"If this business were split up, I would give you the land
and bricks and mortar, and I would take the brands and
trade marks, and I would fare better than you."
— John Stuart, Chairman of Quaker (ca. 1900)
In the last quarter of the 20th century there was
a dramatic shift in the understanding of the creation
of shareholder value. For most of the century,
tangible assets were regarded as the main source
of business value. These included manufacturing
assets, land and buildings or financial assets such
as receivables and investments. They would be
valued at cost or outstanding value as shown in
the balance sheet. The market was aware of intangibles,
but their specific value remained unclear
and was not specifically quantified. Even today,
the evaluation of profitability and performance of
businesses focuses on indicators such as return on
investment, assets or equity that exclude intangibles
from the denominator. Measures of price relatives
(for example, price-to-book ratio) also exclude
the value of intangible assets as these are absent
from accounting book values.
This does not mean that management failed to
recognize the importance of intangibles. Brands,
technology, patents and employees were always
at the heart of corporate success, but rarely explicitly
valued. Their value was subsumed in the overall
asset value. Major brand owners like The Coca-Cola
Company, Procter & Gamble, Unilever and Nestlé
were aware of the importance of their brands,
as indicated by their creation of brand managers,
but on the stock market, investors focused their value
assessment on the exploitation of tangible assets.
Evidence of brand value
The increasing recognition of the value of intangibles
came with the continuous increase in the gap
between companies’ book values and their stock
market valuations, as well as sharp increases in
premiums above the stock market value that were
paid in mergers and acquisitions in the late 1980s.
Today it is possible to argue that, in general,
the majority of business value is derived from
intangibles. Management attention to these assets
has certainly increased substantially.
The brand is a special intangible that in many
businesses is the most important asset. This is
because of the economic impact that brands have.
They influence the choices of customers, employees,
investors and government authorities. In a world of
abundant choices, such influence is crucial for
commercial success and creation of shareholder
value. Even non-profit organizations have started
embracing the brand as a key asset for obtaining
donations, sponsorships and volunteers.
Some brands have also demonstrated an astonishing
durability. The world’s most valuable brand,1
Coca-Cola, is more than 118 years old; and the
majority of the world’s most valuable brands have
been around for more than 60 years. This compares
with an estimated average life span for a corporation
of 25 years or so.2 Many brands have survived
a string of different corporate owners.
Several studies have tried to estimate the contribution
that brands make to shareholder value. A study
by Interbrand in association with JP Morgan
(see Table 2.1) concluded that on average brands
account for more than one-third of shareholder
value. The study reveals that brands create significant
value either as consumer or corporate brands
or as a combination of both.
Table 2.1 shows how big the economic contribution
made by brands to companies can be.
The McDonald’s brand accounts for more than
70 percent of shareholder value. The Coca-Cola
brand alone accounts for 51 percent of the stock
market value of the Coca-Cola Company. This is
despite the fact that the company owns a large portfolio
of other drinks brands such as Sprite and Fanta.
Studies by academics from Harvard and the
University of South Carolina3 and by Interbrand4
of the companies featured in the “Best Global
Brands” league table indicate that companies with
strong brands outperform the market in respect of
several indices. It has also been shown that a portfolio
weighted by the brand values of the Best
Global Brands performs significantly better than
Morgan Stanley’s global MSCI index and the
American-focused S&P 500 index.
Today, leading companies focus their management
efforts on intangible assets. For example, the Ford
Motor Company has reduced its physical asset base
in favor of investing in intangible assets. In the past
few years, it has spent well over $12 billion to
acquire prestigious brand names such as Jaguar,
Aston Martin, Volvo and Land Rover. Samsung,
a leading electronics group, invests heavily in its
intangibles, spending about 7.5 percent of annual
revenues on R&D and another 5 percent on communications.
5 In packaged consumer goods,
companies spend up to 10 percent of annual
revenues on marketing support. As John Akasie
wrote in an article in Forbes magazine:6
"It’s about brands and brand building and consumer
relationships … Decapitalized, brand
owning companies can earn huge returns on their
capital and grow faster, unencumbered by
factories and masses of manual workers. Those are
the things that the stock market rewards with
high price/earnings ratios."
