Comparison of selected internationally recognized brand valuation methods

Abstract

Research background: There are many consultative groups and market research companies on the market that have also brand valuation included in their service portfolios. Such companies tend to adopt their own unique approaches to value brands to face increasing competition, which is also reinforced by the fact that brand constitutes the company's most valuable commercial and intangible assets. The paper compares selected internationally recognized brand valuation methods, using the mathematical statistics apparatus (Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients), on the sample of 12 global well-known brands (Apple, Google, Microsoft, Coca-Cola, Facebook, Toyota, IBM, Disney, McDonald's, General Electric, Samsung and Amazon). Purpose of the article:The aim is to analyze the brand values and the methods applied for possible deviations, and identify whether they are statistically significant and/or find any statistical correlation, or eventually recognize them as totally different and independent approaches. Methods: The analysis is carried out by pairwise comparison of selected brand values provided by selected consultative companies (Forbes, Interbrand, Brand Finance and Millward Oeconomia Copernicana, 8(1),(99)(100)(101)(102)(103)(104)(105)(106)(107)(108)(109)(110) Brown). The degree of correlation of brand values provided by respective consultative groups is calculated using the following correlation coefficients: Pearson's correlation coefficient and its modified non-parametric version involving ordinals -Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. Findings & Value added:The analysis proved the highest correlation of the brand values provided by the Forbes and Interbrand; Subsequently, a trend analysis is carried out to determine the development over time, identifying the most striking development in the brand values provided by Millward Brown (BrandZTM) for the period 2013-2016.

Modelling It Brand Values Supplied by Consultancy Service Companies: Empirical Evidence for Differences

“…Therefore, the more important companies' intangibles are (Bistrova et al, 2017), the more interest they will show in knowing and specifying their valuation. Nonetheless, the fact that a brand is an intangible means that its valuation is complex and often ambiguous (Janoskova & Krizanova, 2017).…”

“…To fulfil this objective, it is necessary to empirically demonstrate that these differences exist, and to know the degree of similarity in these consultancy companies' brand valuations. Several theoretical studies (Aaker, 1996;Salinas, 2009;Salinas & Ambler, 2009) reveal differences between brand valuation methods, but only three empirical studies about the brand values reported by these companies can be found (Alcaide et al, 2019;Bagna et al, 2017;Janoskova & Krizanova, 2017).…”

The Quality of Brand Products: Expected Attributes vs. Perceived Reality

“…Nagaraj & Singh (2018), Valaskova et al (2018) and Ledikwe et al (2019) note that high quality builds consumer loyalty to the brand. Janoskova & Krizanova (2017) add that "the brand name identification with consumers creates benefits that the enterprise may charge higher price for the same product, leading to higher profit margins, growth and firm value to net sales ratio". Successful differentiation of the brand products has been gained worldwide (Singh & Singla, 2018) and for the enterprises, it is necessary to know the assessment of delivered quality brand products from the view of the consumers.…”

Motion to innovation: Brand value sources have (not) changed over time

“…Such a specific in its very rough features is the status and perception of quality in the process of brand value building. According to previous research, there are significant discrepancies between practical implications of countries where brand is identified with quality and countries where brand is identified with image and social status [17,18,19,20].…”