I N T R O D U C T I O N

This annual Best Global Brands report of brand value generates great interest and debate. A recurring question is whether being global affords a brand more benefits than being a geographically- niche focused one. As well, many brand owners are interested in the attributes shared by successful global brands. Interbrand’s work with leading global brands, and the conclusions reached through our ranking indicate significant implications for brands that choose to operate globally or those that operate regionally but wish to employ the principles of successful global brand management.

The criteria for this study state that a global brand must achieve more than a third of its sales outside of its home country and have a visible external market presence. A global brand is one that is available in many nations and, though it may differ from country to country, the localized versions have a common goal and a similar identity. The brand’s positioning, advertising strategy, personality, look and feel are, in most respects, the same but allow for regional customization. What remains consistent from market-to-market, are the values communicated and delivered by the brand.

T H E AT T R A C T I O N O F G LO B A L B R A N D I N G

Going global appears highly attractive. It represents a percep- tion of excellence but comes with a set of challenges that many do not anticipate or adequately plan for. It is daunting to achieve a competitively relevant presence in all strategic markets with an identical set of core values. Companies must harness the coher- ence and scale of a global brand, as well as the closeness of a local brand if they wish to succeed. This is often referred to as the 70/30 principle. This flexible rule-of-thumb dictates that 70% of the brand must remain absolutely consistent and 30% is given flexibility, market-to-market.

It has been stated that companies do not choose to go global, rather, the market forces them to do so. Interbrand has witnessed many brands that have attempted to be successful outside of their home borders and end up being neither truly global nor appro- priately local. The decision to take a brand global (or to several markets from its market of origin) is driven by fundamental strategic opportunities, such as

• Size and attractiveness of market

• Commoditization in market of origin

1.

Lessons

Learned from

Global Branding

However, each of these opportunities has considerable brand implications that require attention prior to setting out to conquer the world. Interbrand has observed numerous situations where a company is enamored with geographic expansion. Their due diligence has appeared rigorous but in reality is constrained solely to financial analysis. Market, culture, buyer behavior, current brand loyalties, and many other dimensions, may be considered only tangentially, if at all.

The risks of taking a brand global must be carefully weighed or the damage to the brand can be irrevocable. These risks include but are not limited to:

• Assuming the brand communicates the same meaning market- to-market, resulting in message confusion

• Over-standardizing or over-simplifying the brand and its man- agement, resulting in a culture of discouraged innovation at the local level

• Use of the wrong (or tried-and-true) communications channels, resulting in inappropriate spending and ineffective impact

• Underestimating the investment in spending and time for a market to become aware of the brand, try it, and adopt it

• Not investing in internal branding to ensure regional employees understand the brand values and benefits that are to be communicated and delivered consistently

• Failing to modulate performance metrics based on local vari- ables

Assuming the business strategy calls for going global, and the analysis provides support for the strategy the company must ask whether it has the culture, organization, and processes that lend themselves to developing a truly global brand.

W H AT P R I N C I P L E S G O V E R N A N D G U I D E G LO B A L B R A N D S ? Self-examination at the company level is required to ensure the critical success factors are in place to take the brand to other mar- kets. Interbrand has identified a consistent set of principles shared by the Best Global Brands and those coming close to making the ranking.

Recognition

Well-performing brands enjoy strong awareness among consumers and opinion leaders. These brands lead their industry or industries.

Think BMW. Car aficionados, reviewers, and loyal customers laud it with equal enthusiasm. It has come to symbolize “performance”

in engineering and design while signifying that the owner has

“arrived” on a personal and professional level. This type of recogni- tion represents the nexus of perception and reality enabling brands to rapidly establish credibility in new markets.

Consistency

Best brands achieve a high degree of consistency in visual, verbal, auditory, and tactile identity across geographies. They deliver a consistent customer experience worldwide, often supported by an integrated, global marketing effort. McDonald’s is a tremendous example of a brand that has returned to its roots by shedding distracting acquisitions, simplifying the core offer, and adhering to a shared message globally. At the same time, McDonald’s appro- priately modifies its approaches for greater regional relevance.

Restaurants in France are more “café-like” in appearance and the menu is tailored to the local culture. Espresso is in quick supply and the chairs are neither molded plastic nor bolted to the floor.

Emotion

A brand is not a brand unless it competes along emotional dimen-

sions. It must symbolize a promise that people believe it can deliver

and one they desire to be part of. This allows brands to achieve the

loyalty of consumers by tapping into human values and aspirations

that cut across cultural differences. Nike has appealed to the ath-

lete in all, regardless of true physical ability, allowing for a focused

message targeted to the mass-market. This has elevated the discus-

1. The State of Global Branding

Uniqueness

Great brands represent great ideas. These brands express the uniqueness of position to all internal and external audiences. They effectively utilize all elements in the communications mix to posi- tion themselves within and across international markets. Apple has creatively addressed its marketing mix while ensuring its people embody its most ownable and beneficial brand attribute: innova- tion. The company has once again come to represent leading-edge technology solutions that become a part of day-to-day life. Apple is embedded tangibly and emotionally in their consumers’ habits and practices.

Adaptability

A global brand must respect local needs, wants, and tastes. These brands adapt to the local marketplace while fulfilling a global mission. HSBC has invested in that very message by conveying its excellence in financial services, along with its deep knowledge of local custom and practice. In essence, it is communicating a

“glocal” advantage.

Management

The organization’s senior leadership must champion the brand, ideally with the CEO leading the initiative. A leader’s continual articulation of the brand philosophy and the brand’s view of the world is meant to give the business strategy a recognizable face.

This commitment is crucial, allowing for a unique positioning that transcends local idiosyncrasies and appeals to a universal aspect of human nature and experience. It is a major step in ensuring that the corporate culture will put the brand at the heart of everything it does.

This list is by no means finite. There are many other factors that must be considered, including superior products, processes, and people; a strong track record of being customer-centric in the country of origin; uncompromised ethical practices; and continual focus on creativity and innovation.

M A N A G I N G B R A N D S G LO B A L LY

Successful global brands operate from clear principles already discussed. Yet these principles require active management.

Interbrand has identified several management traits that are employed by leading global brands.

