2017丹麦50强品牌报告(英文版).pdf

返回 相关 举报
2017丹麦50强品牌报告(英文版).pdf_第1页
第1页 / 共10页
2017丹麦50强品牌报告(英文版).pdf_第2页
第2页 / 共10页
2017丹麦50强品牌报告(英文版).pdf_第3页
第3页 / 共10页
2017丹麦50强品牌报告(英文版).pdf_第4页
第4页 / 共10页
2017丹麦50强品牌报告(英文版).pdf_第5页
第5页 / 共10页
点击查看更多>>
资源描述
Denmark 502017The annual report on the most valuable Danish brandsMay 2017Brand Finance Denmark 50 May 2017 3.Brand Finance Australia 100 March 2016 2. Global 500 February 2016 Airlines 30 30 February 2015Denmark 50 May 2017ForewordForeword 2 Definitions 4Methodology 6Executive Summary 8Full Table (USDm) 12Full Table (DKKm) 13Understand Your Brands Value 14How We Can Help 16Contact Details 17ContentsDavid Haigh, CEO, Brand FinanceWhat is the purpose of a strong brand; to attract customers, to build loyalty, to motivate staff? All true, but for a commercial brand at least, the first answer must always be to make money. Huge investments are made in the design, launch and ongoing promotion of brands. Given their potential financial value, this makes sense. Unfortunately, most organisations fail to go beyond that, missing huge opportunities to effectively make use of what are often their most important assets. Monitoring of brand performance should be the next step, but is often sporadic. Where it does take place it frequently lacks financial rigour and is heavily reliant on qualitative measures poorly understood by non-marketers. As a result, marketing teams struggle to communicate the value of their work and boards then underestimate the significance of their brands to the business. Skeptical finance teams, unconvinced by what they perceive as marketing mumbo jumbo may fail to agree necessary investments. What marketing spend there is can end up poorly directed as marketers are left to operate with insufficient financial guidance or accountability. The end result can be a slow but steady downward spiral of poor communication, wasted resources and a negative impact on the bottom line.Brand Finance bridges the gap between the marketing and financial worlds. Our teams have experience across a wide range of disciplines from market research and visual identity to tax and accounting. We understand the importance of design, advertising and marketing, but we also believe that the ultimate and overriding purpose of brands is to make money. That is why we connect brands to the bottom line. By valuing brands, we provide a mutually intelligible language for marketers and finance teams. Marketers then have the ability to communicate the significance of what they do and boards can use the information to chart a course that maximises profits. Without knowing the precise, financial value of an asset, how can you know if you are maximising your returns? If you are intending to license a brand, how can you know you are getting a fair price? If you are intending to sell, how do you know what the right time is? How do you decide which brands to discontinue, whether to rebrand and how to arrange your brand architecture? Brand Finance has conducted thousands of brand and branded business valuations to help answer these questions.Brand Finances recently conducted share price study revealed the compelling link between strong brands and stock market performance. It was found that investing in the most highly branded companies would lead to a return almost double that of the average for the S&P 500 as a whole. Acknowledging and managing a companys intangible assets taps into the hidden value that lies within it. The following report is a first step to understanding more about brands, how to value them and how to use that information to benefit the business. The team and I look forward to continuing the conversation with you. Brand Finance Denmark 50 May 2017 5.Brand Finance Denmark 50 May 2017 4.DefinitionsDefinitions+ Enterprise Value the value of the entire enterprise, made up of multiple branded businesses+ Branded Business Value the value of a single branded business operating under the subject brand+ Brand Contribution The totaleconomic benefit derived by abusiness from its brand+ Brand Value the value of the trade marks (and relating marketing IP and goodwill attached to it) within the branded businessBranded BusinessBranded EnterpriseE.g.E.g.LurpakE.g.LurpakBrand ValueBranded BusinessBranded EnterpriseBrand ContributionE.g.LurpakBranded Business ValueA brand should be viewed in the context of the business in which it operates. For this reason Brand Finance always conducts a Branded Business Valuation as part of any brand valuation. Where a company has a purely mono-branded architecture, the business value is the same as the overall company value or enterprise value. In the more usual situation where a company owns multiple brands, business value refers to the value of the assets and revenue stream of the business line attached to that brand specifically. We evaluate the full brand value chain in order to understand the links between marketing investment, brand tracking data, stakeholder behaviour and business value to maximise the returns business owners can obtain from their