Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Businesses The Almighty Buck Apple

Google Overtakes Apple As the World's Most Valuable Brand 84

Posted by samzenpus
from the most-money dept.
mrspoonsi (2955715) writes in with news that global market research agency Millward Brown has proclaimed Google as the world's most valuable brand. "US search engine Google has overtaken rival technology titan Apple as the world's top brand in terms of value, global market research agency Millward Brown said Wednesday. Google's brand value shot up 40 percent in a year to $158.84 billion (115 billion euros), Millward Brown said in its 2014 100 Top BrandZ report. 'Google has been extremely innovative this year with Google Glass, investments in artificial intelligence and a range of partnerships,' said Benoit Tranzer, the head of Millward Brown France. Apple, which dominated the top position for three straight years, saw its brand value fall by 20 percent to $147.88 billion."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Overtakes Apple As the World's Most Valuable Brand

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    20 years ago, Cisco was the world's most-valuable company.

  • Brand value? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Sockatume (732728) on Thursday May 22, 2014 @05:58AM (#47064091)

    "Brand value is calculated on the basis of the firms' financial performance and their standing among consumers."

    Their methodology is completely proprietary and unpublished so I'm not sure how much faith I have in the ranking.

    http://www.millwardbrown.com/B... [millwardbrown.com]

    • Their methodology is completely proprietary and unpublished so I'm not sure how much faith I have in the ranking.

      So, just like Google then. Coincidence?

    • From the report [wpp.com]: Brand Value Change: Google +40%

      In a huge company, what changes 40% in a year?
    • "Brand value is calculated on the basis of the firms' financial performance and their standing among consumers."

      Let me translate that for you!

      "We are positioned to take advantage of chumps believing Google is more valuable than Apple (a small consumer electronics company that we previously convinced gullible people was the world's most valuable brand). As the chumps sell off Apple and buy Google we will laugh and laugh, and light our cigars with $100 bills."

      Of course value is determined by the market, and

    • Most of the justification given for upgrading Google is Google Glass, which is:

      1) Unknown to the vast majority of people as it remains a small beta program.
      2) Is despised by the majority of people who have heard of it.

      Which indicates to me that the whole thing is a marketing piece. Either for Google or the person making the claim.

  • Misleading? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Futurepower(R) (558542) <MJennings.USA@NOT_any_of_THISgmail.com> on Thursday May 22, 2014 @06:16AM (#47064157) Homepage
    Something is wrong, somewhere, IMO. This Slashdot story is apparently about a PR release by Millward Brown, which is owned by Kantar Group, which is owned by WPP. Notice that the WPP web site [wpp.com] is badly coded. It doesn't adjust for font size choices in browser configuration. The web site has, to my eyes, an ugly, cheap look.

    See this Slashdot story: Google Foresees Ads On Your Refrigerator, Thermostat, and Glasses [slashdot.org]. Look at the comments. I'm not the only person to think something has become crazy at Google. Here are more: Why I'm Sending Back Google Glass [slashdot.org] and Apple, Google Agree To Settle Lawsuit Alleging Hiring Conspiracy [slashdot.org].

    Maybe this Slashdot story is about a PR release paid for by Google? Or Millward Brown is trying to advertise itself? Apparently "brand value" doesn't say much that is logical about how a company is managed, but just means that you should respect a company because a company is getting a lot of attention.
    • Re:Misleading? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Sockatume (732728) on Thursday May 22, 2014 @06:37AM (#47064217)

      It's definitely Millward Brown trying to advertise itself, or rather its "Brand Value" metric, rather than Google or anyone else. The financial metrics are all public information, but an analysis firm needs something proprietary to sell; all the better if it's ostensibly quantitative.

    • Re:Misleading? (Score:5, Informative)

      by clarkkent09 (1104833) on Thursday May 22, 2014 @06:56AM (#47064281)

      Something is wrong, somewhere, IMO. This Slashdot story is apparently about a PR release by Millward Brown, which is owned by Kantar Group, which is owned by WPP. Notice that the WPP web site is badly coded. It doesn't adjust for font size choices in browser configuration. The web site has, to my eyes, an ugly, cheap look.
       
      Not sure what your point is regarding the web site design. There is no way to accurately measure the brand value but these rankings are legit as far as being respected and widely reported in serious press each year.