Seek Out Insights

Outstanding brands identify customer insights. When these insights are shared across cultures they assist in a brand’s adop- tion globally. The Economist brand appeals to its audience because

“they know when they are in the know.” This club-like association appeals in most cultures and can help to explain the success of the magazine. Once this insight is in place, the brand must ensure that customer perceive it consistently throughout the world. While over 60% of Mercedes Benz’s sales are in Europe, the brand’s associa- tions with prestige and quality are global.

Integrate Local Intelligence

Brand guidelines are tremendous tools for ensuring consistency.

However, they have been known to impede innovation and diminish relevance. Brands are dynamic, never static, so the management of them must integrate new thought. In the case of global brands, to assume that one message can appeal uniformly to all audiences with equal relevance is unrealistic. Well-managed global brands cull local markets for intelligence related to the “next big thing” to ensure local relevance and to counter competitor’s moves.

1. The State of Global Branding

The Team

Global brands demand a global brand management team. This regional and international organization is in place to maintain brand leadership. Companies with large brand portfolios tend to have separate managers for each brand. Regardless, global brand man- agers have the authority and resources necessary to implement key decisions based on performance measurement. The brand manage- ment team reports to a senior executive officer of the company and, ideally, the CEO has direct involvement in brand decisions.

Global brand management teams implement processes to create, review, and improve brand performance. This frequently takes the form of a wider brand management council that can include repre- sentatives of business units and agency partners.

Investment

Intangible assets, including brand, now comprise the majority of the value of a company. These assets require capital investment like any other. Progressive companies and enlightened manage- ment recognize the need for appropriate communications spending.

However, CEOs and CFOs are not signing any blank checks – they are demanding objective and quantifiable measurement of return to substantiate any investment.

Measurement Systems

In order to sustain a global brand’s long-term position, there must be consistent and widespread brand equity measurement. This will not only help brand development by highlighting and demonstrating best practices, but it will also provide the brand management team with a means of monitoring global consistency. This equity mea- surement should include top-of-mind awareness, overall opinion (preference, satisfaction, loyalty, recommendation), brand image attributes, perceptions of product/service performance, and brand valuation, to determine the financial contribution of brand to the balance sheet.

C O N C LU S I O N S

Ambiguity is an undeniable aspect of global branding. Consistency is constantly preached, yet it is critical to allow for flexibility in the face of different customs, languages, and purchase behavior. What is clear is the need to follow core principles and management practices when choosing to take a brand global. However, this is not a prescription for success. As every company and brand are dif- ferent, these principles and practices will be applied uniquely. What separates the winners from the losers is a resolute commitment to rigorous strategic, creative, and innovative execution.

Global branding is tempting and offers numerous rewards, but the risks exist in equal number. Assuming the business strategy calls for going global, and the analysis provides support for the strat- egy, the company must perform a self-examination and determine whether it has the culture, organization and processes that lend themselves to developing a truly global brand.

1. The State of Global Branding

Why the Ranking

is Important

S I G N I F I C A N C E O F T H E R A N K I N G

The Best Global Brands report provides a brand value that is a top- line measure of economic performance driven by the brand, stating what the brand is worth overall and among competitors. Brand value brings to marketing what “revenue goals” or “financial hurdle rates” bring to other aspects of the business.

The payoff comes when one looks behind the number – a single number only tells you so much. It’s important to understand what drives brand value: intangible earnings (the cash flow of a business not associated with tangible assets such as equipment or materi- als), the role of brand (a measure of how much brand influences purchasing decisions), and brand strength (a benchmark of a brand’s relative risk compared to competitors).

Understanding the drivers of brand value can inform management action, from overall business strategy to specific marketing tactics.

It’s an easy-to-understand metric to help brand owners determine where they are, where they are going, and how to get there. It will help make branding a more important aspect of global business management.

It tells you whether you are investing adequately in your brand.

Putting an economic value on a brand (overall and by segment) can help make a strong business case for marketing investments, overall and across the portfolio.

It tells you whether you have a marketing strategy that positions your brand around the right messages. Your customers make deci- sions every day between you and your competitors. Analyzing the role of brand in those decisions helps you to focus your strategy on the attributes that differentiate your brand from others and to strengthen your relationship with your best customers, ensuring future earnings.

It tells you whether you have the right short-term tactics to drive value. By analyzing the strength of your brand, you can target mar- keting campaigns to the most valuable customers, and against your most formidable competitors, to drive short-term sales.

There will be many “take-aways” from this ranking, but there is one primary message: brands are important assets requiring proactive and consistent investment, management, and measurement.

2.

C R I T E R I A F O R C O N S I D E R AT I O N

Using our database of global brands, populated with critical infor- mation over the past 30 years, Interbrand formed an initial consid- eration set. All were then subject to the following criteria, which narrowed candidates significantly:

• Must be a publicly traded company

• Must have at least one-third of revenues outside of their country of origin

• Must be a market-facing brand

• Economic Value Added (EVA) must be positive

• The brand must not have a purely b2b single audience with no wider public profile and awareness

These criteria exclude brands such as Mars, which is privately held, and Wal-Mart which is not sufficiently global (it does business in some international markets but not under the Wal-Mart brand).

The Interbrand Method for

Valuing Brands

M E T H O D O LO G Y

The Interbrand method for valuing brands is a proven, straightfor- ward and meaningful formula that examines brands through the lens of financial strength, importance in driving consumer selec- tion and the likelihood of ongoing branded revenue. Our method evaluates brands much like analysts would value any other asset: on the basis of how much they’re likely to earn in the future. There are three core components to our proprietary method:

Financial Analysis

Our approach to valuation starts by forecasting the current and future revenue specifically attributable to the branded products.

The cost of doing business (operating costs, taxes) and intangibles such, as patents and management strength, are subtracted to assess what portion of those earnings is due to the brand.

All financial analysis for the Best Global Brands is based on pub- licly available company information. Interbrand culls from a range of analyst reports to build a consensus estimate for financial reporting.

3 .

3. The Interbrand Method for Valuing Brands

Role of Brand Analysis

A measure of how the brand influences customer demand at the point of purchase is applied to the intangible earnings to arrive at branded earnings.

