GLOBAL BRANDS

FINANCIAL TIMES SPECIAL REPORT | Thursday May 19 2011

www.ft.com/globalbrands2011 | twitter.com/ftreports

Inside this issue

Financial services A gulf in perception of how the credit crisis was handled is affecting rankings Page 3 China Big companies face long road to recognition as global brands Page 4 Other Bric brands Developing nations jostle for position in league table of big names Page 5 Environment Longterm impact of green issues is played down by experts as customers buy on price and convenience Page 6 Opinion With environmental awareness rising, what are the risks and opportunities for brands? Page 6 Social media Why it is better for brand owners to listen than to shout Page 7

Big names f ly high despite the gloom

Amid claims that Top 20 risers investing in brands By brand value growth, (year-on-year) during the crisis Brand paid off, the reality Facebook is more nuanced, Baidu write Louise Lucas Wells Fargo and Barney Jopson Burberry Apple
Brand value growth (%) 246 141 97 86 84 68 58 53 45 41 40 39 37 35 34 31 31 29 28 27

he obituaries proved premature. In the era of austerity, complete with subdued consumers and cost-cutting companies, big brands are flourishing. Those who earn their living from the sector like to say this proves the received wisdom is correct: investing in brands through recessionary downturns pays off. But, as this years BrandZ survey shows, the reality is more nuanced. Some brands have gained traction or even a second wind on the back of new, growing markets such as China. Others owe their renaissance or continued growth trajectory to visionary leaders, new products or a booming marketplace in the case of newly minted most valuable brand, Apple, all three at once. Overall, the value of the Top 100 brands is up 17 per cent on last year; they are now worth $2,400bn, according to Millward Brown Optimor, the WPP subsidiary that compiles the rankings. That represents an additional $500bn on top of the pre-recession value in 2008, a far cry from the sunken

Skol Pizza Hut Geico Std Chartered Bank Herms Starbucks Petrobras Amazon UPS Cartier Este Lauder MetLife Siemens Ikea Canon

Source: Millward Brown Optimor (including data from BrandZ, Kantar Worldpanel and Bloomberg)

The big story in this years rankings is the power of the tablet
values prophesied by the pessimists. The recession, they believed, would prompt a mass and sustained swing from branded shampoos and cakes to ownlabel. Further up the chain, purveyors and retailers of goods such as Net-a-Porter, the online designer retailer, began offering to wrap customers purchases in discreet brown paper rather than the traditional luxe tissue-and-ribbons. Yet while the top brands are worth far more, there have been other changes since the first BrandZ Top 100 in 2006 and the years before the recession. These include the constituents of the ranking, says Cristiana Pearson, MBO director. The composition is much more heavily geared towards technology and telecom providers, whereas

before you used to see a lot of luxury brands and retail brands a lot more consumer facing brands. Tech now represents a third in terms of numbers and about half the value. Cars, luxury and apparel are still recovering from pre-recession levels. The technology sector continues to hog the limelight, but Google, the topranking brand four years running, has been usurped by Apple. The maker of the iPhone and iPad has seen its brand value increase 859 per cent since 2006, or by $137bn of value. It accounts for 6.4 per cent of the Top 100 by value (compared with 5.6 per cent for Google last year). The big story in this years rankings is the power of the tablet, says Eileen Campbell, MBOs global chief executive. This also explains some of the lift in value of mobile network providers, she adds. Apple had such a big hit with the iPhone4 and the iPad, and that has contributed to its extraordinary growth. Steve Centrillo, cofounder and managing partner of Smiths, a branding agency in New York, points to music and mobile handsets. Apple has radicalised two industries in which it had no expertise. It shows that companies willing to buck the trend can be very successful, he says. In the process Apple has transformed itself in a way few other brands in the upper rankings have tried or wanted to. For Stuart Wood, executive creative director at Fitch, the design and branding consultancy, it is
Continued on Page 2

MEESON

FINANCIAL TIMES THURSDAY MAY 19 2011

Global Brands
Rankings Grounded in customer research and financial analysis
As businesses emerge from the recession, the importance of the brand as a financial asset is thrown into sharp relief. Companies that have invested in developing strong brands have retained their value better and are bouncing back faster. Managing brand value is an increasingly important source of financial returns. The key to a brands success resides in the minds of its customers, but a brand is valuable only if it can translate customer sentiment into financial value. The BrandZ Top 100 is the only ranking based on a brand valuation methodology that is grounded in quantitative customer research and in depth financial analysis. Insights into customer behaviour and brand strength come from WPPs unique BrandZ database the worlds largest repository of brand equity data. Covering thousands of brands and based on more than 2m indepth interviews, it provides a detailed, quantified understanding of customer decisionmaking the world over. Financial data are sourced from Bloomberg, analyst reports, Kantar Worldpanel data, and company filings with regulatory bodies. A team of Millward Brown Optimors consultants then prepare financial models for each brand that link brand perceptions to company revenues, earnings, and ultimately shareholder and brand value. The BrandZ Top 100 Most Valuable Global Brands study values marketfacing brands, that is brands that directly generate revenues and profits through the sale of goods and services to customers. Corporate brands such as Procter & Gamble, Unilever and Nestl which have significant value especially with the investment community, are not included. The ranking values brands from 13 categories, ranging from apparel, beer, cars, to fast food, financial services, insurance, luxury goods, telecom providers, oil & gas companies, personal care, retail, soft drinks, and technology. Through extensive coverage of developed and emerging markets, it provides insight into the sources and drivers of brand value, both today and in the future. MBO applies an economic use approach to brand valuation, using valuation methodology similar to that employed by analysts and accountants. MBO takes a fundamental approach to brand value, based on the intrinsic value of the brand, which is derived from its ability to generate demand. The dollar value of each brand in the ranking is the sum of the future earnings that that brand is forecast to generate, discounted to a present day value. The brand value is calculated in three steps: First, the proportion of a companys earnings that is generated under the banner of the brand is determined. In the case of CocaCola, for instance, some earnings are not branded CocaCola, but come from Fanta, Sprite or Minute Maid. From these branded earnings, capital charges are subtracted. This captures value only above and beyond what investors would require any investment in the brand to earn: the value the brand adds to the business. Earnings are then allocated to each brand in each country of operation. This provides MBO with a bottomup view of the earnings of the branded business. Only a portion of these earnings can be considered to be driven by brand equity. This is the brand contribution: the degree to which brand equity plays a role in generating earnings. MBO establishes it through analysis of country, market, and brandspecific customer research from the BrandZ database. This guarantees the brand contribution is rooted in real customer perceptions and behaviour, rather than subjective opinion. This allows MBO to capture differences in the importance of brands by category and by country, changes in customer priorities, and the role of brand versus other factors such as price and distribution. In the final step, the growth potential of these branded earnings is taken into account. This provides an earnings multiple that is aligned with the methods used by the analyst community, and also takes into account brandspecific growth opportunities and barriers. MBO has refined its analysis over the past six years to help finance and marketing departments understand and increase the value of their brands.