Brands on the balance sheet
The wave of brand acquisitions in the late 1980s
resulted in large amounts of goodwill that most
accounting standards could not deal with in
an economically sensible way. Transactions that
sparked the debate about accounting for goodwill
on the balance sheet included Nestlé’s purchase
of Rowntree, United Biscuits’ acquisition and later
divestiture of Keebler, Grand Metropolitan
acquiring Pillsbury and Danone buying Nabisco’s
Accounting practice for so-called goodwill did not
deal with the increasing importance of intangible
assets, with the result that companies were penalized
for making what they believed to be valueenhancing
acquisitions. They either had to suffer
massive amortization charges on their profit and
loss accounts (income statements), or they had to
write off the amount to reserves and in many cases
ended up with a lower asset base than before
In countries such as the UK, France, Australia and
New Zealand it was, and still is, possible to recognize
the value of acquired brands as identifiable
intangible assets and to put these on the balance
sheet of the acquiring company. This helped to
resolve the problem of goodwill. Then the recognition
of brands as intangible assets made use of
a grey area of accounting, at least in the UK and
France, whereby companies were not encouraged
to include brands on the balance sheet but nor
were they prevented from doing so. In the mid-1980s,
Reckitt & Colman, a UK-based company, put a
value on its balance sheet for the Airwick brand that
it had recently bought; Grand Metropolitan did
the same with the Smirnoff brand, which it had
acquired as part of Heublein. At the same time, some
newspaper groups put the value of their acquired
mastheads on their balance sheets.
By the late 1980s, the recognition of the value of
acquired brands on the balance sheet prompted
a similar recognition of internally generated brands
as valuable financial assets within a company.
In 1988, Rank Hovis McDougall (RHM), a leading
UK food conglomerate, played heavily on the power
of its brands to successfully defend a hostile
takeover bid by Goodman Fielder Wattie (GFW).
RHM’s defence strategy involved carrying out
an exercise that demonstrated the value of RHM’s
brand portfolio. This was the first independent
brand valuation establishing that it was possible to
value brands not only when they had been acquired,
but also when they had been created by the company
itself. After successfully fending off the GFW
bid, RHM included in its 1988 financial accounts
the value of both the internally generated and
acquired brands under intangible assets on
the balance sheet.
In 1989, the London Stock Exchange endorsed
the concept of brand valuation as used by RHM by
allowing the inclusion of intangible assets in the
class tests for shareholder approvals during
takeovers. This proved to be the impetus for a wave
of major branded-goods companies to recognize
the value of brands as intangible assets on their
balance sheets. In the UK, these included Cadbury
Schweppes, Grand Metropolitan (when it acquired
Pillsbury for $5 billion), Guinness, Ladbrokes
(when it acquired Hilton) and United Biscuits
(including the Smith’s brand).
Today, many companies including LVMH, L’Oréal,
Gucci, Prada and PPR have recognized acquired
brands on their balance sheet. Some companies
have used the balance-sheet recognition of their
brands as an investor-relations tool by providing
historic brand values and using brand value as
a financial performance indicator.
In terms of accounting standards, the UK, Australia
and New Zealand have been leading the way by
allowing acquired brands to appear on the balance
sheet and providing detailed guidelines on how to
deal with acquired goodwill. In 1999, the UK
Accounting Standards Board introduced FRS 10
and 11 on the treatment of acquired goodwill on
the balance sheet. The International Accounting
Standards Board followed suit with IAS 38.
And in spring 2002, the US Accounting Standards
Board introduced FASB 141 and 142, abandoning
pooling accounting and laying out detailed rules
about recognizing acquired goodwill on the balance
sheet. There are indications that most accounting
standards, including international and UK standards,
will eventually convert to the US model. This is
because most international companies that wish to
raise funds in the US capital markets or have
operations in the United States will be required to
adhere to US Generally Accepted Accounting
The principal stipulations of all these accounting
standards are that acquired goodwill needs to be
capitalized on the balance sheet and amortized
according to its useful life. However, intangible
assets such as brands that can claim infinite life do
not have to be subjected to amortization. Instead,
companies need to perform annual impairment
tests. If the value is the same or higher than
the initial valuation, the asset value on the balance
sheet remains the same. If the impairment value is
lower, the asset needs to be written down to
the lower value. Recommended valuation methods
are discounted cash flow (DCF) and market value
approaches. The valuations need to be performed
on the business unit (or subsidiary) that generates
the revenues and profit.
The accounting treatment of goodwill upon
acquisition is an important step in improving the
financial reporting of intangibles such as brands.
It is still insufficient, as only acquired goodwill is
recognized and the detail of the reporting is
reduced to a minor footnote in the accounts.