For this report, industry benchmark analysis for the role brand plays in driving customer demand is derived from Interbrand’s database of more than 4,000 prior valuations conducted over the course of 20 years. In-market research is used to establish individual brand scores against our industry benchmarks.

Brand Strength Analysis

This is a benchmark of the brand’s ability to secure ongoing cus- tomer demand (loyalty, repurchase, and retention) and thus sustain future earnings, translating branded earnings into net present value.

This assessment is a structured way of determining the specific risk to the strength of the brand. We compare the brand against com- mon factors of brand strength, such as market position, customer franchise, image, and support.

Brand Value Calculations Financial Analysis

Forecasted current and future revenue specifically attributable to the brand.

Role of Brand Analysis A measure of how the brand influences customer demand at the point of purchase.

Brand Strength Analysis A benchmark of the brand’s ability to secure ongoing customer demand (loyalty, repurchase, retention).

Branded Revenues

Brand Strength Analysis

= Discount rate

Brand Value Role of Brand Analysis

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Intangible Earnings

Brand Earnings

Best

Global Brands 2006

Rank Brand Country of origin Sector

2006 Brand Value ($m)

Change in brand value

1 Coca-Cola US Beverages 67,0 0 0 -1%

2 Microsoft US Computer Software 56, 926 -5%

3 IBM US Computer Ser vices 56, 201 5%

4 GE US Diversified 48, 907 4%

5 Intel US Computer Hardware 32, 319 -9%

6 Nokia Finland Telecom Equipment 30,131 14%

7 Toyota Japan Automotive 27, 941 12%

8 Disney US Media/Entertainment 27, 848 5%

9 McDonald’s US Restaurants 27, 501 6%

10 Mercedes Germany Automotive 21,795 9%

11 Citi US Financial Ser vices 21,458 7%

12 Marlboro US Tobacco 21, 350 1%

13 Hewlett-Packard US Computer Hardware 20,458 8%

14 American Express US Financial Ser vices 19,6 41 6%

15 BMW Germany Automotive 19,617 15%

16 Gillette US Personal Care 19, 579 12%

17 Louis Vuitton France Luxury 17,6 06 10%

18 Cisco US Computer Ser vices 17, 532 6%

19 Honda Japan Automotive 17,049 8%

20 Samsung South Korea Consumer Electronics 16,16 9 8%

21 Merrill Lynch US Financial Ser vices 13,0 01 8%

4.