Global top 100

By value
Brand value change '11 vs.'10 (%) Brand value change '11 vs.'10 (%)

Brand value 2011 ($m)

Brand value 2010 ($m)

Brand value 2009 ($m)

Brand value 2011 ($m)

Brand value 2010 ($m)

Brand value 2009 ($m)

Brand momentum**

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

2 Apple -1 Google -1 IBM 2 McDonald's -1 Microsoft -1 Coca-Cola 15 AT&T -1 Marlboro -1 China Mobile -1 GE = ICBC -2 Vodafone 7 Verizon 1 Amazon -2 Walmart 14 Wells Fargo -1 UPS -6 HP New Deutsche Telekom2 -2 Visa 39 Movistar -3 Oracle -2 SAP 3 China Construction Bank -11 BlackBerry 3 Louis Vuitton -1 Toyota -5 HSBC 46 Baidu -5 BMW -14 Tesco -4 Gillette New China Life Insurance -1 Pampers New Facebook 14 Orange -13 Bank of China 3 Disney -3 RBC 12 American Express -2 ExxonMobil 29 TD New Agricultural Bank of China -9 Cisco -7 Budweiser3 3 L'Oral 7 Citi 9 NTT DoCoMo -5 Accenture 3 Mercedes -11 Shell New Tencent/QQ -8 ICICI Bank 10 Subway -8 Colgate
1

153,285 111,498 100,849 81,016 78,243 73,752 69,916 67,522 57,326 50,318 44,440 43,647 42,828 37,628 37,277 36,876 35,737 35,404 29,774 28,553 27,249 26,948 26,078 25,524 24,623 24,312 24,198 22,587 22,555 22,425 21,834 19,782 19,542 19,350 19,102 17,597 17,530 17,290 17,182 17,115 16,973 16,931 16,909 16,314 15,952 15,719 15,674 15,449 15,427 15,344 15,168 15,131 14,900 14,306 14,258

84 -2 17 23 2 8 n/a 18 9 12 1 -2 n/a 37 -5 97 35 -11 n/a 15 n/a 9 7 22 -20 23 11 -4 141 3 -15 -4 n/a 11 246 n/a -20 15 3 23 10 19 n/a -2 0 11 17 19 5 12 0 n/a 3 19 0

83153 114260 86383 66005 76344 67983 n/a 57047 52616 45054 43927 44404 n/a 27459 39421 18746 26492 39717 n/a 24883 n/a 24817 24291 20929 30708 19781 21769 23408 9356 21816 25741 20663 n/a 17434 5524 n/a 21960 15000 16608 13912 15476 14202 n/a 16719 15991 14129 13403 12969 14734 13736 15112 n/a 14454 12032 14224

63113 100039 66622 66575 76249 67625 n/a 49460 61283 59793 38056 53727 n/a 21294 41083 16228 27842 26745 n/a 16353 n/a 21438 23615 22811 27478 19395 29907 19079 n/a 23948 22938 22919 n/a 18945 n/a n/a 21192 23110 14894 14963 n/a 10991 n/a 17965 13292 14991 14608 15776 15076 15499 n/a n/a n/a 10997 12396

4 4 3 4 4 5 3 4 4 1 2 2 3 3 2 3 4 3 2 4 2 1 3 2 4 5 4 2 5 5 4 5 2 5 3 1 2 3 3 3 1 4 1 2 4 4 2 2 4 5 1 4 3 4 4

9 4 5 7 7 9 4 4 9 2 5 4 4 10 5 2 8 4 4 9 6 7 7 4 9 7 7 2 10 8 7 4 9 5 5 4 4 6 4 2 8 1 6 5 4 6 1 8 3 8 5 9 3 5 6

56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100

-10 Honda 2 Nike -10 Intel -17 Carrefour 7 MasterCard 12 Petrobras 1 H&M -5 Pepsi4 -30 BP -3 Target -1 Porsche 1 Samsung -7 Chase 20 Standard Chartered Bank 7 Siemens 15 Herms 13 Starbucks 1 FedEx -4 O2 New Telecom Italia -7 Telcel -46 Santander -27 PetroChina -47 Nintendo5 -8 MTS -38 Nokia -6 eBay New Ping An 4 US Bank 9 Sony6 -6 Zara New Scotiabank -4 Nissan -8 Home Depot New Ita New China Telecom -55 Bank of America -11 Red Bull7 -11 Aldi 5 Tim -9 Barclays -7 China Merchants Bank = Bradesco New Sberbank -22 Goldman Sachs

14,182 13,917 13,904 13,754 13,543 13,421 13,006 12,931 12,542 12,471 12,413 12,160 12,083 12,033 11,998 11,917 11,901 11,759 11,694 11,609 11,558 11,363 11,291 11,147 10,883 10,735 10,731 10,540 10,525 10,443 10,335 10,076 10,072 9,877 9,600 9,587 9,358 9,263 9,251 8,838 8,760 8,668 8,600 8,535 8,439

-1 10 -2 -8 16 39 7 1 -27 3 3 7 -3 45 29 41 40 25 n/a n/a 7 -37 -19 -37 12 -28 15 n/a 26 19 15 n/a 17 10 29 n/a -43 4 6 21 4 5 15 n/a -9

14303 12597 14210 14980 11659 9675 12131 12752 17283 12148 12021 11351 12426 8327 9293 8457 8490 9418 n/a n/a 10850 18012 13935 17834 9723 14866 9328 n/a 8377 8778 8986 n/a 8607 8971 7465 n/a 16393 8917 8747 7280 8383 8236 7450 n/a 9283

14571 11999 22851 14961 7427 n/a 12061 14996 n/a 12254 17467 6322 10582 8219 13562 7862 7260 9491 n/a n/a n/a 16035 n/a 18233 9189 35163 12970 n/a n/a n/a 8609 n/a 10206 9280 n/a n/a 15480 8154 8638 6409 6992 8052 n/a n/a 7415