This leads to the distortion that the McDonald’s
brand does not appear on the company’s balance
sheet, even though it is estimated to account for
about 70 percent of the firm’s stock market value
(see Table 2.1), yet the Burger King brand is recognized
on the balance sheet. There is also still
a problem with the quality of brand valuations for
balance-sheet recognition. Although some companies
use a brand-specific valuation approach,
others use less sophisticated valuation techniques
that often produce questionable values. The debate
about bringing financial reporting more in line
with the reality of long-term corporate value is
likely to continue, but if there is greater consistency
in brand-valuation approaches and greater
reporting of brand values, corporate asset values
will become much more transparent.
The social value of brands
The economic value of brands to their owners is
now widely accepted, but their social value is less
clear. Do brands create value for anyone other
than their owners, and is the value they create at
the expense of society at large?7 The ubiquity of
global mega-brands has made branding the focus
of discontent for many people around the world.
They see a direct link between brands and such
issues as the exploitation of workers in developing
countries and the homogenization of cultures.
Furthermore, brands are accused of stifling competition
and tarnishing the virtues of the capitalist
system by encouraging monopoly and limiting
consumer choice. The opposing argument is that
brands create substantial social as well as economic
value as a result of increased competition, improved
product performance and the pressure on brand
owners to behave in socially responsible ways.
Competition on the basis of performance as well
as price, which is the nature of brand competition,
fosters product development and improvement.
And there is evidence that companies that promote
their brands more heavily than others in their
categories do also tend to be the more innovative
in their categories. A study by PIMS Europe for
the European Brands Association8 revealed that
less-branded businesses launch fewer products,
invest significantly less in development and have
fewer product advantages than their branded
counterparts. Almost half of the “non-branded”
sample spent nothing on product R&D compared
with less than a quarter of the “branded” sample.
And while 26 percent of non-branded producers
never introduced significant new products, this figure
was far lower at 7 percent for the branded set.
The need to keep brands relevant promotes
increased investments in R&D, which in turn leads
to a continuous process of product improvement
and development. Brand owners are accountable
for both the quality and the performance of their branded products and services and for their ethical
practices. Given the direct link between brand
value and both sales and share price, the potential
costs of behaving unethically far outweigh any
benefits, and outweigh the monitoring costs associated
with an ethical business. A number of
high-profile brands have been accused of unethical
practices. Interestingly, among these are some of
the brands that have been pioneering the use of
voluntary codes of conduct and internal monitoring
systems. This is not to say that these brands have
successfully eradicated unethical business
practices, but at least they are demonstrating
the will to deal with the problem.
The more honest companies are in admitting the
gap they have to bridge in terms of ethical behavior,
the more credible they will seem. Nike, a company
once criticized for the employment practices of some
of its suppliers in developing countries, now posts
results of external audits and interviews with factory
workers at www.nikebiz.com. The concern of multinational
companies is understandable, considering
that a 5 percent drop in sales could result in a loss
of brand value exceeding $1 billion. It is clearly in
their economic interests to behave ethically.
Approaches to brand valuation
Financial values have to some extent always been
attached to brands and to other intangible assets,
but it was only in the late 1980s that valuation
approaches were established that could fairly claim
to understand and assess the specific value of
brands. The idea of putting a separate value on
brands is now widely accepted. For those concerned
with accounting, transfer pricing and licensing
agreements, mergers and acquisitions and valuebased
management, brand valuation plays a key
role in business today.
Unlike other assets such as stocks, bonds, commodities
and real estate, there is no active market
in brands that would provide comparable values.
So to arrive at an authoritative and valid approach,
a number of brand evaluation models have been
developed. Most have fallen into two categories:
- research-based brand equity evaluations, and
- purely financially driven approaches
There are numerous brand equity models that use
consumer research to assess the relative performance
of brands. These do not put a financial value
on brands; instead, they measure consumer
behavior and attitudes that have an impact on
the economic performance of brands. Although
the sophistication and complexity of such models
vary, they all try to explain, interpret and measure
consumers’ perceptions that influence purchase
behavior. They include a wide range of perceptive
measures such as different levels of awareness
(unaided, aided, top of mind), knowledge, familiarity,
relevance, specific image attributes, purchase
consideration, preference, satisfaction and recommendation.
Some models add behavioral measures
such as market share and relative price.
Through different stages and depths of statistical
modeling, these measures are arranged either in
hierarchic order, to provide hurdles that lead from
awareness to preference and purchase, or relative
to their impact on overall consumer perception,
to provide an overall brand equity score or measure.
