04/21/2008, 4:00pm, EDT
Monday, April 21stGoogle holds throne in brand value over Apple, MS
Google remains the number one company in the world in terms of estimated brand value, says the research group Millward Brown Optimor. Google has held its spot for a third consecutive year, with a recent valuation of $86.1 billion, an increase of 30 percent over earlier results. General Electric holds second place in the current survey at $71.4 billion, while Microsoft is valued at $70.9 billion. The results are based on interviews with over a million people worldwide.
Notable breakthroughs into the top 10 are Apple at $55.2 billion, and Nokia at $44 billion; the companies shifted in rank from 16th and 12th to 7th and 9th, respectively. This has in fact forced out two previous stalwarts, Wal-Mart and Toyota, while IBM and China Mobile have once again returned to dominant positions.
Outside of the elite, Research in Motion's BlackBerry brand has skyrockted 390 percent to $13.7 billion (51st), and online retailer Amazon.com has risen 93 percent to $11.5 billion (61st). The biggest fall belongs to Motorola, which has slid 30 percent to sit at $7.6 billion (91st).
1 Google 86.1
2 GE 71.4
3 Microsoft 70.9
4 Coca-Cola 58.2
5 China Mobile 57.2
6 IBM 55.3
7 Apple 55.2
8 McDonald's 49.5
9 Nokia 44.0
10 Marlboro 37.3
Filed under: industry, Apple
Other story tags: Microsoft, Nokia, Google, Motorola, RIM, Research in Motion, Wal-Mart, IBM, China Mobile, Toyota
, 
, 12
, 
, 
, 
, 
, 
Top
subscribe to comments
for this article
So did they ask like 700,000 Chinese business men, only international travelers to Asia, or is this survey just flat out rigged?
As far as the million folks surveyed business - not sure what to make of that_ It's better than running stats for the entire world populace based on 500 people from dumb-fuck Kansas - but at the same time I gotta go with my boy [girl?] "feathers" there seeing as how no company stood on the street corner and grabbed up 1 million people for a survey_ Not feasible - even if they broke it up into several cities and several areas of the city - so as not to get repeats - then accurately collating all the data - all I know is that I'd hate to have been the project manager for this one_
So yes, we may look like hicks to you and we may be the "fly over" states, but we sure do "control" a lot of what you city slickers do every day.
By the way, the Midwest also feeds you.
And Rock Chalk Jayhawk! 2008 National Basketball Champions!
That being said, I understand that. But not many people outside of China know about China Mobile or China Unicom (the second largest telecom in China).
All of the other companies on that list have products that are used universally across or that are sold in almost EVERY country. But not China Mobile, they are basically only known in China, by travelers to China, investors in China and telecom and people like myself who work in China... so the real question once again is.... WHO DID THEY INTERVIEW OR SURVEY? Not regular people in the world. It must have been 700,000 Chinese.
While the midwest may produce a lot of the nation's grains, California, Washington and Oregon by far produces the nation's bulk of the nation's agriculture. The California Central Valley alone (not counting southern California's production of avacados and oranges) produces more than half of the nation's vegetables and fruits. According to Wikipedia: "In 2004 agriculture brought in $31.68 billion in revenue, making it more than twice the size of any other state's agriculture industry. In fact, California is the world's fifth largest supplier of food and agriculture commodities.[1]" Plus Kansas should probably drop the whole "evolution is just a theory" talk if they want to shrug off the "stupid midwesterner" stereotype. Hard to push higher education in Kansas when your state doesn't want to teach accepted theories of science.
Now, on the subject of the article, since the Chinese represent one out of three people on this planet, it is only natural that their China Mobile appears as such a recognised brand. Assuming for the moment that the survey actually collected one million opinions, evenly spread around the planet, accounting for population representation, we shouldn't be surprised.
The questions about the logistics of such a survey, and consequently the plausibility of it having taken place at such magnitude, remain.