What value brands now?

Brand valuation companies like Interbrand must be rubbing their hands with glee. All those brand valuations they did in 2007 and 2008 don’t exactly count for very much in 2009. They have to start all over again. All but the fortunate few companies will be shadows of their former selves. Many of these would have paid substantial sums to protect themselves with the brand valuation ‘comforter’, this calculation of brand value using complex and often incomprehensible methodologies lying somewhere between science, accountancy, higher mathematics and astrology. Was this also meant to be a reliable guide as to how the company would fare in future months and years? If so, I guess it didn’t work. The future is as unpredictable as ever, as anyone in the creative business will tell you. After 30+ years in the business my experience has been that you’re lucky to be able to predict two weeks ahead. I guess that’s what makes it exciting, and not the most stable of career paths.

I digress. Brands also are unpredictable. Take Pacific Brands here in Australia. An iconic suite of Australian brands that can trace their origins back to 1893, whose products were spruiked by the likes of Pat Rafter and billionaire Sarah Murdoch – Berlei, King Gee, Yakka to name a few. 1,850 jobs slashed, 200 brands being sold off, manufacturing being transferred overseas, share price at record low. I wonder what the brand value was in 2008 and what it is right now? Get my drift? Brands go out of fashion particularly when price is an issue. In the case of Pacific Brands, its demise has been centred for many years around its inability to manufacture at a price that could compete with overseas manufacturers.

You’d like to think share price comes into the valuation equation. Let’s take good old Royal Bank of Scotland. Back in 2007 shares were cruising around £6.30. At the beginning of this year they were dredging the bottom at 20p.

Controversy can contribute to a decline in brand value. The Satyam brand, yet to recover from the ‘cooking the books’ controversy, has recently been revalued at 87.8% less than its 2008 FY valuation. Brands such as these remain valuable assets but presently are damaged and don’t reflect their true value.

Brands have gotten onto companies’ balance sheets mainly through the efforts of accountants and some branding agencies. Complex formulae have been devised to demonstrate in a logical and rational way that brand value can stand up and be scrutinised along with all the other company assets. The brand is thereby given credibility in financial circles and also with shareholders, who now have something else to ponder over their tea and biscuit at the AGM.

Despite my critical stance, brand valuation does mean a great deal to those brands who maintain a high profile with the buying public eg airlines, fashion labels and alcoholic beverages. Here the brand is by far the most significant asset – as in the case of Pacific Brands, with outdated factories, machinery and manufacturing processes that have little value in the potential fire sale to come. But the brands can live on, providing they fall into safe hands who can revitalise and rebuild brand value.

At the end of the day real brand value is simply calculated as the amount the market will reasonably pay for the brand. There are plenty of examples of companies who have been sold for an amount far in excess of their accepted valuation, either because the purchaser could see new and better ways to leverage the asset or because they made a monumental cock-up.

Tony Heywood is an international branding consultant and founder of Heywood Innovation in Sydney and co-founder of BrandSynergy in Singapore.

View some of Heywood’s work on www.heywood.com.au

Share on Facebook