The document compares the 2015 brand valuation results from four consultancies - Interbrand, Eurobrand, Millward Brown, and Brand Finance - and finds significant inconsistencies between their rankings and valuations of the top 100 brands, with an average difference of 2.2x between the high and low valuations of brands common to all four lists. While the methodologies used by the consultancies are conceptually robust, there is considerable subjectivity in how each applies the models, leading to divergent results and a lack of convergence between the lists. The inconsistencies undermine the credibility of brand valuation as a tool for demonstrating marketing's impact on business value.

1. P1Does Marketing Matter? January 2009
Brand Valuation:
2015 Results
Comparison of the 2015 League Tables from
Interbrand, Eurobrand, Millward Brown & Brand Finance
Analysis by Type 2 Consulting
October 2015

2. P2
Brand Valuation
Four brand consultancies have been publishing annual league tables
of the top 100 brands since 2011:
Interbrand
“100 Best Global Brands”
Published in October
Eurobrand
“Global Top 100 Brand Corporations”
Published in September
Millward Brown
“Top 100 List”
Published in May
Brand Finance
“The World’s 500 Most Valuable Brands”
Published in February
This presentation compares the results of the 2015 league tables

3. P3
Methodology
• The consultancies each employ an “economic use”
methodology for estimating the financial value of brands:
– The “earnings split” approach (which calculates the net present
value of the brand-specific earnings of the business) is used by
Interbrand, Eurobrand and Millward Brown
– The “relief from royalty” approach (which calculates the net
present value of the notional licensing fee that a company would
have to pay for the use of its brand) is used by Brand Finance
• The methodologies are conceptually robust, but leave
room for considerable subjectivity in choosing:
– The proportion of profitability solely attributable to the brand
– The appropriate royalty rate
• It is this subjectivity – not the different methodologies –
that causes the massive inconsistencies in the results

4. P4
2015 Comparison
The four top 100 lists contain 203different brands
Only 31brands are common to all four lists

5. P5
There is an average difference of 2.2x
between the high/low values of the 31 common brands
50%of the time, the consultancies disagree
about whether the 28 brands common to the 2014 and
2015 lists increased or decreased in value

6. P6
INTERBRAND - 10/15 EUROBRAND - 9/15 MILLWARD BROWN - 5/15 BRAND FINANCE - 2/15
Apple 170,276 Apple 150,593 Apple 246,992 Apple 128,303
Google 120,314 Google 80,995 Google 173,652 Samsung 81,716
Coca-Cola 78,423 Microsoft 73,258 Microsoft 115,500 Google 78,683
Microsoft 67,670 Coca-Cola 73,173 IBM 93,987 Microsoft 67,060
IBM 65,095 Johnson & Johnson 57,433 VISA 91,962 Verizon Wireless 59,843
Toyota 49,048 China Mobile 53,547 AT&T 89,492 AT&T 58,820
Samsung 45,297 P&G 52,724 Verizon Wireless 86,009 Amazon 56,124
GE 42,267 Verizon Wireless 51,983 Coca-Cola 83,841 GE 48,019
McDonald's 39,809 AT&T 51,770 McDonald's 81,162 China Mobile 47,916
Amazon 37,948 Philip Morris 50,973 Marlboro 80,352 Wal-Mart 46,737
BMW 37,212 IBM 48,080 Tencent 76,572 Coca-Cola 35,797
Mercedes 36,711 Wal-Mart 46,637 Facebook 71,121 IBM 35,428
Disney 36,514 Pepsico 45,462 Alibaba 66,375 Toyota 35,017
Intel 35,415 LVMH 43,812 Amazon 62,292 Wells Fargo 34,925
Cisco 29,854 McDonald's 43,654 China Mobile 59,895 BMW 33,079
Oracle 27,283 AB InBev 39,359 Wells Fargo 59,310 Deutsche Telecom 31,108
Nike 23,070 GE 39,170 GE 59,272 VW 31,025
HP 23,056 Amazon 38,828 UPS 51,798 Shell 30,716
Honda 22,975 Nestle 37,718 Disney 42,962 Disney 30,698
Louis Vuitton 22,250 Intel 33,011 MasterCard 40,188 ICBC 27,479
H&M 22,222 Toyota 31,172 Baidu 40,041 Mercedes 27,328
Gillette 22,218 Disney 31,039 ICBC 38,808 Vodafone 27,287
Facebook 22,029 Wells Fargo 30,520 Vodafone 38,461 HSBC 27,280
Pepsi 19,622 VW 30,064 SAP 38,225 China Construction Bank 26,417
American Express 18,922 Samsung 28,134 American Express 38,093 Citi 26,210
SAP 18,768 Facebook 26,630 Wal-Mart 35,245 Bank of America 25,713
IKEA 16,541 SAB Miller 26,061 Deutsche Telecom 33,834 Intel 25,011
Pampers 15,267 China Construction Bank 25,749 Nike 29,717 Chase 24,819
UPS 14,723 Vodafone 25,544 Starbucks 29,313 The Home Depot 24,471
Zara 14,031 Cisco 25,181 Toyota 28,913 Facebook 24,180
Bold : 10 brands common to all four lists
Italics : Unique to one list (NB includes cases where Eurobrand features the corporate brand, and another list one of the product brands)
Common 10 10 10 10
Unique 9 8 7 6
Top 30 Brands according to each Consultancy
Eurobrand data originally published in Euros and converted at €1 = $1.10