Rank Brand Country of origin Sector

2006 Brand Value ($m)

Change in brand value

26 Sony Japan Consumer Electronics 11,6 95 9%

27 Budweiser US Alcohol 11,6 62 -2%

28 HSBC UK Financial Ser vices 11,622 11%

29 Oracle US Computer Software 11,459 5%

30 Ford US Automotive 11,056 -16%

31 Nike US Sporting Goods 10, 8 97 8%

32 UPS US Transportation 10,712 8%

33 JPMorgan US Financial Ser vices 10, 205 8%

34 SAP Germany Computer Software 10,0 07 11%

35 Canon Japan Computer Hardware 9, 96 8 10%

36 Morgan Stanley US Financial Ser vices 9,762 0%

37 Goldman Sachs US Financial Ser vices 9,6 40 13%

38 P fizer US Pharmaceuticals 9, 591 -4%

39 Apple US Computer Hardware 9,130 14%

40 Kellogg’s US Food 8,776 6%

41 Ikea Sweden Home Furnishings 8,76 3 12%

42 UBS Switzerland Financial Ser vices 8,734 15%

43 Novar tis Switzerland Pharmaceuticals 7, 880 2%

44 Siemens Germany Diversified 7, 828 4%

45 Harley-Davidson US Automotive 7,739 5%

46 Gucci Italy Luxury 7,158 8%

47 eBay US Internet Ser vices 6,755 18%

48 Philips Netherlands Diversified 6,730 14%

49 Accenture Bermuda Computer Ser vices 6,728 10%

50 MT V US Media/Entertainment 6,627 0%

51 Nintendo Japan Consumer Electronics 6, 559 1%

52 Gap US Apparel 6,416 -22%

53 L’Oreal France Personal Care 6, 392 6%

54 Heinz US Food 6, 223 -10%

55 Yahoo! US Internet Ser vices 6,056 15%

56 Volkswagen Germany Automotive 6,032 7%

57 Xerox US Computer Hardware 5, 918 4%

58 Colgate US Personal Care 5,6 33 9%

59 Wrigley’s US Food 5,449 -2%

6 0 KFC US Restaurants 5, 350 5%

61 Chanel France Luxury 5,156 8%

4. Best Global Brands

Rank Brand Country of origin Sector

2006 Brand Value ($m)

Change in brand value

6 6 Pizza Hut US Restaurants 4,6 94 -5%

67 Danone France Food 4,6 38 3%

6 8 Caterpillar US Machinery 4, 580 12%

6 9 Motorola US Telecom Equipment 4, 56 9 18%

70 Kodak US Consumer Electronics 4,406 -12%

71 adidas Germany Sporting Goods 4, 290 6%

72 Rolex Switzerland Luxury 4, 237 8%

73 Zara Spain Apparel 4, 235 14%

74 Audi Germany Automotive 4,165 13%

75 Hyundai South Korea Automotive 4,078 17%

76 BP UK Energy 4,010 5%

77 Panasonic Japan Consumer Electronics 3, 977 7%

78 Reuters UK Media/Entertainment 3, 961 2%

79 Kraft US Food 3, 943 -7%

80 Porsche Germany Automotive 3, 927 4%

81 Hermés France Luxury 3, 854 9%

82 Tiffany & Co. US Luxury 3, 819 6%

83 Hennessy France Alcohol 3, 576 12%

84 Duracell US Consumer Electronics 3, 576 -3%

85 ING Netherlands Financial Ser vices 3,474 9%

86 Car tier France Luxury 3, 36 0 10%

87 Moet & Chandon France Alcohol 3, 257 9%

88 Johnson & Johnson US Personal Care 3,193 5%

8 9 Shell Netherlands Energy 3,173 4%

90 Nissan Japan Automotive 3,108 -3%

91 Starbucks US Restaurants 3,0 99 20%

92 Lexus Japan Automotive 3,070 New

93 Smirnoff UK Alcohol 3,032 -2%

94 LG South Korea Consumer Electronics 3,010 14%

95 Bulgari Italy Luxury 2, 875 6%

96 Prada Italy Luxury 2, 874 4%

97 Armani Italy Luxury 2,783 4%

98 Burberr y UK Luxury 2,783 New

99 Nivea Germany Personal Care 2,6 92 4%

10 0 Levi’s US Apparel 2,6 8 9 1%

4. Best Global Brands

Germany 9%

Switzerland 5%

United Kingdom 5%

United States 51%

Netherlands 3%

South Korea 3%

B E S T G LO B A L B R A N D S B Y C O U N T R Y 4. Best Global Brands

Brand Rank

2006 Brand Value

Change in

brand value Rank Brand

2006 Brand Value

Change in brand value

24 12, 3 76 4 6 %

91 3 , 0 9 9 2 0 %

47 6 ,7 5 5 18 %

5 2 6 , 416 -2 2 %

3 0 11, 0 5 6 -16 %

7 0 4 , 4 0 6 -12 %

T O P 3 G A I N E R S T O P 3 D E C L I N E R S

Brand

Commentary and Insights

5 .

WALT DISNEY

Content, distribution and promotion are the critical aspects of Disney’s business. CEO Iger is deftly managing the inter-relation- ships of these three strategic legs of the stool. New media and changing consumption patterns have forced this brand to better anticipate wants and needs of its diverse target audiences. As the

#2 media conglomerate in the world, behind Time Warner, Disney’s empire encompasses television, radio, cable, film production and distribution, theme parks, and on-line properties. After suffering financial turmoil for several years across nearly all businesses, it is seeing a positive but cautious revival. Old issues from the Eisner era are slowing being addressed (e.g., the Pixar acquisition). Infighting and decision polarization are being eradicated and this media giant is moving more quickly and thoughtfully to protect and enhance its portfolio of incredibly valuable brands.

T U R N A R O U N D B R A N D S

NOKIA

Nokia’s 14% turnaround in the ranking this year befits its position as the world’s #1 maker of cell phones. But marketshare is not the only factor that can be attributed to Nokia’s brand success. Taking a page from some of its competitors, Nokia has focused on design and ergonomics as a key differentiator. Smart brand architecture has kept focus clear with company’s products divided between four divisions: mobile phones (wireless voice and data devices for per- sonal and business usage), multimedia (home satellite systems, and mobile gaming devices), networks (wireless switching and transmis- sion equipment used in carrier networks), and enterprise solutions (wireless systems for businesses). Nokia is not afraid to co-brand, seeking out important awareness and perception relationships with companies like Siemens. But they need to ensure the quality and benefits of these relationships considering one such coupling was scrapped with Sanyo Electric. Overall, the brand has definitely more

27,848 26,441 27,113 28,036 29,256 32,591 33,553

2006 2005 2004 Brand Value

($ millions)

2000

2003 2002 2001

5. Brand Commentary and Insights

CISCO

A 6% resurgence by Cisco Systems supports its dominance of the market for equipment used to link networks and power the Internet. Routers and switches dominate the lineup while other products include remote access servers, IP telephony equipment used to transmit data and voice communications over the same network, optical networking components, and network service and security systems. It sells its products primarily to large enterprises and telecommunications service providers, but it also has products designed for small businesses and consumers. And this breadth in target audience, makes it an interesting brand as it must appeal to a range of potential buyers. The company is incredibly adept at acquiring other companies and quickly assimilating them operation- ally and from a brand perspective. Cisco has acquired more than 100 companies since 1993 to broaden its product lines and secure engineering talent in the highly competitive networking sector.

Cisco faces fellow giants and swift upstarts across all of its market segments and its brand is acting as an incredibly important defen- sive and offensive tool.

PHILIPS

Royal Philips Electronics makes consumer electronics, including T Vs, VCRs, DVD players, phones, fax machines, light bulbs (#1 worldwide), electric shavers (#1) and other personal care appli- ances, picture tubes, semiconductors, and medical systems. Its medical systems unit is now a leader in worldwide medical imaging and monitoring equipment and is responsible for nearly a third of

XEROX

Xerox is trying extremely hard to get the word out that it is much more than color and black-and-white copiers, but it also makes printers, scanners, and fax machines. Xerox sells document man- agement software and copier supplies, offers such services as consulting and document outsourcing, and holds a stake in a joint venture with Fuji Photo Film called Fuji Xerox. It is attempting to reinvent its brand to appropriately express and represent its holistic and exciting offer. This is the public fact of CEO Anne Mulcahy’s effort to regain market share and improve the company’s bot- tom line. Following restructuring woes that resulted in disgruntled customers, low employee morale, and a reorganization of manage- ment, Xerox continues to sharpen its focus and regain brand value by focusing internationally for growth.

MOTOROLA

New products like RAZR and SLVR have resulted in Motorola’s brand value climbing 18% this year. It has spun off of its semi- conductor unit while its remaining operations have focused in four business segments: connected home solutions; government and enterprise mobility solutions; mobile devices; and networks.

Motorola is the #2 manufacturer of wireless handsets after global leader Nokia. The company also provides cellular transmission base stations, amplifiers, and servers. It generates nearly 60% of sales through the manufacture and sales of wireless handsets and related products. A true originator, Motorola designed the clam- shell handset and has set its hopes on its new innovative RAZR and PEBL models to keep its place among the market leaders. It also has released SLVR, a new candy bar-type phone. Slick communica- tion campaigns are helping to create buzz, generate trial, and grow

2006 2005 2004 Brand Value

($ millions) 17,532 16,592 15,948 15,789 16,222 17,209 20,068 2000 2003 2002 2001

2006 2005 2004 Brand Value

($ millions) 5,918 5,705 5,696 5,578 5,308 6,019 9,700

2000

2003 2002 2001

INDUSTRY OBSERVATIONS

5. Brand Commentary and Insights

A P PA R E L Gap, Zara, Levi’s

Fashion credibility with a low price point is the key to branding in apparel. Consumers are far more discriminating and recognize that option proliferation is in their benefit. Star designers producing limited edition collections are generating sales and advantageous differentiation. However, simple, casual fashions on which Gap and Limited Brands built their brands can now be found at the big discounters. The influx of style-conscious, low-cost chains, such as Sweden’s H&M and Spain’s Zara, is increasing the choices for the trend-minded shopper. For many American clothiers, “Made in the USA” is no longer an affordable option nor a credible claim. The

#1 maker of brand-name apparel, Levi Strauss & Co., has moved virtually all of its production overseas where labor costs are cheaper and environmental regulations are not as strict as in the US.

B E V E R A G E S

Coca-Cola, Pepsi-Cola, Nescafe

In the realm of nonalcoholic drinks, consumers spend more money on carbonated soft drinks than anything else. The sector is domi- nated by the three major players that control nearly 90% of the global market. For years the story in the nonalcoholic sector has centered on the Cola Wars. But as the cola fight has topped out, the industry’s giants have begun relying on new product flavors (e.g., cherry, lime, vanilla) and noncarbonated beverages for growth.

Broadening of the category and the myriad of options for beverages are the industry’s greatest hope and its greatest threat. A prolifera- tion of product represents choice but also communicates confusion and potentially lower margins given the cost of specialty drink runs versus the mass appeal of signature products.

C O M P U T E R H A R D W A R E

Intel, Hewlett-Packard, Dell, Canon, Apple, Xerox

The industry can be summed into three words; innovation, innova- tion, and innovation. This includes products, service, research and development, distribution, and sales. In the face of rapid commoditi- zation, the players must be relentlessly pursuing strategic advantage through new and relevant offers. This demands thinking beyond the tangible product and looking at not just the “what” but the “how”.

As an example, the majority of players in the IT industry have made their distribution chains far more efficient, reducing the cost advan- tage that Dell had over its competitors. Gains in any aspect of the business are short-lived and competition is fast-paced.

I T S E R V I C E S

IBM, Cisco, Accenture, Microsoft, Oracle, SAP

The industry is quite unique given its mix of professional services and hardware products. Brand positioning in the industry tends to reflect a furious plagiarism – when one competitor finds unique space it is rapidly adopted with a twist across the industry. Current- ly, IBM’s communication program of “What Makes You Unique?”

is resonating well and is a solid move away from the “Deeper”, less emotive campaign that came post-merger with PwC. In terms of of- fer, on demand software, customers will only pay for what they use and will end up spending less. Also smaller firms have capitalized on the growing demand for IT services, many carving out lucrative niches by segmenting and serving particular industries or services markets.

C O N S U M E R E L E C T R O N I C S

Samsung, Sony, Nintendo, Kodak, Panasonic, Duracell, LG

You are what you watch, listen to, and play with. This is an industry

heavily dependent upon brand to communicate the unique benefits

and positioning of products and the parent company. Flat screen

T Vs, digital cameras and mp3 players continue to drive the con-

5. Brand Commentary and Insights

F I N A N C I A L S E R V I C E S

Citi, American Express, Merrill Lynch, HSBC, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, UBS, ING

What an incredibly interesting and schizophrenic business. Every- one wants the high-net worth client but needs the volume gener- ated by basic client masses. At the same time, these institutions are attempting to lower costs by shifting clients on-line reducing the amount of contact and resulting in diminished emotional commit- ment between client and institution. Brands have never been more important in financial services – where your finances are handled is a badge of distinction and an expression of success.

F O O D

Kellogg’s, Heinz, Wrigley’s, Nestle, Danone, Kraft

Convenience, choice and healthy options dominate the broad category of food brands. It is becoming increasingly difficult to anticipate consumer demand in the face of contradictory and diver- gent opinions on ‘what is best for you.’ Retailers have entered into this situation by offering lower priced private label alternatives. As a result the industry is striving for the right blend of diversification, product innovation, and market expansion to ensure brand prosper- ity. However, geographic expansion, mergers, and value adding will not confront the fact that consumers cook less. This has food focusing more on the restaurant, vending machine, and third party distribution channels – where brand, may in fact, play less a role.

I N T E R N E T S E R V I C E S

Google, eBay, Yahoo!, Amazon.com

Key to this industry is the notion of ‘let me find what I want, when I want and maybe even surprise me by providing services and goods unanticipated but cool to consume.’ Search, commerce, and exchange have proven themselves to be reliable on-line business models. Application and content are equally important for functional benefits but brand positioning is becoming increasingly important.

The lightning fast aspect of communications on-line is viral market-

ing in hyper-speed. Bad brand experiences in the primary on-line

channel and ancillary communications touch points require incred-

ible accuracy and responsiveness or alternatives will be sought.

Contacts and Additional

Information

C O N TA C T U S

Business inquiries:

Jeff Swystun Global Director 130 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10011

Tel: 917 690 5383

[email protected]

Media inquiries:

Lisa Marsala

Director, Marketing & Public Relations 130 Fifth Avenue

New York, New York 10011

Tel: 212 798 7646

[email protected]

T O R E A D M O R E A B O U T B U I L D I N G G LO B A L B R A N D V A LU E , V I S I T : www.interbrand.com

www.brandchannel.com

6 .

Best Global

Brands – FAQ

W H AT I S B R A N D V A LU E ?

Brand value is the dollar value of a brand, calculated as net present value (NPV), or today’s value of the earnings the brand is expected to generate in the future. Like any other financial value, brand value is, at a point in time, based on the assumptions and information available at that point in time. Brand value is calculated according to the most widely accepted and used valuation principles. This makes brand value comparable to business- and all NPV-based asset values.

The valuations of brand appearing in the Best Global Brands are calculated in their current use to their current owner. They therefore do not necessarily represent the potential purchase, extension or licensing value of the brands.

W H Y V A LU E B R A N D S ?

The purpose of these valuations is to demonstrate to the business community that brands are very important business assets and, in many cases, the single most valuable company asset. We also aim to make branding and marketing key business issues that have

H O W D O E S I N T E R B R A N D D E R I V E T H E V A LU E O F B R A N D S ?

Our valuation approach is a derivative of the way businesses and financial assets are valued. It fits with current corporate finance theory and practice. There are three key elements and they are detailed below:

FINANCIAL FORECASTING

We identify the revenues from products or services that are generated with the brand. From these branded revenues we deduct operating costs, applicable taxes and a charge for the capital employed to derive intangible earnings. Intangible earnings are the earnings that are generated by all of the business’s intangibles, including brands, patents, R&D, management expertise, etc.

This is a prudent and conservative approach, as it only rewards the intangible assets after the tangible assets have received their required return. The concept of intangible earnings is, therefore, similar to value-based management concepts, such as economic profit or EVA (Economic Value Added is Stern Stuart’s branded concept). Based on reports from financial analysts, we prepare a forecast of intangible earnings for six years.

Appendices:

7.

Role of Brand

Since intangible earnings include the returns for all intangibles employed in the business, we need to identify the earnings that are specifically attributable to the brand. Through our proprietary analytical framework, called “role of brand”, we can calculate the percentage of intangible earnings that is entirely generated by the brand. In some businesses, e.g., fragrances or packaged goods, the role of brand is very high – as the brand is the predominant driver of the customer purchase decision. However, in other businesses (in particular b2b), the brand is only one purchase driver among many, and the role of brand is therefore lower. For example, people are buying Microsoft not only because of the brand but mostly because the company has an installed base of 80% of the market and it would be for most users extremely difficult to switch their existing files to a new software platform. In the case of Shell, people buy not only because of the brand but also the location of the petrol stations. For each of the brands (and categories) we have assessed the role of brand.

The role of brand is a percentage – thus, if it’s 50%, we take 50%

of the intangible earnings as Brand Earnings. If it’s 10%, we take only 10% of the earnings.

Brand Strength

For deriving the net present value of the forecast brand earnings, we need a discount rate that represents the risk profile of these earnings. There are two factors at play: first, the time value of money (i.e., $100 today is more valuable than $100 in five years because one can earn interest on the money in the meantime); and secondly, the risk of that the forecast earnings will actually material- ize. The discount rate represents these factors, as it provides an asset-specific risk rate. The higher the risk of the future earnings stream, the higher will be the discount rate. To derive today’s value of a future expected-earnings stream, it needs to be ‘discounted’

by a rate that reflects the risk of the earnings actually materializing and the time for which it is expected. For example, $100 from the Coca-Cola brand in five years requires a lower discount rate than

$100 from the Fanta brand in five years, as the Coca-Cola brand is stronger and, therefore, more likely to deliver the expected earnings.

W H AT W A S T H E B A S I S O F T H E F I N A N C I A L A S S E S S M E N T S ?

Published annual reports were used to examine the revenues, earn- ings, and balance sheets of the brand-owning companies. Analyst reports from JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley were used as the basis for identifying the specific brand revenues and earnings, and for forecasting future earnings.

W H AT W A S T H E B A S I S F O R T H E M A R K E T I N G A S S E S S M E N T S ?

Unlike other brand value league tables, Interbrand does not rely on a single source of marketing information. Using a single brand study would limit the type of information (usually limited to perceptual data) and the type of customer (usually general public) that can be considered. Because many leading brands operate in specific customer segments (especially b2b), only considering the general public can be very restrictive. Instead, Interbrand refers to a wide array of primary and secondary sources that are applicable to each brand. These include, among others, Datamonitor, ACN- ielsen, Gartner, Hall & Partners. Moreover, Interbrand engages its network of brand valuation experts from offices around the world to ensure that the league table considers the brands from a global perspective.

W H AT W A S B U S I N E S S W E E K ’ S R O L E I N T H E B E S T G LO B A L B R A N D S R A N K I N G ?

BusinessWeek did not influence the selection of brands or the

determination of any of the values. Their role was to publish the

survey and to tie the reported performance of brand value to some

of the wider issues affecting these brands. They also provided the

7. Appendices: Best Global Brands – FAQ

C E R TA I N O B V I O U S G LO B A L B R A N D S A R E M I S S I N G . W E R E T H E Y C O N S I D E R E D ?

In each case, there was a reason why they could not be evaluated based on purely public data.

VISA – Clearly a brand with global reach, however, it is not a normal corporation with a standard profit and loss account. It is, instead, a membership organization that shows a surplus or a deficit. Its shareholders are the member banks but, since these banks are also customers and its main suppliers, any assessment of surplus becomes circular. It is possible to value these brands by modeling a traditional P&L, but this cannot be externally done. The same would be true of partnership consulting organizations, such as PwC, McKinsey, or Ernst & Young.

BBC – A unique organization, since it’s a government-owned corporation that is not supposed to generate a profit. There are, however, parts of it that are commercial and do generate profits, but these are still the minority of the business.

Red Cross – As a not-for-profit, it’s not possible to value the brand based on an earnings model. This would be true of other global not-for-profit brands such as Greenpeace, National Geographic, or UNICEF. It is, however, possible to assess the financial value of such brands but using a different kind of model.

Mars – This is a privately held and highly secretive organization.

Other privately held brands, such as IKEA and Levi’s, are able to be included since they produce reliable public accounts.

W H Y A R E C E R TA I N B R A N D S N O T O N T H E L I S T ?

This is a frequent question especially from companies who would expect their brands to be on the list. There are five likely reasons:

• The brand is not sufficiently global

• The brand has a pure b2b single audience with no wider public profile and awareness

• The company does not produce public data that enables us to identify the branded business (the company has multiple brands or has unbranded production)

• The brand is not big enough (brand value below $2.7 billion falls below the 100 brand ranking)

• The business is driven by a number of intangible factors and it is difficult to separate the brand from the rest

W H AT P E R C E N TA G E O F T H E B R A N D E D B U S I N E S S N E E D S T O B E O U T S I D E T H E H O M E C O U N T R Y T O B E C O N S I D E R E D G LO B A L ?

In most cases, one-third, however, if the home country of the brand is small (e.g. the Netherlands), we require a higher percentage. For US brands, the overseas sales ratio can be smaller due to the size of the US market, which is nearly as big as all of Europe. Applying the one-third overseas sales requirement would penalize US brands for being successful in their domestic market.

W A S T H I S T H E O N LY T E S T F O R B E I N G G LO B A L ?

No, we also wanted evidence that the brand was established in a wide number of markets around the world. At the very least it needed to have a substantial presence in at least one country in each of the following four regions: North America, Latin America, Europe and Asia-Pacific. It also needed to be managed consistently as a global brand. As an example, Wal-Mart is a valuable brand but it is not consistently branded as Wal-Mart around the globe.

7. Appendices: Best Global Brands – FAQ

7. Appendices: Best Global Brands – FAQ

W I T H I N C E R TA I N L A R G E I N D U S T R Y S E C T O R S , T H E R E A R E N O B R A N D S T H AT A P P E A R O N T H E L I S T . W H Y ?

Airlines – There has clearly been significant investment in airline brands (and many of them are, by definition, global), but they are still operating in situations where the brand plays only a marginal role. In most cases, the customer decides based on price, route, schedule, corporate policy or frequent flyer points. The brand may often only have a real impact when all these items are at parity.

We have assessed the brand value for airlines by using internal data to strip out the impact of these other factors. But from purely public information, this is difficult to do reliably. The exception to this would be Virgin, which is clearly a brand-driven proposition.

However, as a private company, it is not possible to value that brand from public information.

Insurance – With most insurance companies, we are not able to distill an accurate valuation from public data as they do not have an operating profit line. Insurance companies are a sell now/pay out later business employing embedded value.

Telecoms – Although there are many large telecom brands that are highly valuable, at present none of these brands fulfill our ‘global’

criteria.

W A S T H E R E A L I M I T T O T H E N U M B E R O F B R A N D S I N C LU D - E D F R O M A N Y O N E I N D U S T R Y ?

No, however, one of the requirements of a leading global brand is that it is, in fact, leading. The mark of leadership is not just about market share, it is also about behaving as a leader – setting trends, quality standards, authority, and the like. Thus, there are brands that are in the top three of their category’s market share that did not make the cut; and there are brands that are not top three that did make the global ranking. The rules described are guidelines and ultimately each brand was assessed for inclusion on its own merits.

A R E T H E R E A N Y B R A N D S T H AT H A V E A V A LU E O F

$ 2 . 7 B I L L I O N B U T D I D N O T M A K E T H E L I S T ?

H O W D I D Y O U TA K E A C C O U N T O F T H E FA C T T H AT S O M E B R A N D S A R E R U N T H R O U G H F R A N C H I S E E S ?

This was an issue with all the food retail brands – McDonald’s, Pizza Hut, KFC and Starbucks. We based our valuation on the earn- ings that the brand owner makes from the brand and an estimate of the earnings that the franchisees make from the brand (what is called a total-system view). As in all other valuations, these earnings were then reduced to take account of a return for the use of the tangible and other intangible assets.

W H Y A R E P H A R M A C E U T I C A L B R A N D S I N C LU D E D I N T H E L I S T ?

It is clear that the main intangibles in a pharmaceutical business are the patents and technologies that they enjoy. That is why the two brands that appear (Novartis and Pfizer) account for, respectively, only 5% and 6% of the market capitalization of these businesses (compared to, say, 51% for Nike). However, even in this context, brands do play a role. For prescription, drugs they play a b2b role for the doctors; for OTC drugs, they play a role directly with consumers. In addition, Pfizer especially has a number of products (such as fertilizers) which are direct consumer sales and in which the role of the brand is quite significant.

W H AT I S T H E R E L AT I O N S H I P B E T W E E N T H E F O L LO W I N G T E R M S : B R A N D A W A R E N E S S , B R A N D E Q U I T Y , B R A N D S H A R E A N D B R A N D V A LU E ?

Brand value is the only measure that looks at the economic benefit

of the brand to its owner. In other words, it is an end in itself. Brand

awareness and brand equity are a means to an end. Brand aware-

ness is simply knowledge that a brand exists, thus brand awareness

may prompt customers to consider buying a product. Brand equity

is a measure of customer perceptions of a brand; thus, it may give

a customer reason to prefer a product over the alternatives. Brand

share is simply the market share achieved by the brand. Brand

awareness, equity, and share are all measures of what a customer

thinks or does, they are not assessments of the economic value

D O T H E V A LU AT I O N S R E F L E C T T H E U N D E R LY I N G S TAT E O F T H E E C O N O M Y ?

Yes – in two ways. The forecasts reflect a lower level of busi- ness confidence and, in many cases, lower growth rates or lower margins. The formula for converting the brand strength score into a discount rate is tied to the underlying government bond yield.

H O W S H O U L D W E U N D E R S TA N D T H E B R A N D V A LU E A S A P E R C E N TA G E O F M A R K E T C A P I TA L I Z AT I O N ?

The market capitalization represents the market’s valuation of all the equity in a company. In theory, the market capitalization is the value of all tangible and intangible assets owned by the company less all the debt owed by the company.

Brand value/market capitalization relationships can be read in a number of ways:

• If the brand value percentage of market capitalization is low, it suggests that the business is driven by other kinds of as- sets (tangible and intangible) and that the brand is relatively unimportant. It might also mean that the business is failing to leverage the brand as much as it could and that investors should be concerned about that.

• If the brand value percentage of market capitalization is high, it suggests that the business is driven by the brand and that investors should take care of how the brand is being managed, since this will have a very direct affect on shareholder value.

It could also mean that the business is under-valued by the market and that they are failing to reflect the true value of all the assets of the business of which the brand is one (but only one).

The comparison of brand value to market capitalization is mainly useful for mono-branded businesses, as the market capitalization relates to all company assets. For companies that own and operate under many different brands, such as Nestlé and J&J, a compari-

H O W D O E S B R A N D V A LU E R A N K A G A I N S T A D S P E N D I N G ?

It is not really appropriate to try to correlate these two. Brand value is a measure of the output from a series of brand investments and initiatives over a long period of time. Advertising is one element in a wide spectrum of communications that companies employ.

Other communications include sponsorships, online, point of sale, customer service, etc. In some cases, brands are built with very little or no advertising, as in the case of Starbucks, where retail space and employees are the key communication channels.

I S I T P O S S I B L E T O R E C O G N I Z E B R A N D V A LU E O N A B A L A N C E S H E E T ?

