Rated Ranking: Brand Finance Global 500 2015

Brand Finance Global 500 2015


The Global 500 is a ranking published annually by Brand Finance in London. Among the three providers of the “big” global corporate brand rankings Brand Finance is the only independent company having its origin in brand valuation. In fact, the Global 500 is part of a set of rankings arranged around industries and regions all based on a consistent methodology.

The Global 500 shows two results: Frstly, it contains a list of world’s most powerful brands according to the so called Brand Strength Index (BSI). Secondly, it presents a table of world’s most valuable brands. Both tables are connected because the Brand Strength Index is a basis to calculate the brand value. The BSI is calculated by i.a. analyzing marketing investment, brand equity and its potential impact on business performance. It is presented by a score ranging from 0 and 100. This score is the basis of an additional six step process to calculate the brand value. The fundamental concept of this process is the royalty relief approach estimating a rate that would have been charged to apply the brand if the company would not already have owned it. It also considers brand specific revenues in future forecasts of the company.

The 2015 results of the Global 500 show seven companies of the IT business among the Top 10. The top position is held by Apple followed by Samsung, Google and Microsoft. In the Brand Strength table Lego holds the top position followed by PWC, Red Bull and Unilever. The entire report of the Global 500 as well as several sector reports including clickable online-table and downloadable reports are available at www.brandirectory.com.

Disclosure: Partners of Branding-Institute are co-operating with Brand Finance on a project base. This rating is not part of any of these projects.

Relevance / Impact
– 13 points –
Added Value / Insights
– 13 points –

Trustworthiness / Intention
– 13 points –
– 11 points –

Aggregated points
– 50 (out of 60) –
Highly valuable ranking

Useful ranking with some flaws

Partially useful ranking with considerable flaws

< 30
Useless ranking

Reach of publication:

  • Global, e.g. North America, Europe and Asia (5 points)
  • Regional, e.g. Europe or North America (3 points)
  • Large national market: e.g. US, China, Japan, Germany, France, UK, Italy, Brazil (2 points)
  • Mid-sized or small market, e.g. Switzerland, Netherlands, Argentina, Singapore (1 point)

Ranking will be recognized by key stakeholders:

  • Opinion Leaders (Politicians, Professors; NGO’s) (2 points)
  • Business Advisory Board, C-Level Executives (CEO, CCO, CFO, CMO) (2 points)
  • High Potentials & Top Talents (employer market, students) (2 points)
  • Financial Market (2 points)
  • General Public (2 points)

Aggregated points: 13 (of max. 15)

Is the owner providing the ranking a credible and trustworthy organization?

  • Ranking owner has limited credibility and reputation. (1 point)
  • Ranking owner has fair credibility and reputation. (3 points)
  • Ranking owner has excellent credibility and reputation. (5 points)

What is the ranking owner’s intention to produce and disseminate the ranking?

  • Ranking is predominantly a tool to raise awareness for the owner with the possible intention to sell consultancy services. (1 point)
  • Ranking is partly a tool to raise awareness for the owner with the possible intention to sell consultancy services. (3 points)
  • Ranking is predominantly a tool to surface and share important insights on the subject surveyed. (5 points)

Comment: Brand Finance is according to its own records world‘s leading independent brand evaluation company. The tables are a tool to raise awareness and sell their services as well as to invite to the discussion about the value of brands.

Is/Are the media outlet(s) where the ranking is published of high credibility and reputation?

  • Media outlet(s) has/have limited credibility and reputation. (1 point)
  • Media outlet(s) has/have fair credibility and reputation. (3 points)
  • Media outlet(s) has/have excellent credibility and reputation. (5 points)

Comment: No exclusive media outlet, but results published in many leading media worldwide.

Aggregated points: 13 (of max. 15)

Do the ranking results provide overall orientation where companies stand?

  • limited orientation only (1 point)
  • fair orientation provided (3 points)
  • very good orientation (5 points)

Is the Ranking published in the same format on a regular basis, e.g. annually, which allows to track developments and comparisons over time?

  • ranking is published for the first time (1 point)
  • ranking is published for the second time in the same format (3 points)
  • ranking is published for more than 3 times on a regular basis in the same format (5 points)

Do the ranking results provide added value and further insights on how companies are evaluated in in their industry, e.g. detailed ratings in various sub-dimensions of the overall result?

  • limited added value only (1 point)
  • fair amount of added value (3 points)
  • high amount of added value (5 points)

Comment: All tables together encompass different industries and geographical categories.

Aggregated points: 13 (of max. 15)

Is the ranking based on a representative survey among key stakeholders or on a jury only?

  • Ranking is based on a jury’s opinion only. (1 point)
  • Ranking is based on a small survey or only on a limited group of stakeholders. (3 points)
  • Ranking is based on a robust and representative survey. (5 points)

Is the ranking methodology easy to understand and reasonable – even for non-statisticians?

  • Methodology not easy to understand and not reasonable. (1 point)
  • Methodology fairly good to understand and reasonable. (3 points)
  • Methodology very easy to understand and reasonable. (5 points)

Is the ranking methodology easy to access and transparent?

  • Methodology not easy to find and not sufficiently transparent. (1 point)
  • Methodology fairly good to find and of medium transparency. (3 points)
  • Methodology very easy to find and of high transparency. (5 points)

Comments: Comment: Methodology is explained online as well as in the printed report.

Aggregated points: 11 (of max. 15)

Ranking category

  • Product / Service Brands
  • Company Brands
  • Corporate Reputation and Company Esteem
  • Social Responsibility, CSR & Sustainability, Ethical Business Practices
  • Innovation & Technology
  • Employer Attractiveness & Diversity
  • Leadership
  • Nations & Destinations
  • University & Other Institutions
  • Sports
  • Lifestyle
  • Social Media
  • Personal Branding & CEOs

Ranking statistics

  • Name of Ranking: Brand FinanceGlobal 500 2015
  • Ranking managed/produced by institute/organization: Brand Finance
  • Ranking published by media outlet: various, no exclusive media partner
  • Date of recent publication: February 18, 2015
  • Date of previous publication: February 17, 2014

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *