Comments on: 10 days to Interbrand top 100 brands (& 10 reasons to care)

By: Ashish Banerjee

Ashish Banerjee — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 05:09:05 +0000

Hi Dennis, MBO’s website is a good place to start.
Regards,
-A.

By: Dennis Van Staalduinen

Dennis Van Staalduinen — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:54:21 +0000

Thanks Ashish. Your points are well taken, and reading over my post you’re right I did make it sound as if Interbrand is the only game in town as opposed to the game that gets all the limelight. When I wrote “no one else has measured any better” I should have said: “no one else has been able to gain the same level of public exposure and dialogue”. But alas, I write these things quickly between my day job responsibilities.

I’m a great admirer of Brand Finance in particular, and often use their studies of the relative strength of intangible assets within Canadian brands (dismal) as a call to action (we need to do better).

Millward Brown Optimor is one that I have only passing acquaintance with, so I’ll have to read more on their approach before I open my big mouth again. Do you have any good starting points for me and my readers?

Thanks again.

By: Ashish Banerjee

Ashish Banerjee — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 06:30:01 +0000

Re: point 5, when you say “I’ll go with the rankings – not because they’re gospel, but because they capture the essence of something important that no one else has measured any better.”

Not sure if you can posit that “no one else has measured any better” without a comparative assessment of the methodological robustness of Interbrand’s approach vs those of Brand Finance or Millward Brown Optimor.

Interbrand’s rankings may well be the best-known (because BusinessWeek makes much of their league tables every year), but that doesn’t make it the only game in town, or the best of the bunch. I happen to think MBO’s approach is more robust because its based on a much larger set of data inputs.