      Here is a better story than the one linked: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/d8ea... [ft.com]

      Here are the full rankings: http://www.millwardbrown.com/b... [millwardbrown.com]

    • Re:Misleading? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Xest (935314) on Thursday May 22, 2014 @09:09AM (#47065015)

      Whilst I'm not defending the methodology, it does seem a bit arbitrary (but then, so are most rankings used by fanboys on both sides comparing Apple vs. Google so no change there), I don't really understand much of the point of the rest of your post:

      "Notice that the WPP web site is badly coded. It doesn't adjust for font size choices in browser configuration. The web site has, to my eyes, an ugly, cheap look. "

      What has this got to do with anything? It sounds like you're implying WPP is some fly by night company with a site that's been set up quickly and in a rush. You realise WPP is one of, if not the single biggest PR agency in the world right? I'm not defending it in terms of ethics, because some of the names of the firms it owns are known for the wrong reasons here (e.g. Burson-Marsteller who were running Microsoft's massive shill campaign here). But what WPP absolutely isn't is some irrelevant little upstart, it's an absolutely massive company.

      "Look at the comments. I'm not the only person to think something has become crazy at Google."

      What are we meant to be looking for? I can only see the usual stuff - a few off-topic comments dotted amongst the usual suspects either defending or attacking Google. What has changed here?

      "Maybe this Slashdot story is about a PR release paid for by Google? Or Millward Brown is trying to advertise itself?"

      Of course it is, but this isn't a new thing, in fact, the only new thing is that Google is now doing it. This is a game that Microsoft, Oracle, Apple et. al. have been playing for a very long time, it looks like Google has had enough of trying to "do no evil" in this respect and has decided to go down the same lame old route.

      A few years back we were getting almost weekly news stories like "iPhone survives fall from aeroplane", "iPhone used by boy to save himself in well", "iPhone used to diagnose cancer" or whatever else. Many of these stories could never be corroborated, there was no evidence of the people involved in question, no pictures, just a story that frankly was almost certainly made up in most cases. If you tried to dig deeper and find out names, pictures, locations of these events you just hit a dead end. Similarly there was a massive Microsoft first post FUD campaign here, and we also saw a massive amount of Oracle shills during the original Java trial. We've seen the same from the likes of Sony and so forth even too.

      It's not new. The amusing thing is this is precisely why WPP is so successful - it makes a fortune running FUD campaigns against a target for a client with one subsidiary then gets another to sell a counter campaign to the target of the original FUD campaign. It's good money if you can get it - running an arms race where you're selling to both sides of the battle with thinly veiled pretences of independence of subsidiaries of the parent company, but it's not ethical, and it's not new.

      • "... why WPP is so successful - it makes a fortune running FUD campaigns against a target for a client with one subsidiary then gets another to sell a counter campaign to the target of the original FUD campaign."

        "... running an arms race where you're selling to both sides of the battle with thinly veiled pretenses of independence of subsidiaries of the parent company, but it's not ethical, and it's not new."

        Maybe that is the explanation I was hoping to find. It certainly seems that we must look deepe
  • Brand Value? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ketomax (2859503) on Thursday May 22, 2014 @06:21AM (#47064173)
    I can buy an iPhone, iPad, Windows OS, Microsoft Office (or it's subscription). What exactly does Google sell apart from Ads (and our data)? Google Fiber is not available worldwide. Gmail is awesome even when free. Google glass does not seem like it will be usable because of the backlash. How does Google's brand value serve them when compared to the likes of Apple & Microsoft?
    • Re:Brand Value? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Your.Master (1088569) on Thursday May 22, 2014 @06:44AM (#47064245)

      The name "Google" has itself been verbed in a way that has never really happened to the names Apple and Microsoft (although some Apple and Microsoft products have been verbed).

      Having a powerful brand directly means you are able to sell ads for higher prices. Time magazine surely sells ad space more easily than [brand new vaguely french-woman name magazine]. The brand power is probably more important to Google than it is to Apple or Microsoft (but of course it's important to all of them).

      • by rossdee (243626)

        Also the Google brand is unique. There are other things that have an Apple name (remember the Beatles) and of course the actual fruit (and juice) is consumed in more places than are Ipods or Iphones...

        [insert ad for ENZA here]

        • by ZorglubZ (3530445)
          Google is just Googol (10^100) for dyslexics, even though I see that someone's edited Wikipedia to claim it was intentional... To my knowledge, no-one claimed, on or about y2k, that it was anything but a misspelling.
      • The name "Google" has itself been verbed in a way that has never really happened to the names Apple and Microsoft

        Yes, but I remember when "Yahoo" was a verb also.

      • The name "Google" has itself been verbed in a way that has never really happened to the names Apple and Microsoft (although some Apple and Microsoft products have been verbed).

        Having a powerful brand directly means you are able to sell ads for higher prices. Time magazine surely sells ad space more easily than [brand new vaguely french-woman name magazine]. The brand power is probably more important to Google than it is to Apple or Microsoft (but of course it's important to all of them).

