I got 53 on my first try. But it does seem a bit arbitrary. Like how is Shell on here but not Exxon or Aramco. Lego but not Mattel? Ralph Lauren but not WalMart or Target or Carrefour? Corona but now SnowBeer? Mini but not GM? The Discovery Channel but not HBO or Showtime or Fox or AMC or Nickolodeon or BBC or NewsCorp or PlayBoy? and American Express is above Visa and Mastercard and PayPal?
Also maybe you could accept "Federal Express" for "FedEx?"
I agree that in some cases it is surprising to see what is and isnt on here. But have never heard of snowbeer, aramco, showtime and newscorp. Have heard of walmart and target but we dont have that here, I think they are rather local businesses, so then the caveat " does atleast 30% of their business outside of their home country" come in to play.
I guess that explains it for some of the missing cases. Others are still surprising, I guess they are less big then I thought afterall (especially expected some in the car and tech area)
WalMart is definitely *not* a local business. They are an absolutely massive international company that totally dwarfs many of these others... however... the fact that they also do a STAGGERING amount of business inside their home country (the USA) means that they don't qualify for this silly list. See comments below. The list is heavily biased toward companies headquartered in small countries and heavily biased against those headquartered in larger countries due to their methodology.
The corporation can BE the brand though. In some cases, like Apple, they have deliberately done that. P&G is a conglomerate where there build individual brands, but not really P&G as its own brand.
I got 16. And after reading through them all I am shocked at some that I missed. I am also shocked that HSBC even made the list, considering what a crappy, horrible financial company they are. Customer service is the worst I've ever dealt with in my life. But I guess the list isn't based on that.
That's true of almost any financial company. Big banks these days are about screwing over the little guy and getting away with murder to increase dividends, and as evinced by recent headlines, HSBC excels at that.
It's strange that Nike and Adidas make the list but Converse doesn't. I travel all over the world and Converse hi-tops are extremely popular EVERYWHERE. In Korea it's like 50% of the people wear them. There are a few other big omissions... like Wal*Mart, TATA, and Saudi Aramco. Some of the largest and most profitable companies in the world (in the case of the latter, the most profitable company in the world. And they included Shell). I guess maybe in Aramco's case the brand isn't valuable it's the product that's valuable, but for Wal*Mart and TATA the branding is definitely more important. I'd much rather have shares of either of those companies than Moet & Chandon.
WalMart is mostly American only, I think. H&M is to be found all over Europe at least. It's Swedish originally. Converse could be on the list, I agree. Currently knitting socks/shoes that look like Converse. That's the latest fad around here. Shell is also a company that's well known all over. TATA and Saudi Aramco.. well for me those are less known, though I know TATA is darn big.
I know H&M locations are all over but... WalMart is one of the top ten companies in the world by market value. H&M wouldn't even come close to making that list. So why is the brand more valuable? Do people really get excited about shopping at H&M? I know a lot of people who are very loyal Wal*Mart customers.
What does brand value equal then, if it's not how much money the brand is worth, or how attractive or visible the brand is to consumers or other companies? By either of these metrics H&M should be trailing Wal*Mart by at least 200 places.
Interbrand's methodology states the real reason, which is that 30% of the brand's revenue has to come from outside of the brand's home region. So, companies based in countries where the domestic market is worth close to jack squat will move up the rankings; while companies with $136 billion dollars in international sales (a figure equivalent to ALL of the business H&M does) won't make the cut if their revenue in their home country is so incredibly massive that this figure accounts for less than 30%.
Brand value is how much the brand is worth independent of the business. For example, if WalMart went bankrupt tomorrow, how much could they sell the rights to the name "WalMart". My guess is very little.
Way more than what H&M could sell their brand for. Sure, a lot of the value of WalMart is in infrastructure and distribution networks, etc. However, Interbrand lists their methodology on their website, and it does take into account market value and global market penetration, but for the reasons I listed above some brands could end up overvalued and some could end up absurdly undervalued.
Two years later, I'm going to refine my original statement. In my opinion, brand value represents how much "extra" consumers in aggregate pay to buy branded products. For Apple, this is obviously a huge amount. For Wal-mart, this is probably close to zero. They compete solely on price. But I agree that this list is flawed using my metric. For example, HBO or ESPN must have a much greater brand value than Discovery TV.
That would all be very interesting, QM, if we were forced to speculate on their methodology. But... we're not. They spell it out and publish it on their website which I linked to. And the ONLY reason Wal*Mart is being valued less than H&M is, like I said, they are docked points for being headquartered in the USA and doing a massive amount of business there. It doesn't really make sense, because the USA is such a huge market that you don't NEED to do business elsewhere to grow a company into one of the most valuable in the world.
On the other hand, if your company is headquartered in some European country, penetrating into foreign markets is absolutely essential.
It's sort of like the lists that say Prague gets more tourists than Orlando... which is just stupid. The only way you can say that is if you only count people (or in this case commerce) that crosses international boundaries. But why should that make something more valuable? If I have 20 pounds, 20 euros, and 20 rupees, my wallet is not more valuable than someone who's got 1000 euros and 500,000 US dollars. .... but the latter guy's wallet would not be considered by Interbrand because the 1000 euros is less than 30% of 500,000 USD. I humbly submit that this is dumb.
and it's sad that this comment has 0 likes on it (I'll add my own after commenting), while the one above that argues against my valid point has 5... people like what confirms their own biases, facts be damned.
