Apple named Interbrand's top global brand for eighth consecutive year

Global brand consultancy Interbrand in its latest report on global brand impact once again named Apple as the world's most valuable corporate name, a position the tech giant has held for eight years.

Interbrand assigned Apple a "brand value" of just under $323 billion, up 38% from $234.2 billion last year.

According to the firm, brand value is a calculation that represents a brand's impact on customers, employees and investors. Strong brands exert influence on consumers, create a loyal following, attract and retain employees and lower the cost of financing.

"Ultimately, Apple's (BV $322,999bn +38% YOY) distinctiveness - or, in fact, uniqueness - isn't a result of what the brand says, but what it does," according to the Interbrand report. "It's Apple's products, technologies and stores that speak to the organization's philosophy of beautiful simplicity and individual empowerment - much more than any campaign could ever do. Inasmuch as many talk about the brand's aura, Apple has consistently changed what was in people's minds by changing what was in their hands."

There was a bit of shuffling in the top-five in 2020. Second place Amazon, which was previously in third, grew its brand value by a massive 60% as it invested in realtime data, AI and machine learning. Microsoft also experienced healthy gains to land itself in third position, up 53% on what Interbrand calls an "extraordinary cultural shift" at the hands of CEO Satya Nadella. Google and Samsung rounded out the top five spots.

Tech companies accounted for 11 of the top 20 brands, with newcomer Instagram entering the scene in 19th place. More than half of Interbrand's identified top growing brands have significant subscription model businesses.

15 Comments

22july2013 11 Years · 3736 comments

About 4 years ago

Funny, I consider brands 2, 3, 4, 5, and especially 13 to have negative brand value, mostly because of their approaches to security and privacy. I avoid those brands, and anything they do (as much as I can.)

I would consider those brand names to be as much of a turnoff as these: https://www.trademarknow.com/blog/the-7-most-unfortunate-brand-names-ever-trademarked <--

danvm 9 Years · 1477 comments

22july2013 said:

Funny, I consider brands 2, 3, 4, 5, and especially 13 to have negative brand value, mostly because of their approaches to security and privacy. I avoid those brands, and anything they do (as much as I can.)

I would consider those brand names to be as much of a turnoff as these: https://www.trademarknow.com/blog/the-7-most-unfortunate-brand-names-ever-trademarked <--

What's more funny is that brand #1 receives money from company #4 to make their search engine the default in company #1 browser. So I suppose company #1 don't have the trust issues you have with company #4, considering they trust their customers to them.

Company #2 is the largest cloud provider in the world, and even company #1 use their services. And I haven't seen the security and privacy issues you mention.

Also company #3 is, maybe, the most trusted brand in enterprises and business. So maybe they are not as bad as you think.

danvm said:

22july2013 said:

Funny, I consider brands 2, 3, 4, 5, and especially 13 to have negative brand value, mostly because of their approaches to security and privacy. I avoid those brands, and anything they do (as much as I can.)

I would consider those brand names to be as much of a turnoff as these: https://www.trademarknow.com/blog/the-7-most-unfortunate-brand-names-ever-trademarked <--

What's more funny is that brand #1 receives money from company #4 to make their search engine the default in company #1 browser. So I suppose company #1 don't have the trust issues you have with company #4, considering they trust their customers to them.

Company #2 is the largest cloud provider in the world, and even company #1 use their services. And I haven't seen the security and privacy issues you mention.

Also company #3 is, maybe, the most trusted brand in enterprises and business. So maybe they are not as bad as you think.

Each of my three sentences had to do with how I felt about these companies. A person's feelings are personal and should always be respected. If someone hates General Motors, you can say all you want, but you can't make them like GM. Everyone has the right to hate any company they want to hate. There are lots of Apple haters on these forums, for example, and nobody shuts them down.

Your second paragraph is the most interesting. but I'm not quite sure what you are getting at. You said "you haven't seen the security and privacy issues [from Amazon]" Really? Amazon has many security and privacy issues. Like their Amazon Echo which is always listening to and recording what you are saying in your house. How is that not a security or privacy issue? I just googled "is amazon echo secure" and found 100 articles from different companies pointing out problems with it. Like this one. https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/amazons-alexa-never-stops-listening-to-you/ I figured you might like the NY Times. In that article it says Apple has suspended the practice of recording people's speech, but Amazon is still recording you.

qwerty52 7 Years · 367 comments

danvm said:

22july2013 said:

Funny, I consider brands 2, 3, 4, 5, and especially 13 to have negative brand value, mostly because of their approaches to security and privacy. I avoid those brands, and anything they do (as much as I can.)

I would consider those brand names to be as much of a turnoff as these: https://www.trademarknow.com/blog/the-7-most-unfortunate-brand-names-ever-trademarked <--

What's more funny is that brand #1 receives money from company #4 to make their search engine the default in company #1 browser. So I suppose company #1 don't have the trust issues you have with company #4, considering they trust their customers to them.

Company #2 is the largest cloud provider in the world, and even company #1 use their services. And I haven't seen the security and privacy issues you mention.

Also company #3 is, maybe, the most trusted brand in enterprises and business. So maybe they are not as bad as you think.

In your attempt to defend those companies, for which we know for sure that they don’t respect the privacy of their users, you are trying to rape the truth.

danvm said:

Also company #3 is, maybe, the most trusted brand in enterprises and business. So maybe they are not as bad as you think.

Are you a big fan of LinkedIn? Your favourite #3, Microsoft, bought LinkedIn in 2016, which is a company whose deceptive email practices were spawned in hell, but since Microsoft bought them up for $26 billion, the number of criminally deceptive emails I've got from LinkedIn has dropped quite a bit, for which I am eternally grateful to Microsoft, but hasn't hit zero. I'm glad Microsoft spent $26 billion to cut my serious spam problem by about 50%. I respect Microsoft for stopping the criminal behaviour coming out of subsidiaries that they own. But that doesn't mean I have to like them now.