The brand story of 2009
Interbrand's top one hundred most valuable brands of 2009 is out. I dove into the research looking for some clarity in this tilt-a-whirl world of economics and communication.
First thing I noticed is…well…nothing. There has been no change in the top five brands over the past two years. Coke, IBM, Microsoft, GE and Nokia still reign supreme. A closer check showed only little change in the second half of the top ten as well.
I decided to look for trends from the past decade and saw again that the top five stayed relatively consistent.
However, as brands moved further down the list, there is greater volatility in value. For instance over the past ten years, Coca-Cola and IBM stayed as predictable as a day trip through the desert. Unfortunately, some former blue-chips like the financial sector's Morgan Stanley were like a double black diamond nose-dive. I'm sure there's a name for this 'lower-value-higher-volatility' phenomenon. Whatever it's called, it tells a compelling story.
If we look at the list's biggest risers and hardest fallers an obvious pattern emerges. Fast rising, ever-evolving brands like Google and Amazon clearly show us what the consumer wants. They tell us innovation…serious innovation…is business critical. To get the most from a brand, a company can't just invent, they must reinvent whole concepts like retail or phones.
The hardest fallers are pretty clear to understand, too. Four of the top five losers were in financial (Morgan Stanley, American Express, Citibank and UBS).
The other major non-financial faller was Harley Davidson. I understand that people had less disposable income for luxury items but some brands like Prada and Burberry did okay. It appears the luxury brands that tried to be more accessible by opening to other (aka lower income) markets lost the luster of luxury. Joining Harley in the tumble were Armani, Rolex and Cartier. It definitely wasn't the year of luxury brand growth.
So what does this tell us? First, stability matters. Brands like Coca-Cola, IBM, Microsoft and GE are monoliths. Sure they gain and lose money like any business but they stay true. Second, consumerism is playing a bigger role than ever. And we consumers want a steady stream of innovation on a grand scale. We're numbed by innovation. Brands have to bring far bigger ideas to the consumer to break through. Lastly, it remains all about trust. These are still uncertain times. Brands are a reflection of us. They help us to belong to a community, define our values and comfort ourselves.
Brands that will be fast risers in 2010 are the ones that act like leaders by setting the highest industry standards, staying consistently fresh, actively listening to customers and accurately measuring their impact. Assuming a brand does all the right things, they then must clearly communicate their position and engage the consumer on all levels. Something tells me we won't see a big shift new year.
Comments
You know, what I find mind-boggling is that many brands are still struggling with the concept of "actively listening to consumers" which as you stated in the last paragraph, is key. Perhaps they are listening on some level but there needs to be action based on that listening or at least two-way communication so that consumers know they are being heard. On another note, I'm surprised about Rolex...I guess the luxury brands weren't consistent and that created a problem. Thanks for the insights. I love it when others dissect research so we don't have to. :-)
Leave a Comment