Several accounting standards – such as International Accounting Standards (IAS) 36 and 38, US GAAP, FASB 141, UK FRS 10 – al- low and/or require the recognition of acquired goodwill, including brands, on the balance sheet. The standards clearly identify brands as intangible assets with an infinite economic life. This means that, unlike other intangible assets (e.g. patents, databases) or goodwill (e.g. training, workforce) brand value does not have to be amortized through the income statement. However, they are subject to an annual impairment test and the carrying value needs to be reduced if the value decline. The technique is consistent with the way in which Interbrand has assessed brands for balance sheet inclusion – though, of course, using more extensive and proprietary data.

7. Appendices: Best Global Brands – FAQ

W H AT I S I N T E R B R A N D ’ S V I E W O N B R A N D S A P P E A R I N G O N B A L A N C E S H E E T S ?

We support the notion of different accounting standards to recog- nize the value of brands on the balance sheet. Interbrand has been leading the debate on this issue for many years. However, current accounting standards allow only for the recognition of acquired brands, not internally developed brands. Also, the impairment test for brands on the balance sheet allows only for a potential value reduction but not an increase. The acquisition criterion means the Gucci brand is recognized on the balance sheet of PPR as an intangible asset, while the Louis Vuitton brand does not show up on the balance sheet of LVMH.

We conclude that the recognition of acquired brands on the bal- ance sheet is a step in the right direction for providing shareholders with better information about the assets they have invested in.

However, it’s still not sufficient, as the value of internally generated brands cannot be disclosed despite making up the vast majority of the most valuable brands around the world.

As the need for some formal statement about brand value (and the value of other intangible assets) is becoming increasingly important, we would advocate some type of statement in the annual report on the intangible business assets, including brands. Whether this happens on the traditional balance sheet or it happens on a new

‘Statement of Intangible Value’ would be secondary (note: there is a precedent for this in the way in which the Cash Flow Statement was developed to complement, but not replace, the Profit & Loss Account.)

W H Y I S I N T E R B R A N D A N E X P E R T I N A S S E S S I N G B R A N D V A LU E ?

In 1987, Interbrand developed and introduced the first valuation of a portfolio of brands that used a brand-specific valuation ap- proach. Since then, we have continuously updated and improved our valuation approach to make it the global industry standard of brand valuation. The Interbrand brand valuation methodology is the most widely endorsed and used valuation approach around the world. Interbrand alone has valued more than 4,000 brands in all industries worldwide.

Our valuations have been endorsed by leading academic institu- tions, including Harvard, Thunderbird, Columbia, Emory, and St.

Gallen. Our valuation approach has the widest breadth of applica- tion, including strategic brand management, marketing budget allocation, marketing ROI, portfolio management, brand extensions, M&A, balance sheet recognition, licensing, transfer pricing, and investor relations. Our valuations have been audited for inclusion on the balance sheet by all leading accounting firms. Also, many tax authorities and law courts around the world have accepted our valuation approach.

D O E S I N T E R B R A N D C O N D U C T O T H E R B R A N D S U R V E Y S ?

We have established national brand value league tables in Switzer- land, France, Spain, Australia, Singapore, Taiwan, Mexico, Russia, Canada and Brazil. These follow an identical valuation process but only look at locally owned brands.

7. Appendices: Best Global Brands – FAQ

W H AT I S T H E D I F F E R E N C E B E T W E E N T H E V A LU AT I O N S I N B G B A N D C O N S U LT I N G V A LU AT I O N S F O R C L I E N T S ?

The valuation methodology is the same, however, the level of detail and the data input significantly differ. The Best Global Brands (BGB) valuations are based on publicly available marketing and financial data. Also, the BGB valuations are mostly consolidated top-line assessment, although we recognize segment differences for diversified brands by product or service but not geography or any other classification (eg. financial services or technology). Only public data was used, and the valuations are only as reliable as the data that the brand-owning companies publish about themselves (in annual reports, analyst briefings, press articles, syndicated market research, etc).

Consulting valuations are based on detailed customer segmenta- tions, as well as in-depth marketing and financial analyses. They have a much higher level of accuracy and granularity. The purpose of a consulting valuation goes well beyond assessing financial numbers in identifying and quantifying value drivers and in manag- ing brands for increasing the shareholder value of the underlying businesses. However, if clients undertake consulting valuations we are in a much better position to identify publicly available data that are likely to align the BGB valuation with the consulting valuation.

In cases where companies make our consulting valuations publicly available, for example through a note in the balance sheet, these values will also be published as the BGB ranking value.

7. Appendices: Best Global Brands – FAQ

About

Interbrand

Interbrand believes that branding is a blend of art and science. Our terrific mix of talent is both “creatively strategic” and “strategically creative,” leading us to deliver best-in-class work for our clients that has a measurable impact on their business.

Since 1974, Interbrand has worked with the best global brands to create and manage brand value through an integrated set of offer- ings. We offer brand and business strategy, brand valuation, quanti- tative and qualitative research, retail design, brand architecture and portfolio optimization, naming, corporate identity design, packaging design, communications creation, and online digital asset manage- ment tools.

Our heritage is in understanding the financial value of a brand and elevating the role brands play in driving measurable impact. Having pioneered the practice of Brand Valuation in 1987, Interbrand is now recognized worldwide for its Best Global Brands Report.

Interbrand has 34 offices in more than 20 countries around the globe and clients from among the most respected businesses.

Interbrand is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Omnicom Group, the industry leader in Marketing Communications.

Appendices:

8 .

Creating and

Managing Brand Value

T H E I N T E R B R A N D B R A N D V A LU E M A N A G E M E N T M O D E L

Brands do not become and remain successful on their own. Nor are they ensured ongoing leadership without proactive, diligent and detailed management. Interbrand works collaboratively with clients to consistently and continually evaluate, create, and manage their brand assets. We do this by employing the following model.

The Brand Value Management model is a closed loop with neither a specific beginning nor definite end. The model begins at a different point for every brand, based on business need. However, one as- pect does remain constant: once in progress, the model accelerates – generating synergies and capturing new opportunities through carefully crafted and integrated activities. It becomes an inexhaust- ible source of energy and competitive advantage for every brand.

Brand Value Management comprises three distinct, yet interrelated, phases: Evaluate, Create, and Manage – three phases where the brand and market opportunities are painstakingly examined, cre- atively brought to life, and thoroughly and holistically coordinated.

Appendices:

9.