3 4 2 3 4 1 2 4 1 3 5 3 3 2 1 5 5 4 2 4 3 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 1 4 2 2 1 2 2 3 2

Brand momentum** 7 5 5 7 7 7 8 6 5 3 6 9 3 2 4 8 5 8 5 5 6 5 10 3 9 6 8 7 2 8 6 2 8 3 3 7 3 5 4 5 2 7 3 4 2

Brand contribution*

* Brand contribution (BC), the portion of earnings that can be considered to be driven by brand equity, is presented as an index from 1 to a maximum of 5. ** Brand momentum (BM) indicates each brands shortterm growth potential. It is presented as an index from 1 to a maximum of 10
1 2

Includes Lites, Diets and Zero Deutsche Telekom is rebranding its business to T, which incorporates T-Mobile, T-Home and T-Systems 3 Includes Bud Light 4 Includes Lites, Diets and Zero 5 Includes Wii and Nintendo DS 7 Includes sugar-free and Cola
Source: Millward Brown Optimor (including data from BrandZ, Kantar Worldpanel and Bloomberg)

Big names f ly high in spite of the gloom

Continued from Page 1

people power that is behind Apples meteorite rise and ability to reinvent itself. Most recently, that has been the use of personal data on iPhones a step away from providing computer hardware. A similar theme runs through other technology players. Facebook, a new entrant after racking up the biggest percentage growth, made its debut at number 35. Amazon, with a 37 per cent leap in brand value, is now the top retailer, usurping Walmart for the first time. [Amazon] is really fitting in with the consumer desires and needs. It has the ability to be there when the consumers need it for their shopping and offers a huge, increased range, says Peter Walshe, global BrandZ director at Millward Brown. A continuing trend is the rise of the Bric nations, with a total 19 entrants from Brazil, Russia, India and China, plus Mexico. Banks and insurers were at the top of the pile, making up five of the new entrants. Many are names barely known outside their home countrys borders. Agricultural Bank of China, for example, may boast more customers than the US has people (320m) and 24,000 branches, but its roots are in provision of loans to rural Chinese, not global finance. Mr Wood at Fitch says: When you have huge numbers of people banking with a Chinese or Brazilian bank, Im not sure how relevant that is to a UK consumer unless you are an investor. Brands that dropped out of the Top 100 include well known names such as

Avon, Gucci and Morgan Stanley, while newcomers include Russias Sberbank, Brazils Ita and China Life Insurance. Then there are the bounce-backs: brands that fell out of favour and have succeeded in rehabilitating themselves. In the 2010 ranking Toyota, the worlds biggest carmaker, suffered a 27 per cent drop in its brand value following its mass recall, but this year it rose 11 per cent and slipped just one place to 27th, although it regained pole position in the cars Top 10. David Duncan, managing partner of Smiths, the New York agency, and its other co-founder, says: What you do is far more important than what you say. Its doubly lethal if thats possible to continue to do the wrong thing while you say things you think people want to hear. That is a sentiment with which BP, the UK-listed oil and gas group crippled by last years oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, may quietly concur. Mr Centrillo adds:

Consumers are willing to forgive if you are willing to admit you made a mistake. Weve seen that time and time again. Says Fitchs Mr Wood: If you start with solid foundations and trust, then brands have the ability to bounce back. Toyota is a good example: they had massive recalls, but the goodwill around that brand allowed it to bounce back. Banking is another

If you start with solid foundations and trust, brands have the ability to bounce back
Stuart Wood, Fitch

example. Its about how you hold your hand up, because there is nowhere to hide with blogs and so on. Millward Browns Ms Campbell puts it succinctly: In some ways brand value is like a bank account. You can make some withdrawals as long as you are putting money back in. She says the agency predicted last year that Toyota would rebound if it addressed its quality issues because it had such a well of heritage for being a great brand driven by great products. Some of Toyotas fellow Japanese brands, also labouring under issues relating to quality, must hope for similar goodwill. Sony, the consumer electronics group, is a case where some say such goodwill has been lost since the glory days of the Walkman, making it harder to recover from the breach of its PlayStation network by hackers. But Ms Campbell adds that

Sectors
Category

Top brands outperform the market

Rebased (%) 50 BrandZ Portfolio* 25 40.1%

Rises and falls across 13 categories Brand value growth Brand value growth 11 vs. 10 (%) 11 vs. 08 (%) Insurance 137 (10*) 6 (-51*) Fast Food 22 42 Luxury 19 -13 Technology 18 32 Apparel 10 -1 Financial Institutions 9 7 Beer 7 32 Cars 7 -27 Soft Drinks 5 26 Personal Care 3 5 Retail 2 7 Oil & Gas 1 n/a Telecom Providers n/a n/a *Figures in brackets exclude new entrants China Life Insurance, Ping An and China Pacic Insurance
Source: Millward Brown Optimor (including data from BrandZ, Kantar Worldpanel and Bloomberg)

0 -0.5% -25 S&P 500 -50 2006 07 08 09 10 11

Source: Millward Brown Optimor

* Based on the top 100 brands, updated annually

those with longer memories would also put Apple firmly in the rehabilitation camp. Apple is one of these fabulous stories. If I dial back 20 years to the early PC wars, we had all left Apple for dead. Its one of these great stories that committed leaders that focus on financial health, product innovation and strategic investment in marketing can rehabilitate the most moribund of brands not, she adds, that Apple was really that moribund. But reversals of fortune can swing both ways, as Research in Motion knows. The Canadian maker of the BlackBerry slipped 11 notches to 25th place behind names such as Oracle, SAP and China Construction Bank that are surely unknown to plenty of BlackBerry-toting types. This reversal comes as RIM is bleeding market share and its chief executive, Mike Lazaridis, abruptly ended an interview with the BBC after being asked about problems in India. Yet help may be at hand with the PlayBook, BlackBerrys first tablet, which MBOs brand experts believe may spark a revival. As a result, BlackBerrys brand momentum, a short term measure of potential for increasing brand value, is close to the maximum. Issues such as those faced by RIM recently are among the challenges for brand managers. Says Mr Duncan at Smiths: Big companies have a hard time dealing with change. The average chief marketing officers tenure is 18 months. Theyre one mistake away from failure. They cant fall back on an old set of rules. Theyre very frightened right now.