A change in one or a combination of indicators
is expected to influence consumers’ purchasing
behavior, which in turn will affect the financial value
of the brand in question. However, these approaches
do not differentiate between the effects of other
influential factors such as R&D and design
and the brand. They therefore do not provide
a clear link between the specific marketing indicators
and the financial performance of the brand.
A brand can perform strongly according to these
indicators but still fail to create financial and
The understanding, interpretation and measurement
of brand equity indicators are crucial for assessing
the financial value of brands. After all, they are key
measures of consumers’ purchasing behavior upon
which the success of the brand depends. However,
unless they are integrated into an economic model,
they are insufficient for assessing the economic
value of brands.
Financially driven approaches
Cost-based approaches define the value of a brand
as the aggregation of all historic costs incurred or
replacement costs required in bringing the brand
to its current state: that is, the sum of the development
costs, marketing costs, advertising and other
communication costs, and so on. These approaches
fail because there is no direct correlation between
the financial investment made and the value added
by a brand. Financial investment is an important
component in building brand value, provided it is
effectively targeted. If it isn’t, it may not make
a bean of difference. The investment needs to go
beyond the obvious advertising and promotion and
include R&D, employee training, packaging and
product design, retail design, and so on.
Comparables. Another approach is to arrive at a
value for a brand on the basis of something comparable.
But comparability is difficult in the case of
brands as by definition they should be differentiated
and thus not comparable. Furthermore,
the value creation of brands in the same category
can be very different, even if most other aspects of
the underlying business such as target groups,
advertising spend, price promotions and distribution
channel are similar or identical. Comparables
can provide an interesting cross-check, however,
even though they should never be relied on solely
for valuing brands.
Premium price. In the premium price method,
the value is calculated as the net present value of
future price premiums that a branded product
would command over an unbranded or generic
equivalent. However, the primary purpose of many
brands is not necessarily to obtain a price premium
but rather to secure the highest level of future
demand. The value generation of these brands lies
in securing future volumes rather than securing
a premium price. This is true for many durable and
non-durable consumer goods categories.
This method is flawed because there are rarely
generic equivalents to which the premium price of
a branded product can be compared. Today, almost
everything is branded, and in some cases store
brands can be as strong as producer brands
charging the same or similar prices. The price difference
between a brand and competing products
can be an indicator of its strength, but it does not
represent the only and most important value contribution
a brand makes to the underlying business.
Economic use. Approaches that are driven exclusively
by brand equity measures or financial
measures lack either the financial or the marketing
component to provide a complete and robust
assessment of the economic value of brands.
The economic use approach, which was developed
in 1988, combines brand equity and financial
measures, and has become the most widely recognized
and accepted methodology for brand
valuation. It has been used in more than 3,500
brand valuations worldwide. The economic use
approach is based on fundamental marketing and
The marketing principle relates to the commercial
function that brands perform within businesses.
First, brands help to generate customer demand.
Customers can be individual consumers as
well as corporate consumers depending on
the nature of the business and the purchase situation.
Customer demand translates into revenues
through purchase volume, price and frequency.
Second, brands secure customer demand for
the long term through repurchase and loyalty.
The financial principle relates to the net present
value of future expected earnings, a concept
widely used in business. The brand’s future earnings
are identified and then discounted to a net
present value using a discount rate that reflects
the risk of those earnings being realized.
To capture the complex value creation of a brand,
take the following five steps:
1. Market segmentation. Brands influence customer
choice, but the influence varies depending on
the market in which the brand operates.
Split the brand’s markets into non-overlapping
and homogeneous groups of consumers
according to applicable criteria such as product
or service, distribution channels, consumption
patterns, purchase sophistication, geography,
existing and new customers, and so on.
The brand is valued in each segment and the
sum of the segment valuations constitutes
the total value of the brand.
2. Financial analysis. Identify and forecast revenues
and earnings from intangibles generated by
the brand for each of the distinct segments
determined in Step 1. Intangible earnings are
defined as brand revenue less operating costs,
applicable taxes and a charge for the capital
employed. The concept is similar to the notion
of economic profit.
3. Demand analysis. Assess the role that the brand
plays in driving demand for products and services
in the markets in which it operates, and determine
what proportion of intangible earnings is
attributable to the brand measured by an indicator
referred to as the “role of branding index.”
This is done by first identifying the various
drivers of demand for the branded business,
then determining the degree to which each
driver is directly influenced by the brand.
The role of branding index represents the percentage
of intangible earnings that are generated
by the brand. Brand earnings are calculated by
multiplying the role of branding index by intangible
4. Competitive benchmarking. Determine the competitive
strengths and weaknesses of the brand
to derive the specific brand discount rate that
reflects the risk profile of its expected future earnings
(this is measured by an indicator referred
to as the “brand strength score”). This comprises
extensive competitive benchmarking and a structured
evaluation of the brand’s market, stability,
leadership position, growth trend, support,
geographic footprint and legal protectability.
5. Brand value calculation. Brand value is the net
present value (NPV) of the forecast brand earnings,
discounted by the brand discount rate.
The NPV calculation comprises both the forecast
period and the period beyond, reflecting the
ability of brands to continue generating future
earnings. An example of a hypothetical valuation
of a brand in one market segment is shown
in Table 2.2. This calculation is useful for brand
value modeling in a wide range of situations,
• predicting the effect of marketing and investment
• determining and assessing communication
• calculating the return on brand investment;
• assessing opportunities in new or underexploited
• tracking brand value management.
The range of applications for brand valuation has
widened considerably since its creation in 1988,
and it is now used in most strategic marketing and
financial decisions. There are two main categories
Strategic brand management
- Strategic brand management, where brand
valuation focuses mainly on internal audiences
by providing tools and processes to manage
and increase the economic value of brands.
- Financial transactions, where brand valuation
helps in a variety of brand-related transactions
with external parties.
Recognition of the economic value of brands has
increased the demand for effective management of
the brand asset. In the pursuit of increasing shareholder
value, companies are keen to establish
procedures for the management of brands that are
aligned with those for other business assets,
as well as for the company as a whole. As traditional
purely research-based measurements proved
insufficient for understanding and managing the
economic value of brands, companies have
adopted brand valuation as a brand management
tool. Brand valuation helps them establish valuebased
systems for brand management. Economic
value creation becomes the focus of brand
management and all brand-related investment
decisions. Companies as diverse as American
Express, IBM, Samsung Electronics, Accenture,
United Way of America, BP, Fujitsu and Duke
Energy have used brand valuation to help them
refocus their businesses on their brands and to
create an economic rationale for branding decisions
and investments. Many companies have
made brand value creation part of the remuneration
criteria for senior marketing executives.
These companies find brand valuation helpful for
Making decisions on business investments.
By making the brand asset comparable to other
intangible and tangible company assets, resource
allocation between the different asset types
can follow the same economic criteria and
rationale, for example, capital allocation and
Measuring the return on brand investments
based on brand value to arrive at an ROI that can
be directly compared with other investments.
Brand management and marketing service
providers can be measured against clearly identified
performance targets related to the value
of the brand asset.
Making decisions on brand investments. By prioritizing
them by brand, customer segment,
geographic market, product or service, distribution
channel, and so on, brand investments can
be assessed for cost and impact and judged on
which will produce the highest returns.
Making decisions on licensing the brand to subsidiary
companies. Under a license the subsidiaries
will be accountable for the brand’s management
and use, and an asset that has to be paid for will
be managed more rigorously than one that is free.
Turning the marketing department from a cost
center into a profit center by connecting brand
investments and brand returns (royalties from
the use of the brand by subsidiaries). The relationship
between investments in and returns
from the brand becomes transparent and manageable.
Remuneration and career development
of marketing staff can be linked to and measured
by brand value development.
Allocating marketing expenditures according to
the benefit each business unit derives from the
Organizing and optimizing the use of different
brands in the business (for example, corporate,
product and subsidiary brands) according to
their respective economic value contribution.
Assessing co-branding initiatives according to
their economic benefits and risks to the value of
the company’s brand.
Deciding the appropriate branding after a merger
according to a clear economic rationale.
Managing brand migration more successfully as
a result of a better understanding of the value of
different brands, and therefore of what can be
lost or gained if brand migration occurs.
Establishing brand value scorecards based on
the understanding of the drivers of brand value
that provide focused and actionable measures
for optimal brand performance.
Managing a portfolio of brands across a variety
of markets. Brand performance and brand
investments can be assessed on an equally comparable
basis to enhance the overall return from
the brand portfolio.
Communicating where appropriate the economic
value creation of the brand to the capital
markets in order to support share prices and
The financial uses of brand valuation include the
• Assessing fair transfer prices for the use of brands
in subsidiary companies. Brand royalties can be
repatriated as income to corporate headquarters
in a tax-effective way. Brands can be licensed to
international subsidiaries and, in the United States,
to subsidiaries in different states.
• Determining brand royalty rates for optimal
exploitation of the brand asset through licensing
the brand to third parties.
