Coca Cola world’s most valuable brand, as Toyota falls and BP plummets

Coca Cola is still the world’s most valuable brand,while Toyota’s safety scare knocked $5bn off the value of the brand over the last 12 months, research by Interbrand suggests.

According to the Best Global Brands 2010 survey, Coca Cola’s brand is worth just over $70bn.

Top ten brands, according to Interbrand:

  1. Coca Cola $70.452bn +2%
  2. IBM $64.727bn +7%
  3. Microsoft $60.895bn +7%
  4. Google $43.557bn +36%
  5. GE $42.808bn -10%
  6. McDonald’s 33.578bn +4%
  7. Intel $32.015m +4%
  8. Nokia $29.495bn -15%
  9. Disney $28.731bn +1%
  10. HP $26.867bn +12%

The full top 100 can be found on the Best Global Brands website.

Mumbrella discusses the survey on tomorrow’s weekly audio Mumbrellacast. This is a video highlight of the conversation featuring Mumbrella editor Tim Burrowes, Interbrand CEO Damian Borchok, Starcom MD Bob Goodge and Fleishman-Hillard’s Scott Rhodie:

After Harley Davidson losing 24% of its brand value as it lost credibility with its core customer base, Toyota was the next biggest fall, dropping an estimated 16% of its worth.

BP, in the midst of its Gulf disaster, fell off the top 100 altogether.

The biggest jumps were Apple – up 37% to $21.143bn; Google, up 36% to 43.557bn and Blackberry, up 32% to 6.762m.

Google is now edging closer to moving past Microsoft.

Interbrand CEO Damian Borchok said: ” The Best Global Brands report is really a reflection of how consumers are behaving, what brands they buy and what brands they trust. The increasing complexities of the global economy reinforce the importance of protecting and growing a brand. It is a company’s most valuable asset but it is clear that today’s brands cannot hide anything from consumers – brands must say, do and be everything the brand has be built to represent.”


  1. James Norquay
    16 Sep 10
    4:34 pm

  2. Surprised Apple was not higher up =) Also in a few years Facebook may be higher up I guess?

  3. Charlie
    16 Sep 10
    4:41 pm

  4. Apple at 17, IBM at 2, Credibility at 0

  5. John Grono
    16 Sep 10
    5:47 pm

  6. Charlie … it’s all explained in the video – all makes sense.

  7. The Internetz
    16 Sep 10
    6:06 pm

  8. H&M at 21. Please come to Australia 😉

  9. Tom
    16 Sep 10
    10:10 pm

  10. +1 to Charlie’s comment.
    Apple’s market cap is higher than Microsoft. And as they say, if Apple whacked their logo on a brick it would sell. But it’s not in Interbrand’s Top 10.

    More proof what a bunch of plonking brand-babbling twits Interbrand are…

    “[The brand] is a company’s most valuable asset”.

    No it’s not.

    Only brand consultants will sell you such waffle. (Said as an ex-brand consultant.)

  11. Tom T
    17 Sep 10
    9:56 am

  12. Can anyone guess why Cadbury aren’t on the list – surely they must have been close?

  13. Byron Sharp
    17 Sep 10
    2:29 pm

  14. What a lovely business model. Marketers want to put a dollar valuation on their brand, and where there is demand there will be supply. The valuation method is secret, and the numbers may be garbage but it fills a demand.

    There is pseudo-science and now there is pseudo-finance.

    Tom I agree with you comment. Why on earth should we trust this valuation by brand consultants ahead of the share market. It’s like when a real estate agent values houses at completely different values that those they sell at.

  15. Tom
    17 Sep 10
    6:03 pm

  16. The hilarious (or tragic) irony is this: Interbrand says “A brand is a company’s most valuable asset”.

    Yet Wall Street says – in hard money terms (i.e. where the rubber hits the road in terms of measurable definitions of value) – “Apple is worth more than Microsoft”.

    So people with actual money in play say Apple is worth more, but Interbrand don’t list them close to Microsoft.

    If Microsoft’s “brand” is its most valuable asset – remember we’re talking real business assets here – it’s market cap should be higher than Apples, right? But according to Interbrand it isn’t. Why?

    Because it’s BS. That’s why. Y’all need to read “The Brand Bubble”.

    I’m too drunk to type any further. But basically “brand” has to die in the arse.

  17. Paul B
    19 Sep 10
    2:56 pm

  18. I think they have the title of the survey wrong. Seems very financial based, so perhaps “Best Brands” isn’t the right name. If what they’re measuring is most valuable brand, then they should call it “Most Valuable Brands”. I get they also take into account role and brand strength, however, it seems that the finances of the company are a filter keeping out other highly recognised and powerful brands such as facebook or ebay.

  19. Byron Sharp
    19 Sep 10
    6:02 pm

  20. Paul

    These things are like horoscopes, we can all take guesses about what it might mean, but a sensible conclusion is that it is simply a total mess – no meaning, no utility, just something to get attention and sell to the gullible.

    It parades as “serious finance”, but a cursory look shows companies with intangible assets that are worth far more than others but ranked far lower, and vice-versa.

    Perhaps it measures “brand strength” instead – but what on earth is this mystical thing? And why is it not valued by the finance markets?

    Professor Byron Sharp
    Director, Ehrenberg-Bass Institute
    University of South Australia.