Brand contribution*

Ranking Change

Ranking Change

Brand

Brand

Rank

Rank

FINANCIAL TIMES THURSDAY MAY 19 2011

Global Brands

Mixed results for sector in the aftermath of crisis

Financial services A gulf in perception of how the meltdown was handled is affecting rankings, says Sharlene Goff
Financial institutions
Top 20 by brand value Rank Brand Brand value $M Brand contribution Brand momentum 5 2 9 4 2 4 4 2 1 6 1 3 7 3 2 5 2 2 3 3 Brand value change (%) 1 97 15 22 -4 -20 3 23 19 n/a 17 3 16 -3 45 -37 26 n/a 29 -43

s the financial sector scrambles back to its feet after the catastrophic meltdown of 2008, an increasing gulf is emerging between how people perceive the institutions at the heart of the crisis and those that managed to avoid the direct line of fire. After enjoying an indiscriminate industry-wide boost a year ago the financial-institutions category rose more than any other in the 2010 BrandZ Top 100, making up for the sharp fall it suffered the year before that the picture for banks this time around is far more mixed. Institutions across fastgrowing emerging markets China and Brazil, for example and other regions that have escaped largely unscathed from the financial crisis, have fared well. Chinas ICBC retained its top ranking within financial services for the second year, while Agricultural Bank of China made its debut in both the sector table and the overall top 100. Two other Chinese groups, China Construction Bank and Bank of China, retained their places among the top 10 financial services companies. Meanwhile, Scotiabank, the Canadian lender, and Brazils Ita also made firsttime appearances in the top 100 global brands. Conversely, a number of banks across parts of the

HSBC has used its brand in a unified way across the world and continues to do that
Peter Walshe, Millward Brown
US and Europe that have been more brutally savaged by the financial crisis, were punished. Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan dropped out of the top 100 completely. Bank of America was the biggest faller, losing 55 places to position 92, while Santander and Goldman Sachs one of last years big risers also tumbled down the ranks. Banks generally have been losing trust over the past few years, according to our data, says Peter Walshe, global BrandZ director at Millward Brown. But the top 20 are mostly highly trusted brands . . . Theres a distinction between the mass of the banks and the ones that are very successful and are reaching into big communities, which actually, are trusted. Mr Walshe points out that some of the banks have been tainted by short-term financial performance, rather than inherent problems with their brands. Specifically, he believes Santander has been downgraded because of the difficulties it has encountered in its ravaged domestic property market. Its not to do with the brand itself, its loss in brand value is entirely [due to] exposure

in disaster markets such as Spain, he says. For Bank of America, however, MBO says the fall reflects upheaval of the brand itself following its merger with Merrill Lynch. Cristiana Pearson, a director at MBO, says the merger during the financial crisis caused problems, as the combination of Bank of Americas strong retail brand with Merrill Lynchs investment banking franchise did not immediately chime with customers. I think this created some brand confusion, she says. In the UK, where there has been the biggest public and political backlash against the return of big bank profits and the bumper bonuses that come with them there are marked differences in the way institutions are perceived. Barclays, which has sparked some of the strongest criticism for the hefty bonuses paid to top bankers, fell nine places, just staying within the top 100 brands at position 96. HSBC also slipped, although it was still the second-strongest UK brand to Vodafone. Mr Walshe says HSBC whose presence in Asia has provided some insulation from the challenges of the UK market is an example of a brand that has retained customers trust despite a weaker financial performance following the financial crisis. It has used its brand in a unified way across the world and continues to do that, he says. It is a good example of a company that has built up its ethos and its brand both outward facing, to consumers and businesses, and inward facing, to its staff. Banks that have taken direct state support Royal Bank of Scotland in the UK, and the Swiss banks, for example have failed to recover sufficiently to warrant a place in the index. Better news comes for Standard Chartered, which, like HSBC is focused on Asia and other emerging markets, and Wells Fargo, the US retail bank that has merged with Wachovia, which were both among the top 10 risers this year. Credit card companies Visa, MasterCard and American Express also fared well all three were in the top 20 financial services brands building on a strong performance a year ago. Insurance providers also had a good year, showing by far the strongest growth in brand value of any category, although this was flattered by the first-time inclusion of a number of Chinese firms. The sectors brand value jumped by 137 per cent, reflecting the contribution from China Life Insurance and Ping An, which made their debuts in the top 100 at positions 33 and 83 and took the top two positions in the global insurance sector, and China Pacific Insurance. The overall value of the brands of financial institutions as a sector increased 9 per cent in this years rankings the sixth-highest riser after insurance, fast food, luxury, technology and apparel. Since 2008, the financial sector has risen 7 per cent.

1 ICBC 44,440 2 2 Wells Fargo 36,876 3 3 Visa 28,553 4 4 China Construction Bank 25,524 2 5 HSBC 22,587 2 6 Bank of China 17,530 2 7 RBC 17,182 3 8 American Express 17,115 3 9 TD* 16,931 4 10 Agricultural Bank of China 16,909 1 11 Citi 15,674 2 12 ICICI Bank 14,900 3 13 MasterCard 13,543 4 14 Chase 12,083 3 15 Standard Chartered Bank 12,033 2 16 Santander 11,363 2 17 US Bank 10,525 3 18 Scotiabank 10,076 2 19 Ita 9,600 2 20 Bank of America 9,358 1 *Correction to TDs 2010 value. Brand value in 2010 was $14,202, not $10,274
Source: Millward Brown Optimor (including data from BrandZ and Bloomberg)

Giving a good account of itself: ICBC retains top ranking in the sector Top 20 Bloomberg

Contributors
Louise Lucas Consumer Industries Editor Barney Jopson US Retail Correspondent Andrew Baxter Senior Writer, FT Reports; Commissioning Editor Sharlene Goff Retail Banking Correspondent Kathrin Hille Beijing Correspondent Rod Newing FT Contributor Jessica Twentyman FT Contributor Steven Bird Designer Andy Mears Picture Editor For advertising details, contact: Ian Edwards on: +44 (0)20 7873 3272; email: ian.edwards@ft.com or your usual Financial Times representative All editorial content in this supplement is produced by the Financial Times. All FT Reports are available on FT.com. Go to www/ft.com/reports Follow FT Reports at twitter.com/ftreports

