Skip to main content

Some Unhappy Math On Brand Value

In 2008 Business Week magazine ranked Toyota's brand 6th globally, pegging a brand value (in millions) of $34,050. The methodology - from branding consultancy Interbrand - uses several factors:
  • Calculating the percentage of a company's sales falling under a specific brand.
  • Determining the earnings derived from that specific brand's power by removing operating costs, taxes and capital charges from earnings. What's left is earnings derived from intangible assets - brand power but also patents and management strength.
  • Estimating the brand's effect relative to the other two and discounting future earnings produces an estimated net present "brand value."
How have Toyota's recent quality issues affected the brand?

Until recently many Toyotas in the $20,000-to-$25,000 price range sold for a premium over sticker of as much as $2,000. Now, as reported in today's Wall Street Journal, they're selling for $500 below invoice, or $2,000 below retail. And that's with an additional $1,000 rebate from the Toyota wholesaler.

That adds up to $5,000 in lost revenue: the foregone $2,000 premium, an additional $2,000 discount from normal retail and a $1,000 rebate. $5,000 "lost" on a $25,000 car, or twenty percent.

I'll not bore you with the NPV math (not remembering how to do it anyway...) but a back-of-the-envelope calculation of a twenty percent revenue hit for, say, six months is (in millions) about $3,500, dropping right to the bottom line. $3.5 billion in in earnings and intangible brand value...gone.

Brand math looks great on the upside, doesn't it? Marketers love it. Accountants may not like it but, heck, they don't like anything. Maybe because what looks great going up comes down with a vengeance. And as much as accountants hate adding brand value to the balance sheet, they like taking it off even less.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Michael Porter On Health Care Reform

Michael Porter, writing in the New England Journal of Medicine, proposes "A Strategy For Health Care Reform - Toward A Value-Based System." His proposals are fundamental, lucid and right-on, meaning they're sure to be opposed by some parties to the debate, the so-called "Yes, but..." crowd. Most important, in my opinion, is this: "... electronic medical records will enable value improvement, but only if they support integrated care and outcome measurement. Simply automating current delivery practices will be a hugely expensive exercise in futility. Among our highest near-term priorities is to finalize and then continuously update health information technology (HIT) standards that include precise data definitions (for diagnoses and treatments, for example), an architecture for aggregating data for each patient over time and across providers, and protocols for seamless communication among systems. "Finally, consumers must become much mor

Being Disrupted Ain't Fun. Deal With It.

Articles about disrupting healthcare, particularly those analogizing, say, Tesla's example with healthcare's current state, are frequently met with a chorus of (paraphrasing here) "Irrelevant! Cars are easy, healthcare is hard." You know, patients and doctors as examples of "information asymmetry" and all that. Well, let me ask you this: assuming you drive a car with a traditional internal combustion engine, how much do you know about the metallurgy in your car's engine block? I'll bet the answer is: virtually nothing. In fact it's probably less than you know about your own body's GI tract. Yet somehow, every day, us (allegedly) ignorant people buy and drive cars without help from a cadre of experts. Most of us do so and live happily ever after (at least until the warranty expires. Warranties...another thing healthcare could learn from Tesla.) Now, us free range dummies - impatient with information asymmetry - are storming healthcare

My Take On Anthem-Cigna, Big Dumb Companies and the Executives Who Run Them

After last Friday's Appeals Court decision, Anthem's hostile takeover of, er, merger with Cigna has but a faint pulse. Good. Unplug the respirator. Cigna's figured it out but Anthem is like that late-late horror show where the corpse refuses to die. Meanwhile, 150 McKinsey consultants are on standby for post-merger "integration" support. I guess "no deal, no paycheck..." is powerfully motivating to keep the patient alive a while longer. In court, Anthem argued that assembling a $54 billion behemoth is a necessary precondition to sparking all manner of wondrous innovations and delivering $2.4 billion in efficiencies. The basic argument appears to be "We need to double in size to grow a brain. And just imagine all those savings translating directly into lower premiums for employers and consumers."  Stop. Read that paragraph again. Ignore the dubious "lower premiums" argument and focus on the deal's savings. $2.4 billion saved