7. P7
BRAND INTERBRAND EUROBRAND M BROWN B FINANCE MAX:MIN
Apple 170,276 150,593 246,992 128,303 1.9
Google 120,314 80,995 173,652 78,683 2.2
Microsoft 67,670 73,258 115,500 67,060 1.7
Coca-Cola 78,423 73,173 83,841 35,797 2.3
IBM 65,095 48,080 93,987 35,428 2.7
Amazon 37,948 38,828 62,292 56,124 1.6
GE 42,267 39,170 59,272 48,019 1.5
McDonald's 39,809 43,654 81,162 22,040 3.7
Samsung 45,297 28,134 21,602 81,716 3.8
Facebook 22,029 26,630 71,121 24,180 3.2
Toyota 49,048 31,172 28,913 35,017 1.7
Disney 36,514 31,039 42,962 30,698 1.4
BMW 37,212 20,783 26,349 33,079 1.8
Intel 35,415 33,011 18,385 25,011 1.9
UPS 14,723 22,232 51,798 19,537 3.5
Nike 23,070 18,962 29,717 24,118 1.6
American Express 18,922 16,777 38,093 21,567 2.3
Oracle 27,283 24,124 21,680 22,888 1.3
Cisco 29,854 25,181 16,060 23,217 1.9
HP 23,056 19,562 23,039 18,068 1.3
HSBC 11,656 19,874 24,029 27,280 2.3
Citi 9,784 20,936 17,486 26,210 2.7
Shell 5,530 16,468 18,943 30,716 5.6
Honda 22,975 12,370 13,332 22,424 1.9
IKEA 16,541 12,892 17,025 18,540 1.4
H&M 22,222 13,284 13,827 14,715 1.7
Ford 11,578 17,280 13,106 20,315 1.8
L'Oreal (corp) 10,798 14,871 23,376 12,480 2.2
JPMorgan 13,749 14,736 13,522 11,958 1.2
FedEx 5,130 14,152 19,566 13,672 3.8
Santander 6,097 12,537 12,181 18,700 3.1
TOTAL 1,120,285 1,014,756 1,492,810 1,047,560 2.3
Valuation of the 31 Brands common to the four Lists
Eurobrand data originally published in Euros and converted at €1 = $1.10

8. P8
BRAND INTERBRAND EUROBRAND M BROWN B FINANCE CONSISTENT?
Apple UP UP UP UP YES
Google UP UP UP UP YES
Microsoft UP UP UP UP YES
Coca-Cola DOWN UP UP UP NO
IBM DOWN DOWN DOWN DOWN YES
Amazon UP UP DOWN UP NO
GE DOWN UP UP DOWN NO
McDonald's DOWN DOWN DOWN DOWN YES
Samsung DOWN UP DOWN UP NO
Toyota UP UP DOWN UP NO
Disney UP UP UP UP YES
BMW UP UP UP UP YES
Intel UP UP UP UP YES
UPS UP UP UP UP YES
Nike UP UP UP UP YES
American Express DOWN UP UP UP NO
Oracle UP UP UP UP YES
Cisco DOWN UP UP UP NO
HP DOWN UP UP DOWN NO
HSBC DOWN UP DOWN UP NO
Citi UP UP UP UP YES
Shell DOWN UP DOWN UP NO
Honda UP UP DOWN UP NO
IKEA UP UP DOWN UP NO
H&M UP UP DOWN UP NO
Ford UP UP UP UP YES
JPMorgan UP UP UP DOWN NO
FedEx UP UP UP UP YES
INCREASE 18 26 18 23 YES = 14
DECLINE 10 2 10 5 NO = 14
Divergence of Opinion onYoY Change
Facebook, L’Oreal and Santander excluded from the above analysis as they did not feature in the top 100 brands list for all four consultancies in 2014

