Comments on: Brand statisticians run amok http://www.snarkhunting.com/2008/07/brand-statisticians-run-amok/ The naming and branding blog Fri, 06 May 2011 14:45:01 +0000 hourly 1 By: Todd Wasserman http://www.snarkhunting.com/2008/07/brand-statisticians-run-amok/comment-page-1/#comment-3262 Todd Wasserman Wed, 30 Jul 2008 00:00:10 +0000 http://www.snarkhunting.com/?p=838#comment-3262 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. 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.

]]> By: Jay Jurisich http://www.snarkhunting.com/2008/07/brand-statisticians-run-amok/comment-page-1/#comment-3260 Jay Jurisich Tue, 29 Jul 2008 05:45:14 +0000 http://www.snarkhunting.com/?p=838#comment-3260 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. 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.

]]> By: Todd Wasserman http://www.snarkhunting.com/2008/07/brand-statisticians-run-amok/comment-page-1/#comment-3259 Todd Wasserman Tue, 29 Jul 2008 01:06:51 +0000 http://www.snarkhunting.com/?p=838#comment-3259 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. 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.

]]>