brands.Brand ContributionThe brand values contained in our league tables are those of the potentially transferable brand asset only, but for marketers and managers alike, an assessment of overall brand contribution to a business provides powerful insights to help optimise performance.Brand Contribution represents the overall uplift in shareholder value that the business derives from owning the brand rather than operating a generic brand. Brands affect a variety of stakeholders, not just customers but also staff, strategic partners, regulators, investors and more, having a significant impact on financial value beyond what can be bought or sold in a transaction.Brand ValueIn the very broadest sense, a brand is the focus for all the expectations and opinions held by customers, staff and other stakeholders about an organisation and its products and services. However, when looking at brands as business assets that can be bought, sold and licensed, a more technical definition is required. Brand Finance helped to craft the internationally recognised standard on Brand Valuation, ISO 10668. That defines a brand as “a marketing-related intangible asset including, but not limited to, names, terms, signs, symbols, logos and designs, or a combination of these, intended to identify goods, services or entities, or a combination of these, creating distinctive images and associations in the minds of stakeholders, thereby generating economic benefits/value”.Brand Strength Brand Strength is the part of our analysis most directly and easily influenced by those responsible for marketing and brand management. In order to determine the strength of a brand we have developed the Brand Strength Index (BSI). We analyse marketing investment, brand equity (the goodwill accumulated with customers, staff and other stakeholders) and finally the impact of those on business performance. Following this analysis, each brand is assigned a BSI score out of 100, which is fed into the brand value calculation. Based on the score, each brand in the league table is assigned a rating between AAA+ and D in a format similar to a credit rating. AAA+ brands are exceptionally strong and well managed while a failing brand would be assigned a D grade. Effect of a Brand on StakeholdersPotentialCustomersExistingCustomersInfluencerse.g. MediaTradeChannelsStrategicAllies &Suppliers InvestorsDebt providersSalesProductionAll OtherEmployeesMiddleManagersDirectorsBrandBrand Finance Denmark 50 May 2017 7.Brand Finance Denmark 50 May 2017 6.Methodology InputsStakeholderBehaviourPerformanceBrand Equity Value DriversBrand ContributionAudit the impact of brand management and investment on brand equity Run analytics to understand how perceptions link to behaviourLink stakeholder behaviour with key financial value driversModel the impact of behaviour on core financial performance and isolating the value of the brand contribution Brand Audit Trial & Preference Acquisition & RetentionValuation Modelling1 2 3 4Brand Finance Typical Project ApproachBrand Finance calculates the values of the brands in its league tables using the Royalty Relief approach. This approach involves estimating the likely future sales that are attributable to a brand and calculating a royalty rate that would be charged for the use of the brand, i.e. what the owner would have to pay for the use of the brandassuming it were not already owned. Brand strength expressed as a BSI score out of 100.BSI score applied to an appropriate sector royalty rate range.Royalty rate applied to forecast revenues to derive brand values.Post-tax brand revenues are discounted to a net present value (NPV) which equals the brand value.The steps in this process are as follows: 1 Calculate brand strength on a scale of 0 to 100 based on a number of attributes such as emotional connection, financial performance and sustainability, among others. This score is known as the Brand Strength Index, and is calculated using brand data from the BrandAsset Valuator database, the worlds largest database of brands, which measures brand equity, consideration and emotional imagery attributes to assess brand personality in a category agnostic manner.Strong brandWeak brandBrand strength index(BSI)BrandRoyalty rateBrand revenues Brand valueForecast revenuesBrand investmentBrand equityBrand performance2 Determine the royalty rate range for the respective brand sectors. This is done by reviewing comparable licensing agreements sourced from Brand Finances extensive database of license agreements and other online databases. 3 Calculate royalty rate. The brand strength score is applied to the royalty rate range to arrive at a royalty rate. For example, if the royalty rate range in a brands sector is 0-5% and a brand has a brand strength score of 80 out of 100, then an appropriate royalty rate for the use of this brand in the given sector will be 4%. 4 Determine brand specific revenues estimating a proportion of parent company revenues attributable to a specific brand. 5 Determine forecast brand specific revenues using a function of historic revenues, equity analyst forecasts and economic growth rates. 6 Apply the royalty rate to the forecast revenues to derive brand revenues. 7 Brand revenues are discounted post tax to a net present value which equals the brand value.League Table Valuation MethodologyHow We Help to Maximise Value6. Build scale through licensing/franchising/partnerships5. Build core business through market expansion4. Build core business through product development3. Portfolio management/rebranding Group companies2. Optimise brand positioning and strength1. Base-case brand and business valuation(using internal data), growth strategyformulation, target-setting, scorecard andtracker set-upEvaluate ongoing performanceCurrent brand and business valueTarget brand and business valueMaximising astrong brandBrand Finance Denmark 50 May 2017 9.Brand Finance Denmark 50 May 2017 8.Lego tops the table with a brand value of US$7.6billion. Lego is also the strongest brand, not just in Denmark, but globally. Lego scores highly on a wide variety of BSI metrics such as familiarity, loyalty, promotion, marketing investment, staff satisfaction and corporate reputation. The building blocks for Legos brand strength have always been present, however in the last few years this strength has been enhanced through a combination of strategic partnerships and licensing deals.The Lego Movie in 2014 and the Lego Batman Movie last year were both critical and commercial successes, providing not just immediate revenue but also an unrivalled marketing tool. Further releases are planned for the next few years, which will continue to build the brand whilst contributing significantly to Legos already vast licensing income. Video game partnerships have had a similar effect. The combination of Lego and Star Wars in particular has been irresistible to the public. Geographic expansion has also provided Lego with many opportunities for growth. Lego opened its first factory in Jiaxing, China, in 2014, as well as a new Asian Head Office in Shanghai. China does present risks; Lego cannot rely on the nostalgia or awareness it has enjoyed in Europe and the US for decades, making success there uncertain. However, domestic scandals over the safety of childrens products leave fertile ground for a foreign firm with a reputation for reliability, quality and child development. Though Lego will always draw its strength from the simplicity of its tangible products, it is also responding to the digital era. Lego Boost, set to launch in August, allows children to turn Lego creations into programmable robots using a smartphone app. Meanwhile Lego Life enables kids to post pictures of their proudest creations Denmark 50Executive Summaryor imagine new ones, making Lego a profoundly social and personal experience.Arla is 2nd, with a brand value of US$3.7billion. The dairy industry is experiencing severe overproduction, lowering prices and squeezing margins. The differentiating power of brand is therefore more critical than ever. Arla is working hard to leverage its brand and to reinforce it. Several campaigns have been launched recently in both the UK and US. Its UK campaign invited people to Eat Monday for Breakfast, promoting the idea that Arla products help people start their week with energy, enthusiasm and ambition rather than the usual resignation and dread. US$30 million has been invested in the Live Unprocessed campaign to position the brand as a champion of natural, healthy eating, in contrast to competitors such as Kraft. Children were asked to imagine what processed food ingredients rBST, Xanthan and Sorcic Acid look like. The response was to portray them as monsters or aliens. Their ideas were turned into animations to emphasise their apparent ghoulishness. Pandora remains in 5th place with a 42% increase in brand value to US$2.9billion. The UK and the US are currently its two largest markets but Pandora is achieving rapid global expansion. It opened its first store in India and has also targeted China, having set up an e-commerce site and storefront on Tmall (a Wechat rival), targeting a younger demographic than its average western customer.Per Aarsleff has had the largest fall in brand value, dropping 38% to US$162million. Operating profits are lower than expected and shares have fallen 10% due to delayed or allegedly, poorly executed projects. However, things could improve in the coming year or two, with multimillion projects from Banedanmark to be completed in 2019.Rank 2017: 5 2016: 5 BV 2017: $2,903m BV 2016: $2,048mBrand Rating: AAA-5Rank 2017: 6 2016: 6 BV 2017: $2,137m BV 2016: $1,853mBrand Rating: ARank 2017: 7 2016: 12 BV 2017: $1,528m BV 2016: $939mBrand Rating: A+Rank 2017: 9 2016: 14 BV 2017: $1,488m BV 2016: $865mBrand Rating: A+6789+15%+72%+42%Rank 2017: 10 2016: 11 BV 2017: $1,451m BV 2016: $954mBrand Rating: A+10+52%+0%Rank 2017: 8 2016: 7 BV 2017: $1,520m BV 2016: $1,527mBrand Rating: AA-Rank 2017: 1
展开阅读全文
相关资源
相关搜索
资源标签

copyright@ 2017-2022 报告吧 版权所有
经营许可证编号:宁ICP备17002310号 | 增值电信业务经营许可证编号:宁B2-20200018  | 宁公网安备64010602000642