FINANCIAL TIMES THURSDAY MAY 19 2011

Global Brands

Big companies face long road to recognition F

China Most groups are known locally rather than worldwide, writes Kathrin Hille
rom the plain numbers, one could conclude that China is on the verge of becoming a global brand powerhouse. Of the 11 new entrants in the BrandZ Top 100 ranking, five are Chinese. With 12 Chinese brands in the Top 100, the country seems far ahead of other large emerging markets such as Brazil, Russia and India. And Chinese companies now dominate the Asia Top 10 with eight entries (see table below). But Chinese companies have only just started taking their first steps towards building brands, and their road will be a long and hard one, branding experts say. The big reality is: these are still Chinese, not global, brands, says Adrian Gonzalez, head of Greater China at Millward Brown, which compiles the ranking. Most of them are in there because of the scale they have in China. The majority of the Chinese companies represented in the ranking are stateowned enterprises in businesses that heavily rely on large population numbers such as banking, insurance and telecoms. Four of this years five new Chinese entrants meet that profile: Ping An Insurance, Agricultural Bank of China, China Telecom and China Life Insurance. With a few exceptions, such companies have yet to fully understand what branding means, experts say. They [state-owned enterprises] need to think harder about how consumers see them, says Raymond Tao, president of Ogilvy & Mather Advertising in China. So far, their thinking is still very much focused on how the government sees them, how distributors see them. China Mobile is seen as the big exception. It is the worlds largest mobile operator by subscribers and was also the first Chinese brand to enter the BrandZ Top 100 ranking when it was started in 2006. It agreed to work with Ogilvy to overhaul its sub-brand for young users, an exercise which ended up transforming the entire brand. Other state enterprises have tried in terms of service and product, but in terms of communication, the quality is just not there, says Mr Tao. Elsewhere, there are some much more promising Chinese brands. Baidu, the countrys largest online search engine, saw its brand value grow at the second-fastest pace of all Top 100 companies this year, and Tencent, which operates the worlds largest instant messaging service, entered the ranking for the first time. Mr Gonzalez sees other technology firms as promising candidates. 360Buy, an e-commerce company, Suning, an electronics retailer which is rapidly expanding online, and Lenovo, the worlds fourth-largest PC vendor, are promising brands he bets on. In some sectors where US and European brands are strong, Chinese brands face many more hurdles. There is much stronger negative sentiment about China in certain respects than there is regarding other Bric markets if you ask consumers what they associate with Chinese products, theyll tell you that everything cheap is made in China, and theyll think of quality problems, says Mr Gonzalez. Therefore analysts believe it will be years before Chi-

Putting their best foot forward: shoes from Shanghaibased StellaLunas 2011 spring and summer collection

nese carmakers, which have expressed growing ambitions to build brands, have a chance to be trusted and recognised abroad. Similar hurdles exist in the luxury industry. As people develop a growing pride in their economic clout and cultural renaissance and as the domestic consumer market is growing fast, plans for home grown luxury brands abound. Increasing numbers of fashion companies from south-eastern China, which used to do just contract work for export, have begun calling in advertising and branding consultants as they think about launching their own brands. One example is StellaLuna, a Shanghai-based shoemaker that set up its own brand in 2006. It markets its 2011 summer collection with association with French femmes fatales. While the company says it believes China will replace Europe as the global centre of fashion in the 21st century, it also feels the need to cite its founders credentials as former contract manufacturers for European brands as proof of taste and quality. Many people in China have that dream of building a luxury brand, but maybe itll take another generation, says Mr Tao. Things are at an even more embryonic stage when it comes to brand internationalisation. As their domestic market is so big and growing, there is no good reason for them to go global quickly, says Mr Gonzalez. Branding experts see the decision by Li Ning, the

Many dream of building a luxury brand, but maybe itll take another generation
Raymond Tao, Ogilvy & Mather China
sports shoe brand, to set up a shop in Paris as a move mainly aimed at Chinese consumers, demonstrating the brand has a certain global standing. Other brands which have started internationalising are often still competing on price and distribution networks. SAC, a small Chinese car brand which has been quite successful in Brazil, is an example, as its expansion there has been driven and managed by its local distributor. The big exception is the white-goods sector. Haier, the company whose chief executive once started out by publicly smashing poorquality refrigerators with a hammer to demonstrate his commitment to high quality, has built a strong position in several developing markets. In Pakistan and Nigeria, Haier is now a high-end brand, and the company has also seen some success with a new refrigerator model that appealed to young, affluent consumers in Europe. Experts believe Chinese mobile handset makers might follow in the white goods companies footprints as the industry has become equally competitive. Huawei, the telecom network gear maker, which has recently started pushing the expansion of its devices arm, is a closely watched candidate.

Asia
Rank

Top 10 by brand value 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Brand China Mobile ICBC China Construction Bank Toyota Baidu China Life Insurance Bank of China Agricultural Bank of China NTT DoCoMo Tencent/QQ BV 2011 ($m) BC BM 57,326 4 9 44,440 2 5 25,524 2 4 24,198 4 7 22,555 5 10 19,542 2 9 17,530 2 4 16,909 1 6 15,449 2 8 15,131 4 9

Source: Millward Brown Optimor (including data from BrandZ and Bloomberg)

FINANCIAL TIMES THURSDAY MAY 19 2011

Global Brands

Brazil, Russia and India strive for place at top

Other Bric brands Developing nations jostle for position in league table of big names, says Andrew Baxter
s come more to the fore in brands outside the Top 100. Skol, the Brazilian beer brand not to be confused with the lager on sale in the UK and elsewhere supports the Brazilian lifestyle theme, says Ms Pearson, with music events including the Skol Beats festival. Skol is the most popular beer brand in Brazil and has the highest desire score of the Top 10 beer brands, according to BrandZ consumer research. It is the sixth-highest riser overall, with a 68 per cent increase in brand value to $4.6bn. Brahma, another Brazilian beer brand, is a similar story, says Ms Pearson growing fast, sponsoring part of the Rio carnival, and also appealing to the whole lifestyle theme. Then there is Natura, a new entrant to the ultracompetitive personal-care category an impressive achievement for a one-country brand to come in above a brand such as Dove, says Ms Pearson. Like the Unilever brand, Natura uses real women rather than unfeasibly thin models in its ads, and sells its natural products (in recycled packaging) door-todoor like Avon, under a snappy slogan Bem estar bem, that translates a little clumsily as Being well, well-being. The Natura brand is one of the most recommended in the personal-care sector, says Mr Walshe: This personal endorsement and personal selling model is also making the brand very much part of the interaction between consumers and the service, he says. All three of these Brazilian brands score a maximum five for brand contribution, while Natura also scores highly for brand momentum, a measure of short-term growth potential, due to its international ambitions. Russia retains two brands in the BrandZ Top 100, with Beeline slipping out, while its rival mobile operator MTS is joined by Sberbank. The state-owned bank makes its debut in the Top 100 on the strength of a successful initiative to transform it into a friendly bank of choice rather than an institution recalled for its dominating presence during the Soviet period and a heritage dating from 1841. A programme called Leading the Change in Russia updated the brand and emphasised its national reach, with almost 20,000 branches. Outside the Top 100, Lukoil is worth noting, being one of just four brands overall to score a maximum of 10 for brand momentum, a recognition of the companys ambitious expansion in Russia and overseas. The other three are Amazon, Baidu and PetroChina, so it is in good company. Lukoil, a new entrant to the oil and gas category, is helped by having a large number of retail outlets, and these have a higher brand contribution relative to the upstream assets in oil and gas companies. India has marked time this year, with ICICI, the big banking group, remaining the sole representative in the Top 100 and only Infosys knocking on the door. Still, the IT outSberbanks Moscow HQ
Bloomberg