9. P9
#1 INTERBRAND EUROBRAND MILLWARD BROWN BRAND FINANCE
2015 Apple Apple Apple Apple
2014 Apple Apple Google Apple
2013 Apple Apple Apple Apple
2012 Coca-Cola Apple Apple Apple
2011 Coca-Cola Apple Apple Google
2010 Coca-Cola Google Wal-Mart
2009 Coca-Cola Google Wal-Mart
2008 Coca-Cola Google Wal-Mart
2007 Coca-Cola Google Coca-Cola
2006 Coca-Cola Microsoft
2005 Coca-Cola
2004 Coca-Cola
2003 Coca-Cola
2002 Coca-Cola
2001 Coca-Cola
2000 Coca-Cola
1999 Coca-Cola
#2 INTERBRAND EUROBRAND MILLWARD BROWN BRAND FINANCE
2015 Google Google Google Samsung
2014 Google Google Apple Samsung
2013 Google Coca-Cola Google Samsung
2012 Apple Coca-Cola IBM Google
2011 IBM Coca-Cola Google Microsoft
2010 IBM IBM Google
2009 IBM Microsoft Coca-Cola
2008 IBM GE Coca-Cola
2007 Microsoft GE Microsoft
2006 Microsoft GE
2005 Microsoft
2004 Microsoft
2003 Microsoft
2002 Microsoft
2001 Microsoft
2000 Microsoft
1999 Microsoft
#1 & #2 Ranked Brand in EachYear

10. P10
Are the Results Converging?
• The answer is “not obviously”:
– The number of brands appearing in the four top 100 lists in 2015
was 203 (versus 209, 213, 215, and 213 in the previous four years)
– The number of brands common to the four top 100 lists was 31 in
2015 (compared to 29, 28, 27 and 28 in the previous four years)
– The high/low valuations of the same brand each year still differ by
an average multiple of 2.2
– 50% of the time, there was disagreement between the four
consultancies about whether the common brands had increased or
decreased in value versus 2014 (for previous years, there was
disagreement 38%, 54% and 41% of the time)
– The top 30 list from each consultancy contains almost as many
brands that are unique to that list (an average of 8.5) as they
include brands that are common to all four lists (10 in 2015)

11. P11
What Should We Conclude from this Inconsistency?
• Brand valuation is in its infancy as a discipline:
– There is no GAAP-equivalent standard for how to measure the strength of a
brand, leaving room for considerable subjectivity in the assumptions included
in the various valuation models
– There is no consensus on the definition of a brand, and therefore no
consensus about how to assess the relative importance of communication
versus other factors (NPD, distribution weight, customer service and other
important determinants of the customer experience)
• It is a mistake for marketers to view brand valuation as a
“silver bullet” for proving the business value of marketing:
– The wide variation in the published valuations undermines the credibility of
brand valuation among business audiences
– Brand valuation involves treating the brand as if it were a standalone asset that
is the sole responsibility of marketing, and this creates a “zero sum” dynamic
between marketing and other functions of the business about what is driving
the distinctiveness of the customer experience (and this is, after all, what the
brand represents)

12. P12
Conclusions
• The motives for wanting to ascribe a financial value to
brands are generally laudable
• In practice, we encounter three major hurdles:
– Customers pay for the entire experience not just the “brand” so it
is an artificial exercise to parse apart the purchase decision into its
component parts
– Brands appear to act as magnifiers/accelerators of underlying
business value so their value is contextual
– The accounting profession defines an asset as “a resource
controlled by a company as a result of past events or transactions
and from which future economic benefits are expected” so only
allow for the trademark value (the intellectual property actually
“controlled” by the company) to be recognized
• In general, marketers need to stop seeing brand valuation
as a way to demonstrate the value of Marketing, and focus
instead on how brands enhance the value of the business

13. P13
Brand Value as a % of Total Enterprise Value
• Using the brand data, T2 has calculated the proportion of
business value represented by brand for different industries
• We suggest that marketers use this as a starting point for
their discussions about how to enhance business value
through effective brand management
!"!#$
%!"!#$
&!"!#$
'!"!#$
(!"!#$
)!"!#$
*+,-./$
012,-314,5$61+7+81793$
:;7-<
7=$>1?@,8;$7+5$A1B,$C81,+8,3$
D7E1@79$F??53$
G?H3,;?95$7+5$:,-3?+79$:-?5H8@3$I
7@,-1793$
JK91K,3$L+3H-7+8,$
MH@?<
?N19,3$7+5$D?<
E?+,+@3$
6??5$7+5$C@7E9,3$O,@7191+.$
I
,517$
6??5=$>,2,-7.,$7+5$P?N788?$
P,9,8?<
<
H+187K?+$C,-218,3$
G,79@;87-,$*QH1E<
,+@$7+5$O,@7191+.$
C,<
18?+5H8@?-3$7+5$*QH1E<
,+@$
P-7+3E?-@7K?+$
P,8;+?9?./$G7-5R
7-,$7+5$
C?SR
7-,$7+5$C,-218,3$
D?+3H<
,-$0H-7N9,3$7+5$MEE7-,9$
D?+3H<
,-$C,-218,3$
D?<
<
,-8179$7+5$:-?B,331?+79$
>-7+5$T79H,$73$7$#$?B$*+@,-E-13,$T79H,$

14. P14
16 East 40th Street
13th Floor Penthouse
New York
NY 10016
C: 646 345 6782
T: 212 537 9200
F: 212 658 9869
j.knowles@type2consulting.com