Every year, leading brand valuation and strategy consultancy Brand Finance puts thousands of the world’s top brands to the test, evaluating which are the most powerful and valuable, publishing the Brand Finance Top 100 Malaysia Brands.
Brand Finance Asia Pacific released their annual “Top 100 Malaysia Brands” 2019 rankings showing sustained growth in overall brand value by the Malaysian brands.
PETRONAS, Maybank & Genting continue to dominate the top 3 rankings in 2019 once again with a combined brand value of over US$ 20 billion.
PETRONAS continues to stay on top to be the first US$ 13.31 billion brand in Malaysia. Maybank maintains its #2 spot with a brand value of US$ 4.20 billion followed by #3 ranked Genting which had a brand value of US$ 3.04 billion highlighting the significant gap between the top 2 brands.
The US$ 34.4 billion combined value of top 10 brands make up for 61% of the total value of the top 100. This shows the significant effort required by the brands outside of top 10 in terms of brand strength improvement and revenue growth if they wish to compete in the top 10 space.
Digi ousted Celcom to clinch the title of the strongest Malaysian brand with its brand rating being upgraded from AAA- to AAA. Digi is now one of only four Malaysian Brands with the AAA brand rating.
The brand value gap between #1 and #2 in 2019 has widened to an astronomical figure of US$ 9 billion making it hard to displace PETRONAS from their #1 position. PETRONAS also became the most improved brand with an increase of absolute value of US$ 1,817 million this year.
There are 6 new entrants coming into this year Top 100 rankings namely Kuala Lumpur International Airport, Parkway Pantai, FFM Group, Golden Screen Cinemas, Hiap Teck Venture and KNM.
The highest intangible value brand is Padini with a brand value to Enterprise value ratio of 76%, highlighting the role of brand for business success.
Samir Dixit, Managing Director of Brand Finance Asia Pacific highlighted that “PETRONAS is in a very strong position and it will continue to grow its brand strength and brand value while the Malaysia brands have grown considerably well overall. It is the brand strength for most brands that remains a concern. Also, the rankings remain very top heavy with 61% of the total brand value contributed by the Top 10 brands and 93% contributed by the Top 50 brands. We would like to see a more diverse mix at the top and more significant value increase at the bottom which means other brands must start focusing on their value and brand strength.”
Samir Dixit also challenged the Malaysia companies to be more brand-driven and not sales or offers-driven. These while help sell in the short term, might destroy the long term value and the strength of the brand. Brand has to be a strategic agenda for the senior management and boards and must be managed like any other business asset and not just a legal trademark.”
The Focus on Brand Strength
The brand strength, measured by Brand Strength Index (‘BSI’), a more accurate measure of brands competitiveness in the market, has remained stagnant for most Malaysian brands and while they may be doing well locally, they have been losing out to some of the key competitors in the region as they lack competitiveness outside of Malaysia market.
Digi made a significant jump to oust the strongest competitor and managed to clinch the title of the strongest Malaysian Brand as one of only four brands attaining triple-A brand rating. Other brands with the triple-A brand rating following closely behind Digi are Petronas, Maybank and Public Bank.
END
Brand Finance is the world’s leading brand valuation consultancy. Bridging the gap between marketing and finance for more than 25 years, Brand Finance evaluates the strength of brands and quantifies their financial value to help organizations of all kinds make strategic decisions.
Headquartered in London, Brand Finance has offices in over 20 countries, offering services on all continents. Every year, Brand Finance conducts more than 5,000 brand valuations, supported by original market research, and publishes over 100 reports which rank brands across all sectors and countries.
Brand Finance also operates the Global Brand Equity Monitor, conducting original market research annually on over 5,000 brands, surveying more than 150,000 respondents across 38 countries and 31 industry sectors. Combining perceptual data from the Global Brand Equity Monitor with data from its valuation database enables Brand Finance to arm brand leaders with the data and analytics they need to enhance brand and business value.
Brand Finance is a regulated accountancy firm, leading the standardization of the brand valuation industry. Brand Finance was the first to be certified by independent auditors as compliant with both ISO 10668 and ISO 20671 and has received the official endorsement of the Marketing Accountability Standards Board (MASB) in the United States.
Brand is defined as a marketing-related intangible asset including, but not limited to, names, terms, signs, symbols, logos, and designs, intended to identify goods, services, or entities, creating distinctive images and associations in the minds of stakeholders, thereby generating economic benefits.
Brand strength is the efficacy of a brand’s performance on intangible measures relative to its competitors. Brand Finance evaluates brand strength in a process compliant with ISO 20671, looking at Marketing Investment, Stakeholder Equity, and the impact of those on Business Performance. The data used is derived from Brand Finance’s proprietary market research programme and from publicly available sources.
Each brand is assigned a Brand Strength Index (BSI) score out of 100, which feeds into the brand value calculation. Based on the score, each brand is assigned a corresponding Brand Rating up to AAA+ in a format similar to a credit rating.
Brand Finance calculates the values of brands in its rankings using the Royalty Relief approach – a brand valuation method compliant with the industry standards set in ISO 10668. It involves estimating the likely future revenues that are attributable to a brand by calculating a royalty rate that would be charged for its use, to arrive at a ‘brand value’ understood as a net economic benefit that a brand owner would achieve by licensing the brand in the open market.
The steps in this process are as follows:
1 Calculate brand strength using a balanced scorecard of metrics assessing Marketing Investment, Stakeholder Equity, and Business Performance. Brand strength is expressed as a Brand Strength Index (BSI) score on a scale of 0 to 100.
2 Determine royalty range for each industry, reflecting the importance of brand to purchasing decisions. In luxury, the maximum percentage is high, while in extractive industry, where goods are often commoditised, it is lower. This is done by reviewing comparable licensing agreements sourced from Brand Finance’s extensive database.
3 Calculate royalty rate. The BSI score is applied to the royalty range to arrive at a royalty rate. For example, if the royalty range in a sector is 0-5% and a brand has a BSI score of 80 out of 100, then an appropriate royalty rate for the use of this brand in the given sector will be 4%.
4 Determine brand-specific revenues by estimating a proportion of parent company revenues attributable to a brand.
5 Determine forecast revenues using a function of historic revenues, equity analyst forecasts, and economic growth rates.
6 Apply the royalty rate to the forecast revenues to derive brand revenues.
7 Discount post-tax brand revenues to a net present value which equals the brand value.
Brand Finance has produced this study with an independent and unbiased analysis. The values derived and opinions presented in this study are based on publicly available information and certain assumptions that Brand Finance used where such data was deficient or unclear. Brand Finance accepts no responsibility and will not be liable in the event that the publicly available information relied upon is subsequently found to be inaccurate. The opinions and financial analysis expressed in the study are not to be construed as providing investment or business advice. Brand Finance does not intend the study to be relied upon for any reason and excludes all liability to any body, government, or organisation.
The data presented in this study form part of Brand Finance's proprietary database, are provided for the benefit of the media, and are not to be used in part or in full for any commercial or technical purpose without written permission from Brand Finance.
