Brandweek has published their ranking of The Top 2000 American Superbrands, and it’s a real head-scratcher. Relying on a suspect “methodology” that is based on many factors, but highly weighted toward ad spending, here are their Top 5 American Superbrands:
- AT&T
- McDonalds
- Verizon
- Macy’s
- Sprint
The problem is, they are trying to quantify what a “Superbrand” is, and their numbers may add up, but not to anything that a consumer would recognize. This is the same fallacy that leads focus-group decision making toward weak names that have the ability to excite statisticians, but not people. For instance, if you look just at press, word-of-mouth buzz, overflowing retail stores, people lining up to buy their products, advertising and general cultural ubiquity, most people would agree that Apple should probably score very highly on a list of Superbrands. That, however, is not the case here.
The only two Apple products in the Top 100 are “Apple Macintosh Computer Systems” at number 86, and “Apple iPod Digital Audio Player-Recorder” at number 91. No clear reason why other entries are for a company, while for Apple they are for individual products — certainly “Apple” as a company entity would rank pretty highly on a rational list of top U.S. and international brands. Not only that, but some of the “Superbrands” that outrank Apple include, “Chevrolet Silverado Trucks” (32) (maybe Brandweek intends “Superbrand” to be understood in the same sense that Superfund is), “Empire Today Home Repair Services” (55), E-Surance Insurance-Auto (66), and in a head-to-head deathmatch of the brand titans, PeoplePC Website Internet Service Provider (90)!
It’s not like we’re trying to fluff up Apple, or join the iBandwagon, or drink their KoolAid, but whether you love ‘em or hate ‘em, you have to admit that Apple is a very powerful brand, and any list of “Superbrands” that puts them well behind the Chevy Silverado, a dinosaur facing extinction, and “Empire Today Home Repair Services,” makes you wonder if the statisticians who figured all this out might be the same ones who recently lost their jobs in the financial sector after failing to notice the tsubprime tsunami.
3 responses so far ↓
1 Todd Wasserman // Jul 28, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Hello,
I’m the editor of Brandweek. Those rankings are based solely on spending. There’s no methodology at all. AT&T is up there because it spent more money than anyone else.
2 Jay Jurisich // Jul 28, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Well Todd, that’s fine, but then the rankings should say that — all it says is “Superbrands 2008″, with no mention that the only criteria is spending.
And I’m not sure what you mean when you say “there’s no methodology at all” and that the only criteria for the rankings is spending — in the post I linked to your page called “Methodology”, which mentions something called the “Equitrend Study Key” and explains: “Each brand was rated on the following criteria: Familiarity… Quality… Purchase Consideration… Equity….” That sure seems like there’s more behind the rankings than just spending. But if spending is the sole determinant of rank, it seems like the list should be called “Top 2000 Brand Spenders” or something like that. Calling it a list of “Superbrands” just seems misleading or, at the very least, confusing.
3 Todd Wasserman // Jul 29, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Perhaps you are right that it’s confusing and maybe it should say Top 2000 Brand Spenders. Fine. Superbrands is catchier. But just to clear things up: In addition to the list we have 23 stories looking at various categories (autos, beverages, etc.) and that’s where the Equitrend numbers come into play. If we list the top 10 brands in terms of sales for that category, we also provide Equitrend numbers for those brands so readers can judge them based on something other than raw spending. But the top 2000 ranking is purely based on spending which is why I said there was no methodology at all in the rankings. See, there are two different things going on here: The 2,000 rankings which is pretty straightforward and the category stories, which are really just based on sales as well but have an overlay of Equitrend data for those interested. Sorry if this seems confusing.
Still, I appreciate the feedback.
Leave a Comment