sourcer benefited from the overall revival in B2B brands and another rise like this years 27 per cent could well see it make the 2012 Top 100. The Indian market simply isnt big enough in

value yet to create Top 100 brands, compared with Chinas and Brazils, says Nick Cooper, MBOs managing director for Europe, Middle East and Africa. Both those countries have a bigger middle class and

Indian purchasing power is concentrated among a smaller number of people. On the other hand, says Mr Cooper, the Indian brands seem to be, perhaps, a bit more international than the Chinese ones, so

maybe theyre laying the foundations for something that might change. A further issue, notes Mr Walshe, is that the BrandZ Top 100 ranks brands, not companies. So the huge and acquisitive Tata Corpora-

tion, for example, has a series of brands under its umbrella including Jaguar Land Rover. None of these are big enough to make it into the Top 100, or even the 13 sectoral categories, individually.

Powering ahead: a Petrobras technician takes a reflective look at gas pipeline installations in northeastern Brazil
AFP

razil is a distant second place to China when it comes to Bric nation brands in the BrandZ Top 100, with just three representatives. But the South American country has several fast rising brands outside the Top 100 that make it into the 13 sectoral categories. On the face of it, the Brazilian and Chinese brands in the Top 100 share some characteristics as they are generally infrastructure- or bank-related. Hence, Petrobras is the top Brazilian brand in 61st place, followed by new entrant Ita (90th) and Bradesco (98th), both banks. However, Cristiana Pearson, a director at Millward Brown Optimor, which compiles the rankings, says it is not simply size and financial muscle that has got the Brazilian brands into the Top 100, but the strength of their brand contribution or portion of intangible earnings attributable to brand, as defined by MBO. Thus Ita is ahead of Bradesco partly because it got bigger it merged with Unibanco, another big Brazilian bank, and has

On the face of it, the Brazilian and Chinese brands in the Top 100 share some characteristics
rebranded everything to Ita, creating a lot of brand value for itself. But the bank is also investing heavily in sponsorship abroad, especially in places where there are a lot of Latin Americans, such as Miami. They call themselves the Latin American bank and their communication in Brazil has also shifted. There is this fundamental thinking in Brazil that people not only want a good job but also want to enjoy themselves at work; its part of their lifestyle, Ms Pearson says. Filling up your car with Petrobras gas may not quite be a lifestyle choice, but the oil and gas group is significantly more trusted, by consumers, more recommended and seen as better value than all the other oil and gas brands tracked by MBO, according to Peter Walshe, Millward Browns global BrandZ director. Petrobras has also notched up the biggest rise in brand value (39 per cent) of its oil and gas peers. The enjoy life, have fun, live w e l l themes inherent in the Brazili a n brand message

FINANCIAL TIMES THURSDAY MAY 19 2011

Global Brands

Longterm impact of green issues played down

Environment Buying decisions are influenced mainly by price and convenience, reports Rod Newing
Burning question: how quickly will BPs brand value, down 27 per cent in the 2011 ranking, recover after the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico? Getty

wareness of environmental issues is growing among consumers, who now understand more clearly the role that business plays in producing emissions or harming the environment. With boycott websites and social networking, consumers have the tools to punish a brand quickly for any perceived transgression anywhere in the world. As the role of social media has grown, brands are increasingly exposed to vilification by consumers for things they have done on the other side of the world, says Tom Ellis, strategy and research director at 1HQ, a branding agency. You can now boycott so many brands, because they are involved in Canadian oil sands, producing toxic oil waste or doing harm in a particular country. However, the long-term impact on brands is not as great as it might seem. People have short memories and most consumers buying decisions are more influenced by price, convenience or product features. The Green Gauge Global: 2010 Factbook from GfK Roper, a consumer research group, reveals that 74 per cent of consumers say it is important that companies take environmentally responsible actions. However, only 30 per cent take the environment into account in purchases, all or most of the time. Similarly, Mainstream Green: Moving Sustainability from Niche to Normal from Ogilvy Earth, a communications agency, found that 82 per cent of Americans have good green intentions, but only 16 per cent of them were dedicated to fulfilling them.

Sometimes the effect is overstated, says Mr Ellis. It is only the very active environmental consumer who will avoid a brand. Joe Staton, director and general manager at GfK Roper, says the greenest segment of global consumers, known as GreeninDeed, is only 15 per cent. This compares with GlamourGreen (26 per cent), who incorporate green elements into their lifestyle but only if it is easy. CarbonCultured consumers (19 per cent) live mainly in the developed world, and incorporate elements of green living into their lifestyle, but not necessarily consciously. GreeninNeed (17 per cent), typically in the developing world, want information before they can take action. Jaded (22 per cent) are sceptical of many environmental marketing messages.

When it became popular in the 1980s, the green consumer base rose to about 20 per cent, says Terry Tyrrell, worldwide chairman of The Brand Union, another brand agency. Immediately after black Monday [the global stock market crash of October 1987] it went down to 5 per cent, so it was economically driven. Although there are some true greens, there are also a lot of pale greens. The latest BrandZ Top 100 shows that BP slipped 30 places since the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, with its brand value dropping 27 per cent. Peter Walshe, global BrandZ director at Millward Brown, explains that this decline is driven more by finances than brand. Consumers, other than locals who were directly affected, have forgotten

about it, he says. These things are short-lived. There is a lot of history that says if a strong distinctive brand deals with problems clearly, honestly, responsibly and quickly, it has a much better chance of recovering.

