· BASF maintains status as world’s most valuable chemicals brand, up 13% from last year to US$7.4 billion
· Dow cements second place with US$6.5 billion, boosted by merger with DuPont
· Saudi Arabia’s SABIC rises to 3rd rank with fastest brand value growth in the table, gaining 78% to US$3.7 billion
· Brands mid-ranking, including Air Liquide, Asahi Kasei, and Mitsubishi Chemical, lose value
View the full Brand Finance Chemicals 10 2018 report here
BASF has maintained its status as the world’s most valuable chemicals brand, following 13% brand value growth from last year to US$7.4 billion, according to a new report by Brand Finance, the world’s leading independent brand valuation and strategy consultancy. The brand value of BASF was boosted as a result of increased revenue projections after a strong 2017, which included the announcement and subsequent purchase of parts of Bayer’s businesses, in connection with Bayer’s acquisition of Monsanto.
Dow boosted by merger with DuPont
In second rank, Dow’s brand value surged 38% to US$6.5 billion, offset by the result of DuPont (down 10% to US$2.7 billion).
Michigan-based Dow and Delaware’s DuPont have now completed their corporate merger while continuing to restructure their businesses to operate under separate Dow, DuPont, and new Corteva brands. Although, at the moment, the combined value of Dow and DuPont at US$9.2 billion is greater than that of BASF, it remains to be seen how the merger and ensuing reallocation of assets impacts their respective brand values.
David Haigh, CEO of Brand Finance, commented:
“The undergoing transformation within DowDuPont will have a tremendous impact on the brands and how they are perceived in the future. So far, Dow has seen its brand value boosted by the merger, while DuPont’s brand value has been significantly disrupted. As the operations are split into three separate divisions, each specialising in a different line of products: agriculture, materials science, and specialty products, DowDuPont will need to raise awareness of these new developments and smoothly manage the transition to ensure the brand portfolio does not lose value.”
SABIC powers ahead
Saudi petrochemicals giant SABIC has grown faster over the past year than any other brand in the Brand Finance Chemicals 10 league table, jumping from 8th to 3rd rank. Contributing to SABIC’s impressive 78% increase in brand value to US$3.7 billion is the renewed effort by the brand to capitalise on the US shale boom by growing its business across America. Having recently announced plans for a new head office in Houston, Texas, SABIC is a major supplier of polyethylene and other commodity resins across the Western Hemisphere. Boosted by the rise in oil prices, SABIC is also looking into opportunities to access the African market and considering acquisitions in Europe and China.
Andrew Campbell, Managing Director, Brand Finance Middle East, commented:
“SABIC’s remarkable growth in brand value this year can be attributed to the way in which the Riyadh-based brand has been rapidly developing its global portfolio. All eyes are on SABIC now as it expands its plastics production, foaming technologies output and innovation capabilities across the world.”
Brands mid-ranking lose value
Brands in the middle of the Brand Finance Chemicals 10 ranking did not share in the strong gains of those at the top. Air Liquide (down 9% to US$2.3 billion), Asahi Kasei (down 5% to US$2.3 billion) and Mitsubishi Chemicals (down 9% to US$2.3 billion) suffered significant losses to their brand value. Asahi and Mitsubishi were both affected by the relative weakness of the Japanese yen.
In addition to measuring overall brand value, Brand Finance also evaluates the relative strength of brands, through the Brand Strength Index (BSI) – a balanced scorecard of factors such as marketing investment, customer familiarity, staff satisfaction, and corporate reputation. Along with the level of revenues, brand strength is a crucial driver of brand value.
Mitsubishi’s brand has the weakest strength in the top 10 as a result of the company’s online and social media performance lagging behind its peers who have expanded their digital marketing and promotion, particularly on LinkedIn, a crucial portal for talent recruitment. The staff are one of the main stakeholders influenced by a brand’s strength, with stronger brands attracting and retaining quality employees. To catch up, Mitsubishi is hiring specialist social media marketeers and launched a multi-million-dollar cross-platform campaign. The brand also suffered reputational damage in October last year when, in the course of an investigation into data falsification by supplier Kobe Steel, it reported that its materials division had also falsified data.
ENDS
Note to Editors
Every year, leading independent brand valuation and strategy consultancy Brand Finance values the world’s biggest brands. The 10 most valuable chemicals brands are included in the Brand Finance Chemicals 10 league table.
Brand value is understood as the net economic benefit that a brand owner would achieve by licensing the brand in the open market. Brand strength is assessed through a balanced scorecard of factors (such as marketing investment, stakeholder equity, and business performance) and used to determine what proportion of a business’s revenue is contributed by the brand.
Additional insights, more information about the methodology, as well as definitions of key terms are available in the Brand Finance Chemicals 10 2018 report.
Brand Finance helped craft the internationally recognized standard on Brand Valuation – ISO 10668, and the recently approved standard on Brand Evaluation – ISO 20671.
Data compiled for the Brand Finance league tables and reports are provided for the benefit of the media and are not to be used for any commercial or technical purpose without written permission from Brand Finance.
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.