        So what exactly happened to googleing that Google's brand value rose 40% over the last year?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      You still don't get it, do you? At Google, you're not the customer... You are the product. Or more to the point, your browsing habits and associated data is the product. That's why there is Google+. Imagine the windfall Google would gain if they could have the kind of active user base of Facebook joined with their business model.

      • by bhagwad (1426855)

        I'm a very happy product...

      • by Uberbah (647458)

        You still don't get it, do you? At Google, you're not the customer... You are the product. Or more to the point, your browsing habits and associated data is the product. That's why there is Google+. Imagine the windfall Google would gain if they could have the kind of active user base of Facebook joined with their business model.

        Err....isn't that agreeing with the parent? Why does Google have the 'most valuable' consumer brand when the consumers are those buying ads from Google and people are the product?

        • You still don't get it, do you? At Google, you're not the customer... You are the product. Or more to the point, your browsing habits and associated data is the product. That's why there is Google+. Imagine the windfall Google would gain if they could have the kind of active user base of Facebook joined with their business model.

          Err....isn't that agreeing with the parent? Why does Google have the 'most valuable' consumer brand when the consumers are those buying ads from Google and people are the product?

          There is still a difference between "consumer" and "customer" - Just use (gasp) Google (or Bing!*%$ or DuckduckGo) and search for "consumer vs customer"

    • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

      Google's secret sauce is that their ads are generally unobtrusive and not annoying. Text only, and because they are targeted through search terms they are often relevant too. Other companies are finding that it is very hard to compete with a "free", high quality service. That is Google's brand value.

    • You ask "what exactly does google sell apart from ads". This misses the point. Google makes loads of money from ads. Everything else is really there to make sure that nothing interferes with that. Android? Google doesn't care about 'phones per se... what they care about is loads of Iphones that don't have google as the default search provider. Chrome? same thing, get a decent market share of the web browser market and you're protected against directing traffic away from google one way or the other... and so

    • by afeeney (719690)
      Google has made so many investments in experimental and developing technology (robotics and energy to name just two examples) that its portfolio of companies and patents is tremendously valuable. It has the money to be almost anything that it wants to be and can afford to take more product development risks. Even if Google Glass turns out to be an absolute failure, the odds are strong that it can redeploy most of the research and lessons learned from developing it for something that will be successful.
    • What exactly does Google sell?

      You.

  • Using brand value to characterize the performance of a company is roughly equivalent to using Kerbal Space Program to plan supply missions to the ISS,
    • by Triklyn (2455072)

      you besmirch the good name of KSP. I hear it's fun for the entire family, 8 year old kids up to daddy and mommy who work as rocket scientists. It also teaches important life lessons: there is no problem too big that more booster rockets can't solve.

      • by Plammox (717738)
        the besmirching was unintended. KSP seems like a mighty fine and educational game. Actually I'm holding off with trying it, as I need to get a lot of work done at the moment....which also explains why I'm here posting on slashdot...
        • by Triklyn (2455072)

          i'd recommend that.

          when you do try it, remember. the EVA has mono-propellant. I've done it at least twice now, not enough dV to make it into atmosphere during return leg... so i'd hop out and push my damn capsule with my face.

  • Can I get some flame war butter for my fan boy popcorn please.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    I might not understand, but how is it that an advertising company can be so profitable? More profitable than the companies who make the actual products?

  • by wonkey_monkey (2592601) on Thursday May 22, 2014 @08:08AM (#47064629) Homepage

    I suppose it really depends on your definition of "value."

  • by hduff (570443)

    A new face for EVIL.

  • translation (Score:4, Funny)

    by Swampash (1131503) on Thursday May 22, 2014 @10:10AM (#47065621)

    "We're a PR company and we'd really like to win Google's business, so we hereby announce that Google is the bestest brand in the world. According to our secret criterion. Which we can't tell you because then it wouldn't be secret."

  • Translation: We've been trying to get Apple's business for the past few years without luck. Time to see if Google will bite.

    And really, they noticed Google Glass only now?

  • by azav (469988)

    Apple's done real damage to the usefulness of their brand with the idiotic reskin of iOS (iOS 7) and the dumbing down of the Mac OS with a focus on adding useless distracting animations that are difficult (or near impossible to turn off) and a worse looking UI (all white, less detail, less functional area delineation, less crisp) post Snow Leopard.

    Apple is now clearly putting fluff ahead of function and isn't allowing users to disable new unwanted and distracting features that offer no benefit to usability.

"Out of register space (ugh)" -- vi

Working...