Successful green products have been positioned around performance first

Thus Toyota has regained its leadership in the car industry after its recall problems, even if its initial response was hesitant and opaque. Most consumers now expect brands to be green and do not want to pay a premium price. Jamie Rice, chief

strategy officer at Carton Donofrio Partners, part of the Worldwide Partners network of marketing agencies, says many consumers are highly sceptical about green product claims and have come to believe that green means higher price and lower performance. Successful green products have been positioned around performance first, with the environment as a secondary benefit, he says. If green products can be shown to have a personal benefit, they will do well, but not if the benefit is societal. Mr Tyrrell sees brands taking on a more socially responsible role. They will use their trusted relationship to educate consumers that adjusting their habits is in their best interest, as well as the environments. Brands can be a force for good, not

just for charging a premium and earning more money, he says. In this economically challenged time, they can persuade people not to knee-jerk to price and convenience. Mr Staton says that manufacturers, retailers and brand owners can also help consumers by making, stocking or selling only products that meet environmental standards. Freya Williams, global planning director at Ogilvy Earth USA, says a radically new approach is needed. Much green marketing has inadvertently exclusively addressed the already-converted Super Green niche, which accounts for only 18 per cent of the population. They are missing the Massive Green Middle, who are 66 per cent of the US population, she says. This is not just a concern for environmentalists, but a massive missed business opportunity. Sustainability and environmental brand issues apply not just to consumers, but other stakeholders. Richard Waters, principal at Carbon Trust Advisory Services, points out the advantages of a solid sustainability strategy. It gives investors confidence. Staff, especially prospective graduate joiners, want to be brand advocates. Business partners want to protect their reputation from a ripple effect. And it helps conversations with national and local authorities over policy or planning issues. Concern for the environment is no longer a point of differentiation, but a hygiene factor, says Charlie Skinner, director for insight and brand strategy at Brand Potential consultancy. As a vehicle for achieving brand growth, sustainabilitys shelf life has all but run out. Clearly, a strong, differentiated brand that embraces sustainability is the best strategy.

Climate change and a question of loyalty

Opinion
HARRY MORRISON and PETER WALSHE
With understanding of environmental issues on the rise among consumers, what are the risks and opportunities for brands? A key risk for brands in communicating their climate responsibilities lies in the severity of the issue of climate change within the minds of consumers. The Carbon Trust Standard certifies organisations for real carbon reduction and commitment to continuous reductions. According to research it commissioned, the majority of us believe that climate change represents the greatest environmental threat facing the world today. More than half the 1,000 UK respondents are more concerned than they were five years ago about the impact of companies on the environment. Marketers have long seen the reputational value of promoting environmental credentials. However, some brands have not backed their communications strategy with a robust action plan. As a result, corporate green washing has created a mood of cynicism among the general public. Just 7 per cent now believe company claims of action on climate change and 66 per cent question whether companies are genuinely cutting their emissions when they make claims to have done so. It is clear the public are in a very uncomfortable place regarding corporate climate change. They understand the significance of the issue; they realise business is a big emitter; but are unclear as to the full extent and are unsure what real corporate climate action looks like. In terms of brand loyalty, confusion leads to inquisitiveness and given time will lead to a backlash against corporations that fall short. It is no longer all right just to sit back with good intentions; if you dont stand for something, you stand for nothing. But what impact does this mistrust have on brand value, and can companies achieve growth by taking action on climate change and winning back consumer trust? The Carbon Trust research found the answer to be yes. At a basic level, companies that measure their impacts, and commit to reducing them over time are at an advantage: 61 per cent of people are more likely to buy from companies with good reputations. With the shop until you drop, credit-fuelled consumer binge days past, and cash harder to come by, consumers are more discerning now about the brands they buy from. Brand loyalty is not just about making a sale it is inspired by long-term engagement. Reducing corporate climate impacts provides a key touch point in the customer journey, and sends a clear message. As the survey shows, 56 per cent of people are more loyal to brands that can show, at a glance, evidence of environmental actions. And 54 per cent want to work for companies which can clearly demonstrate their commitment to reducing their impacts on climate change. BrandZ, the annual quantitative brand equity study run by Millward Brown for the past six years, echoes the Carbon Trusts findings. It has found a direct correlation between companies that make it into the Top 100 transport market, Eurotunnel complements its reputation for providing low-carbon Channel crossings by independently auditing carbon performance and committing to year-on-year reductions. By displaying its achievement of the Carbon Trust Standard on its homepage, it is consciously tapping into the mindset of carbonsavvy business customers. From a reputation perspective, there is another key pitfall beside greenwashing: that is investing in action on climate change which is not communicated or recognised by customers. The majority of respondents to the Carbon Trust survey (60 per cent) said they needed to see independent verification from a respected climate change body before trusting environmental claims; this was followed by 53 per cent trusting only scientific or academic endorsement. The greatest concern is that companies simply make one-off improvements to win publicity and then return to business as usual. In the past five years the pace of recommendation of brands by consumers has speeded up exponentially, partly due to the rise of social media. With the advent of social media, the actions of companies going above and beyond to reduce their climate impacts are highly likely to be published online by consumers. One in three are more likely to opt into company news and announcements by following, friending or liking businesses that can prove positive environmental performance. And one in five would blog, or write about them in web forums. A proactive approach to promoting environmental success online as well as monitoring to understand consumer sentiment about a brands environmental behaviour is critical. Brand owners are too often kept out of the loop on corporate environmental action until there is a one-off story to promote. However, given the need for businesses to win consumer trust, it is imperative for marketers to play a stronger role in driving change. Harry Morrison is general manager of the Carbon Trust Standard and Peter Walshe is global BrandZ director of Millward Brown

56 per cent of people are more loyal to brands that can show evidence of environmental actions
Global Brands and businesses with a good reputation for environmental responsibility. On average, about 80 per cent of sales are generated by the product brand itself, comprising pricing and quality and so on. And about 20 per cent of sales are directly linked to corporate reputation. In breaking this category down further, BrandZ found that at least 2 per cent of sales are attributable directly to environmental reputation. Many leading brands are using sustainability to develop and differentiate products and services. Customer feedback from the 11m guests that visit Whitbreads UK hotels and restaurants annually showed a marked interest in the carbon footprint of the food they eat and the places they stay, so Whitbread placed sustainability at the heart of its strategy and is striving to make its Premier Inn hotels the lowest carbon venues of their kind. Similarly, in the

