I created the values on the Interbrand Best Global Brands tables from 2010 through 2017.
The Forbes list discussed on the 2nd uses a method that based on their description is derived from the Interbrand method as are a large portion of competing brand valuation methods out there (cf. Salinas, Gabriela. The International Brand Valuation Manual: A complete overview and analysis of brand valuation techniques, methodologies and applications. John Wiley & Sons. 2011.)
Older Brand Strength frameworks could be found on the Internet Archive. Those frameworks could be useful for authors thinking about their brands. (There are at least two versions publicly out there in earlier Best Global Brands Reports as it evolved over time)
The older framework uses 10 factors to assess a brand.
Internal factors are:
Clarity
Commitment (of the organization to the brand)
Governance (existence of procedures for effective and efficient deployment of the brand strategy)
Responsiveness
The external factors are:
Authenticity
Relevance
Differentiation
Consistency (in experience and presentation)
Presence
Customer Engagement (with the brand)
The framework can give authors a set of criteria to think about how they take their brand to market. They are based on issues that have commonly come up for clients over the years.
Thanks for the detailed clarification, Sean.
Of the top five, only one isn’t facing legal/government fights.
Get big and you tend to gain a target on your back.
Yup.
Some people don’t believe excellence can be real.
There *has* to be something wrong with high achievers because otherwise there would be something wrong with everybody else. In their world view *somebody* has to be in the wrong whenever there is a diferential.
Get political and you tend to gain a target on your back.
That top 10 list is taken from the Interbrand Best Global Brands table; the full list is available at https://interbrand.com/best-global-brands/
I created the values on the Interbrand Best Global Brands tables from 2010 through 2017.
The Forbes list discussed on the 2nd uses a method that based on their description is derived from the Interbrand method as are a large portion of competing brand valuation methods out there (cf. Salinas, Gabriela. The International Brand Valuation Manual: A complete overview and analysis of brand valuation techniques, methodologies and applications. John Wiley & Sons. 2011.)
The current Brand Strength framework can be found at: https://www.interbrand.com/thinking/best-global-brands-2020-methodology/ but it is a mess.
It is the fifth variation since 2010.
Older Brand Strength frameworks could be found on the Internet Archive. Those frameworks could be useful for authors thinking about their brands. (There are at least two versions publicly out there in earlier Best Global Brands Reports as it evolved over time)
The older framework uses 10 factors to assess a brand.
Internal factors are:
Clarity
Commitment (of the organization to the brand)
Governance (existence of procedures for effective and efficient deployment of the brand strategy)
Responsiveness
The external factors are:
Authenticity
Relevance
Differentiation
Consistency (in experience and presentation)
Presence
Customer Engagement (with the brand)
The framework can give authors a set of criteria to think about how they take their brand to market. They are based on issues that have commonly come up for clients over the years.
Thanks for the detailed clarification, Sean.
Of the top five, only one isn’t facing legal/government fights.
Get big and you tend to gain a target on your back.
Yup.
Some people don’t believe excellence can be real.
There *has* to be something wrong with high achievers because otherwise there would be something wrong with everybody else. In their world view *somebody* has to be in the wrong whenever there is a diferential.
Get political and you tend to gain a target on your back.