• Capitalizing brand assets on the balance sheet
according to US GAAP, IAS and many countryspecific
accounting standards. Brand valuation
is used for both the initial valuation and the
periodical impairment tests for the derived values.
• Determining a price for brand assets in mergers
and acquisitions as well as clearly identifying
the value that brands add to a transaction.
• Determining the contribution of brands to joint
ventures to establish profit sharing, investment
requirements and shareholding in the venture.
• Using brands for securitization of debt facilities
in which the rights for the economic exploitations
of brands are used as collateral.
As global competition becomes tougher and many
competitive advantages, such as technology,
become more short-lived, the brand’s contribution
to shareholder value will increase. The brand is one
of the few assets that can provide long-term competitive
Despite the commercial importance of brands,
the management of them still lags behind that of
their tangible counterparts. Even though measurement
has become the mantra of modern
management, it is astonishing how few agreed
systems and processes exist to manage the brand
asset. When it comes to managing and measuring
factory output the choice of measures is staggering,
as are the investments in sophisticated
computer systems that measure and analyze every
detail of the manufacturing process. The same is
true for financial controlling. But, strangely,
this cannot be said for the management of
the brand asset. Although many brand measures
are available, few can link the brand to long-term
financial value creation. Nor has investment in
brand management reached a level or sophistication
comparable with other controlling measures.
As the importance of intangibles to companies
increases, managers will want to install more valuebased
brand management systems that can align
the management of the brand asset with that of
other corporate assets.
There is a similar lack of detail about the contribution
of brands in the financial reporting of company
results. Investments in and returns from tangible
assets are reported at sophisticated and detailed
levels, but this is not true for intangible assets.
For example, Coca-Cola’s balance sheet, income
statement and cash flow calculation tell us about
working capital, net fixed assets and financial
investments, but little about the performance of
the most important company asset, the Coca-Cola
brand. The same is true for most other brandowning
companies. Current accounting regulations
are deficient in their treatment of intangible assets.
The increasing value placed on intangibles through
mergers and acquisitions over the past two decades
has forced accounting standards to acknowledge
and deal with intangible assets on the balance
sheet. However, the standards deal only with the
bare minimum accounting for acquired intangibles,
formerly known as goodwill. As a bizarre consequence,
the value of acquired brands is included in
companies’ balance sheets but the value of internally
generated brands remains unaccounted for.
Overall, there is an increasing need for brand
valuation from both a management and transactional
point of view. With the development of
the economic use approach, there is at last a standard
that can be used for brand valuation. This may
well become the most important brand management
tool in the future.
Notes and references
1. “The Best Global Brands”, BusinessWeek, 6 August, 2002.
2. Foster, R. and Kaplan, S., Creative Destruction: Why Companies
That Are Built to Last Underperform the Market – And How to
Successfully Transform Them, Doubleday, 2001.
3. Madden, T.J. (University of South Carolina), Fehle, F. (University
of South Carolina) and Fournier, S.M. (Harvard University),
Brands Matter: An Empirical Investigation of Brand-Building
Activities and the Creation of Shareholder Value, unpublished
paper, 2 May 2002.
4. Interbrand, Brand Valuation, March 2003, p. 3.
5. K.W. Suh, Manager, Global Marketing, Samsung Electronics,
interview, 6 August 2003.
6. Akasia, J.F., “Ford’s Model E,” Forbes, 17 July 2000, pp. 30–34.
7. Examples are Klein, N., No Logo, Picador, 1999; Philip Kotler,
interview in the Financial Times, 31 May 2003.
8. PIMS (Profit Impact of Marketing Strategy), “Evidence on the
contribution of branded consumer business to economic growth,”
PIMS Europe, London, September 1998.
Part 1: The Case for Brands
What is a Brand?
Tom Blackett, Interbrand
The Financial Value of Brands
Jan Lindemann, Interbrand
The Social Value of Brands
Steve Hilton, Good Business
What Makes Brands Great?
Chuck Brymer, Interbrand
Part 2: Best Practice in Branding
Brand Positioning and Brand Creation
Shaun Smith, consultant
Visual and Verbal Identity
John Simmons and Tony Allen,
Paul Feldwick, BMP
The Public Relations Perspective on Branding
Field Fisher Waterhouse
Part 3: The Future for Brands
Globalisation and Brands
Sameena Ahmad, The Economist
An Alternative Perspective on Brands
New Economics Foundation
Branding in South-East Asia
Kim Faulkner, Interbrand
Branding Places and Nations
Simon Anholt, Placebrands
The Future of Brands
Rita Clifton, Interbrand