FINANCIAL TIMES THURSDAY MAY 19 2011

Global Brands

It is important not to invade others space

Social media Listening not shouting can avert a lot of damage, writes Jessica Twentyman
In the real world, acceptable social behaviour is typically defined by a set of conventions that most people learn from childhood onwards. In most cultures, it is considered discourteous to interrupt a conversation between strangers without introducing yourself, distinctly impolite to impose a new topic of conversation on that group and downright boorish to talk about ones self without listening to what others have to say. In the online world of social networks, businesses flout these rules all the time but the repercussions are just the same, warns Peter Walshe, global BrandZ director at Millward Brown: They either get laughed at or frozen out. The problem, he says, is that because social media represent a relatively costeffective channel for promoting a brand, there is a tendency for businesses to leap in without learning the rules of etiquette. That is a pity, he adds, because brands that conduct themselves with aplomb on social networks offering relevant input when appropriate, but more often simply taking careful note of the feedback they are offered have much to gain. Those that do not, by contrast, run the risk of serious brand damage. It is not just a question of how a brand interacts with its target audience online, however. An even trickier challenge is working out why it should do so at all, says Clay Shirky, the social media commentator and author. You have a bunch of marketing people out there telling their bosses that their company must start a blog, or set up a Facebook fan page or a Twitter account but when theyre asked what the value might be, they tend to go a little quiet, he says. If Mr Shirkys 2008 best seller Here Comes Everybody alerted many companies worldwide to the breadth and depth of online conversations that consumers were holding, his new book, Cognitive Surplus, underscores the huge potential value of those conversations, not just for consumers but for the businesses and public-sector organisations that serve them, too. Above all, he concludes, success is often a question of observing the conversational etiquette of listening, not shouting. For the worlds leading brands, there is a lot of listening to be done. In an effort to pin down the often fuzzy correlation between online conversations and brand value, BrandZ recently engaged global market intelligence company Cymphony to screen more than 3,400bn documents for relevant online mentions in 2010 of brands listed on the BrandZ Top 100 Most Valuable Global Brands. In total, says Mr Walshe, 125m mentions of the Top 100 brands were discovered or four mentions per second. To impose some kind of qualitative assessment on that data, 91m documents were selected for further analysis, and a final, multilanguage data set was assessed for sentiment either positive, neutral or negative using natural language processing (NLP) technology. We then created a Buzz Index for each brand on the listing, where the average is 100, Mr Walshe explains. Mentions were upgraded if sentiment was positive and downgraded where negatively biased, using a Positivity Score, where positive counted 2, neutral 0 and negative minus 1. A brands Buzz Score (also an average of 100) was multiplied by the Positivity Score to produce the Buzz Index. The resulting Buzz Index shows some relationship

Buzz Index Top 10

Rank Brand 1 Google 2 Facebook 3 Microsoft 4 Apple 5 Sony 6 BMW 7 BlackBerry 8 Walmart 9 Samsung 10 Honda
Source: Millward Brown

Buzz Index 1,733 1,184 742 704 433 366 330 325 314 307

Positivity 95 91 102 93 97 87 106 97 108 88

$m Value 114,260 19,102 76,344 153,285 10,433 22,425 24,623 37,277 12,160 14,182

between brand value and positive online buzz, but it is not absolute, Mr Walshe warns. The more buzz a brand creates does not necessarily equate to higher brand value, because the truth is that some [industry] categories are simply more buzzable than others, as are some brands, he says. That is certainly true of technology companies, which attract the most online comment, occupying seven of the top 10 Buzz Index slots. In first place is Google, the search engine company, with Facebook only a little behind. There is also little correlation between the buzz a brand creates and its overall financial value suggesting, perhaps, that

smaller companies have as much to play for in the social networking realm as their larger counterparts. What is clear is that even brands from sectors that are frequently viewed in a negative light can still create a positive buzz. Of the three other top 10 slots in the Buzz Index, two of the brands, Germanys BMW and Honda of Japan are from the automotive sector an industry that attracts some of the highest volumes of criticism online, along with soft drinks and fast food. Even though your category may be viewed in a negative light, perhaps for reasons to do with environmental or health concerns, social networking offers an opportunity to rise above

Brands need to tread carefully when setting up a Facebook page

Getty

the general perception and elevate a brand in the eyes of target audiences, says Mr Walshe. So what can brand man-

agers learn from the Buzz Index in terms of their online behaviour? Mr Walshes advice is clear: Listen and learn.

Dont interrupt a social space, he says. Recognise that the space belongs to other people, not to you and your brand.

Brands across the continents

The North America Top 10 is, as usual, almost identical to the global one, with Verizon replacing China Mobile. Apart from Apple, the strongest rises were recorded by McDonalds and Marlboro both helped by strength in developing countries and IBM, which has benefited from a rise in B2B spending. In continental Europe, no rises in brand value are available for Deutsche Telekom, Movistar and Orange as a result of convergence issues, which have led to a redefinition and a new category, Telecom Providers. Six of the UK Top 10 have lost brand value, led by BP with a 27 per cent decline. The standout is Standard Chartered (up 45 per cent), helped by its strong presence in Asia. The Latin America Top Eight is dominated by Brazilian brands. The Asia Top 10 is on Page 4.

North America
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Brand Apple Google IBM McDonald's Microsoft Coca-Cola AT&T Marlboro GE Verizon

Top 10 by brand value BV 2011 ($m) BC BM 153,285 4 9 111,498 4 4 100,849 3 5 81,016 4 7 78,243 4 8 73,752 5 9 69,916 3 4 67,522 4 4 50,318 1 2 42,828 3 4

Continental Europe
Top 10 by brand value Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Brand Deutsche Telecom Movistar SAP Louis Vuitton BMW Orange L'Oral Mercedes Carrefour H&M BV 2011 ($m) BC BM 29,774 2 4 27,249 2 6 26,078 3 7 24,312 5 7 22,425 5 8 17,597 1 4 15,719 4 6 15,344 5 8 13,754 3 7 13,006 2 8

United Kingdom
Top 10 by brand value Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Brand Vodafone HSBC Tesco Shell BP Standard Chartered Bank O2 Barclays Marks & Spencer Asda BV 2011 ($m) BC BM 43,647 2 4 22,587 2 2 21,834 4 7 15,168 1 5 12,542 1 5 12,033 2 2 11,694 2 5 8,760 1 2 5,252 4 4 3,975 2 4

Latin America
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Brand Petrobras Telcel Ita Bradesco Corona Natura Skol Brahma

Top 8 by brand value BV 2011 ($m) BC BM 13,421 1 7 11,558 3 6 9,600 2 3 8,600 2 3 5,458 4 6 4,612 5 9 4,579 5 6 1,996 5 6

Source: Millward Brown Optimor (including data from BrandZ and Bloomberg)

FINANCIAL TIMES THURSDAY MAY 19 2011