Millward Brown’s full report on its 10th annual brand equity ranking sheds light on why Apple regained its #1 ranking from Google. The company bases its rankings on the perceptions of more than 3 million consumers across 50 countries.
With a 67 percent rise in Brand Value to $247 billion, Apple returned to number one in the BrandZ™ Top 100 Most Valuable Global Brands ranking. Success of the iPhone 6 and the related excitement surrounding the Apple brand drove the increase. Apple also led in the rate of brand value growth over 10 years – 1,446 percent.
The company noted that Apple’s remarkable growth in long-term brand equity was evident in the fact that it didn’t even make the top 100 brands when Millward Brown began its BrandZ measurements just ten years ago …
Apple’s ranking reflects the strength of both consumer loyalty to the brand, as well as trust in the company, says the report. It also notes that other brands have benefited from the popularity of Apple Pay.
Apple was buoyed by not only the iPhone 6 launch and news of the hotly anticipated Apple Watch, but also by the launch of HealthKit and Apple Pay. The latter in particular had spillover effects beyond the technology category – its launch partners like Bank of America also enjoyed a dose of consumer appreciation in connection with the product.
The full report suggests that Apple’s use of the Watch to reposition itself from a premium tech company to a luxury brand would help it stave off competition from Chinese companies like Huawei and Xiaomi, which have been moving their products upmarket to compete with flagship models from established smartphone brands.
Having always sold premium products, Apple became more explicit about its luxury positioning with the introduction of the Apple Watch, and announced plans to refurbish Apple stores with sales counters and displays suggesting department store exclusivity. At the same time, premium positioning also presented Apple with one of its fundamental competitive challenges, as Chinese brands such as Huawei and Xiaomi and Indian makers like Micromax offered quality smart phones at much lower prices. Apple’s Brand Power remained a major advantage. Consumers were drawn both to the efficacy, ease of use and design of Apple products, and to the allure of the brand itself.
Apple of course tops many rankings, Forbes also naming it most valuable brand, Barron’s ranking it the world’s most respected company, and Berkshire Hathaway consistently ranking Apple as the world’s most admired company.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Samsung isn’t in the top 10? With all that money they spend on marketing and advertising? Wow.
http://bit.ly/1LH71vD
Yeah, #45.
Why is Samsung brought up so much on this site? There are a lot of companies that spend a lot on marketing that aren’t in the top ten. GM for one. Pepsi is another. I wouldn’t have expected Samsung to be in the top ten anyway. I’m more surprised that Nike and Adidas aren’t in the top ten, as Nike controls over 90% of the basketball shoe market (which is a global sport), and spends billions on advertisement, and Adidas is synonimous with soccer, which is the most popular sport in the world.
And Samsung is Google’s bitch. If Samsung had built their position in the smartphone market with their own OS, then that would be a lasting position potentially and impressive feat. Instead they took the easy way out and put out a commodity product using Android. If Apple hadn’t been so thickheaded about people wanting phones that they could control with one hand and had come out with larger screens sooner, Samsung would have never taken off to the extent they did.
Apple retakes #1 slot as world’s most valuable brand based on perceptions of 3M consumers ”
Your Twitter post that refers to this article reads as if customers of the company 3M were surveyed, not 3 million consumers.
Perhaps it was meant to be a sticking point¿
Hey, I do the bad puns around here …
This is 100% a U.S. ranking, not a Global one. Practically zero people outside of the United States (and maybe Canada) have ever heard of Verizon for example. If 40% of the world’s population live in China+India, how can it be that there are no Asian brands whatsoever in the top 10? I would love to see the same “Global” rankings as measured by the Chinese or UK or Brazilian equivalent to Millward Brown. Would also be interesting if there was truly a Global brand ranking which made sense.
It isn’t about the U.S. It is about the value of brands in of themselves – if you could put a price on the name Apple or Pepsi or whatever, what would it be? A company like Verizon is so deeply penetrated in the U.S. that its value in very notable all over the world.
And if you look at the list, there are many Asian brands in the top 25 – many which are unknown outside their home market countries.
So, why doesn’t this ranking boost Apple’s premium value? Having a high ranking is able to boost Google’s P/E significantly, but not Apple’s P/E.
Why bother with P/E…
Apple has a medium P/E and has been growing for more than decade…
Google, on the other hand, oscillates and hasn’t grown in the last 2 years, or more.
I still don’t see how Apple is going to position itself as a luxury brand when their top-selling product is available for free upfront (plus applicable tax) to anyone on a U.S. cell phone plan. My Apple Watch is not what I’d consider a luxury item. My Movado is, possibly.
Just because you sell a halo product doesn’t mean your brand is luxury. Dodge, Chevy, Nissan, and some other car manufacturers sell supercars (Viper, Corvette Z06, GT-R Nismo); however, their brands are not seen as sports car brands, because the majority of the vehicles they sell are trucks and economy cars. Apple selling a $17,000 watch doesn’t make it a luxury brand.
I don’t think Apple has positioned itself as a luxury brand in the fashion/style sense. I look at it as BMW positions itself versus Chevy: BMW makes some mighty fine cars. But a BMW is not a luxury brand in the sense of an Aston Martin or Bentley. As Apple -is- a mass market manufacturer. Like BMW, the make a very few unobtainable items (gold watch). But they also make a ton more of the non-luxury Mini (the 5c)
Agree with the BMW analogy. Apple is trying for mass luxury strategy. They have characteristics of luxury such as not offering sales, very high margins, and selling items that people aspire to have. The volume that they sell probably probably prevents Apple from being a traditional luxury retailer. However, Movado is not a luxury brand in any stretch of the word either.