Best Global Brands 2010: gap with how we feel in daily life?
Interbrand published Best Global Brand 2010.
No.1 Coca-cola, No.2 IBM, No.3 Microsoft... there are lots of famous brands, of course. Interestingly, there is no facebook or twitter. I guess many people would say "Apple" if they were asked about no.1 brand now. No more "Nokia", I suppose. In terms of the growth of brand value, Apple is No.1 and Nokia is minus. It makes sense. However, when it comes to the entire rank, Nokia is still No. 8, and Apple is No. 17.
I can't help denying there is a gap between what actually I feel about brand these days and the fact the data show. I don't mean that the data is wrong, but the point is that the real brand value might be different from our daily understanding. It might work very well where we do not recognise them. Even we could say ONLY that is the value of brand; otherwise, they would be just a fuss. Or, it can be the other way around. The brand value cannot be measured by authentic methodology. How to build up strong brands would have changed gradually. It used to be believed that using mass media was the most effective way for advertisement and branding, but actually it wasn't the best way, but the only way. Now the approach has become more diverse, intense and quick. Therefore, there might be something missing from the authentic measurement of brand value. If we really want to see the real value of brands, we just really need to pay attention to it by ourselves.
No.1 Coca-cola, No.2 IBM, No.3 Microsoft... there are lots of famous brands, of course. Interestingly, there is no facebook or twitter. I guess many people would say "Apple" if they were asked about no.1 brand now. No more "Nokia", I suppose. In terms of the growth of brand value, Apple is No.1 and Nokia is minus. It makes sense. However, when it comes to the entire rank, Nokia is still No. 8, and Apple is No. 17.
I can't help denying there is a gap between what actually I feel about brand these days and the fact the data show. I don't mean that the data is wrong, but the point is that the real brand value might be different from our daily understanding. It might work very well where we do not recognise them. Even we could say ONLY that is the value of brand; otherwise, they would be just a fuss. Or, it can be the other way around. The brand value cannot be measured by authentic methodology. How to build up strong brands would have changed gradually. It used to be believed that using mass media was the most effective way for advertisement and branding, but actually it wasn't the best way, but the only way. Now the approach has become more diverse, intense and quick. Therefore, there might be something missing from the authentic measurement of brand value. If we really want to see the real value of brands, we just really need to pay attention to it by ourselves.
Comments
Post a Comment