This really is a difficult quiz! Never would have thought of Colgate or Dannon, yet Walmart, Toshiba, etc. aren't on here. Not complaining about the list, I just mean that this used an apparently not-so-often-used area of my brain!
Yeah there are some more weird omissions/inclusions in the tech and computers department. Lenovo and Adobe make the cut, but Toshiba, Asus, Acer, Foxconn, LG, Nintendo, Compaq, Dell, AMD, Western Digital, etc do not.
I got all the luxury ones, except Ralph Lauren and Hugo Boss. I was kept guessing Chanel and Fendi would have made the list. I really don't consider Boss and Lauren on the same level as Hérmes or Louis Vuitton.
Its fine. You're not supposed to get 100%. You're supposed to search the recesses of your mind for possibilities and feel good when you get an unexpected hit.
More like you created the quiz without knowing this one already existed. Look at the dates of some of the comments, then make your comment to say "I created this quiz before, the Quizmaster is copying people's quizzes".
When you look at all the ones you missed and feel like hitting yourself with your computer. Your Google computer. With an Amazon tab open right next to the quiz.
Shocked that Marlboro is not on the list. Even with the western world's disdain for smoking, it is a huge brand with huge global reach. With the restrictions put on advertising in most of the world, being the established brand is a even more valuable. The Forbes list has it as the 25th most valuable in the world between Walmart and Honda.
After looking at the Interbrand and the Forbes websites it looks like the Interbrand list is a lot more concerned with the touchy feeling things and is closer to the "best" brands as opposed to the ones that are worth the most money. Under this methodology companies that engage in pursuits that are in some way objectionable will be penalized. Therefore it thelack of Marlboro and all of the oil/chemical companies outside of a Shell at the bottom of the list.
If you look at my comments above you'll see why. Interbrand's methodology only values companies that do more than 30% of their business outside of their home country. Wal*Mart does indeed do business outside of the US, and their international business alone dwarfs some of these other companies, however the fact that their business is so MASSIVELY valuable inside the US means that the international share of it is less than 30% and they are therefore disqualified. It makes no sense but that's the reason why they and many other American/Chinese/Mexican/Indian/Russian companies are not here. This is probably also why European companies are very overrepresented- because European countries are tiny and you can't build a successful business there without expanding to international markets.
For the sake of comparison, Zara (#27 on this list) has a total worldwide revenue of $9 billion.
Wal*Mart International in 2016 had sales of $123 billion. But this is only 25% of the $500 billion that the company makes in total. So... Interbrand counts it as 0.
I see this was already mentioned a few years ago, but the Forbes brands list seems to be based on a better and more transparent methodology. Much of the feedback above could be addressed by using Forbes as the source instead. Latest list is here: https://www.forbes.com/the-worlds-most-valuable-brands/
Substantially better list. Another user made a quiz based on it already that I can see, 4 years ago. That one ought to be updated and replace this one.
The number 68 has been replaced with the number 69 in this quiz, so there are two number 69s. I’m not sure if there’s meant to be a tie there, but if there is, there should be two 68s instead
This is not a criticism of QM for making a quiz using a legitimate subjective source, but I agree the methodology of the list is hot garbage and excludes some of the world's most powerful, valuable brands, and the rankings of the remaining brands are in no way in concert with what the brands are really worth. It's almost like a brand management firm made the list to favor the kinds of companies heavily reliant on consultant and marketing services.
Answer 91 is not written correctly - it should be 'Hewlett Packard Enterprise' (not HP Enterprise) or 'HPE'. They're legally not allowed to use the 'HP' name after the original company split into two. Similarly the company at 64, HP Inc., is not allowed to use the name 'Hewlett Packard'.
Interbrand lists it as HP. This quiz is taken from HP. Therefore, in this context, it's actually correct, and you're being nitpicky. No-one likes a nitpicker.
I think quite a lot of people buy Nescafé simply because it's Nescafé. I imagine there are fewer people who buy Nestlé things in general (eg. breakfast cereal) simply because they're Nestlé.
I was wondering the same thing but the third bullet point says “Sometimes these brands can be owned by the same company” so I guess YouTube is just being counted separately from Google.
The "Luxury" category is a bit vague. I wasn't sure if that meant luxury cars, jewelry, fashion etc. If I had known it meant fashion or apparel, I would have gotten several more correct.
Also maybe you could accept "Federal Express" for "FedEx?"
I guess that explains it for some of the missing cases. Others are still surprising, I guess they are less big then I thought afterall (especially expected some in the car and tech area)
There are lots of P&G brands, but I'd also like to know how Interbrand decide the top brands.
Interbrand's methodology states the real reason, which is that 30% of the brand's revenue has to come from outside of the brand's home region. So, companies based in countries where the domestic market is worth close to jack squat will move up the rankings; while companies with $136 billion dollars in international sales (a figure equivalent to ALL of the business H&M does) won't make the cut if their revenue in their home country is so incredibly massive that this figure accounts for less than 30%.
more than a bit silly.
On the other hand, if your company is headquartered in some European country, penetrating into foreign markets is absolutely essential.
Wal*Mart International in 2016 had sales of $123 billion. But this is only 25% of the $500 billion that the company makes in total. So... Interbrand counts it as 0.
to be fair i only got canon because my calculator was right next to me
Also weird to see them in front of Nespresso IMO, but not impossible.
Very USA-centered