[beholder3]

Canon $10,380 million
Sony $9,316 million
Panasonic $6,293 million
Ricoh $906 million
Nikon $843 million

Japan's Best Global Brands - 2019 (Interbrand) | Ranking The Brands

[kjfishman]

Are those sales for 2019? If so that is interesting Nikon is at the bottom. In the US Cannon and Nikon is all you ever see in stores.

[BigMackCam]

Are those sales for 2019? If so that is interesting Nikon is at the bottom. In the US Cannon and Nikon is all you ever see in stores.

I don't know what "brand value" specifically refers to... however, bear in mind that Nikon is almost entirely photography based. All the other brands have a diverse range of products for different markets, and I expect "brand value" - whatever that is, precisely - is based on the entire companies' activities, not just the photographic sector... otherwise, Ricoh would be at the bottom

[Michail_P]

And the photography sector has a separate funding. But I didn’t expect Nikon there...

[termy]

Nikon.
(Assuming what is in wiki isn't incorrect) >>

[BigMackCam]

Nikon.
(Assuming what is in wiki isn't incorrect) >>

Right... but my point was (and remains), at least anecdotally, all the other companies have much wider diversification of products and markets. Compare, for example, Sony with Nikon... Sony has its hands in so very many pies that photography equipment - whilst not insignificant - is by no means the bigger part of its business. Same with Panasonic. Especially so with Ricoh, where the imaging division represents only a tiny piece of the group's consolidated business. Therefore, whilst Nikon may be at the bottom of the brand value list when the group-wide business activities of the companies are compared, if we were to isolate only the photography-related aspects of them, the values and list order would be completely different - and perhaps more relevant in terms of these forums, though I'm not clear what the OP's message was...

[termy]

think the way OP was using "brand values", OP meant how much a certain brand was valued at (at a certain point in time).

As for Sony.
Sony is like one big super giant of a firm, and bent on dominating whatever areas they would like to dominate.

If one fine day Sony decides it wants in on .... perhaps, kitchenware, then they probably will muscle in and good grief, Sony kitchenware.

For now, Sony is like this behemoth dominating "entertainment" and "audio-visual" areas.

Even third party companies are assisting Sony in this domination of area of "photography".

Think Sigma MC-11 adapter, and the recently available adapter that could do AF with Pentax F and FA lenses on Sony E mount bodies.

And the scary part is, that adapter will, in most likelihood, be developed further, and DA and DFA lenses could also AF on E mount bodies.

[ramseybuckeye]

Canon $10,380 million
Sony $9,316 million
Panasonic $6,293 million
Ricoh $906 million
Nikon $843 million

Japan's Best Global Brands - 2019 (Interbrand) | Ranking The Brands

I would have thought Sony was bigger than Canon, and I did not realize Nikon was that close to Ricoh, I though Ricoh was much larger.

[Serkevan]

I also found it interesting that Canon is valued bigger than Sony but, after checking, I see that Canon has 197K employees, compared to Sony's 114K. Huh. And here I thought that with all their divisions Sony would somehow be much larger...

[DWS1]

And the last I heard was Apple is the most recognized and valued brand in the world.

[Michail_P]

And the last I heard was Apple is the most recognized and valued brand in the world.

Yeah it’s true. Their value is off the charts. But on the other hand Apple is a whole other thing. It’s a system. Different perspective and marketing. And if your mobile is worth as much as a full frame.....

[beholder3]

I would have thought Sony was bigger than Canon, and I did not realize Nikon was that close to Ricoh, I though Ricoh was much larger.

"Brand value" expresses the value of the abstract brand. It has nothing to do with sales, employees or any other similar hard fact item.
It is about the intangible value of the brand name recognition. Usually this is put as goodwill asset on balance sheets.

You can be the worlds largest producer of weapons for murderers with billions of sales and millions of employees, but still your brand value will likely be zero or negative.
Or you can be a non-profit organization of five people and still have a huge brand value.

It is basically the monetary value of how many people recognize who the brand is and how positive the image is.

[BigMackCam]

"Brand value" expresses the value of the abstract brand. It has nothing to do with sales, employees or any other similar hard fact item.
It is about the intangible value of the brand name recognition. Usually this is put as goodwill asset on balance sheets.

You can be the worlds largest producer of weapons for murderers with billions of sales and millions of employees, but still your brand value will likely be zero or negative.
Or you can be a non-profit organization of five people and still have a huge brand value.

It is basically the monetary value of how many people recognize who the brand is and how positive the image is.

If it's intangible (i.e. "something that exists but that cannot be touched, exactly described, or given an exact value") yet represents monetary value based on brand awareness and moral reputation ("how positive the image is"), how on earth does someone measure that objectively and unambiguously? Is the methodology clearly explained anywhere? Is there a formula?

Colour me confused

EDIT: OK... I've re-read your last post and you mention "goodwill". I think I may understand a little better, now... So is "brand value" the entire proposed financial value of the brand - tangible and intangible, including goodwill - or is it just the goodwill portion?

I'm not an accountant, but I suspect this is primarily relevant in valuation prior to sale, acquisition, raising capital / borrowing etc. - no?

[beholder3]

If it's intangible (i.e. "something that exists but that cannot be touched, exactly described, or given an exact value") yet represents monetary value based on brand awareness and moral reputation ("how positive the image is"), how on earth does someone measure that objectively and unambiguously? Is the methodology clearly explained anywhere? Is there a formula?

Colour me confused

Well, you may ask the same question about share prices.

But for a more professional answer feel free to read:
Brand equity - Wikipedia
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodwill_(accounting)

Whatever you and I think about it, companies put it in their balance sheets highly officially.

[BigMackCam]

Well, you may ask the same question about share prices.

But for a more professional answer feel free to read:
Brand equity - Wikipedia
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodwill_(accounting)

Whatever you and I think about it, companies put it in their balance sheets highly officially.

Thanks See my edit to the post above, which I was writing when you responded...

Regarding share prices, I take your point. In which case, could one say that market capitalisation of a publicly traded company is equivalent to "brand value"?