See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/313470879

Valuing Brands: A Critical Review of Brand Valuation Models

Conference Paper · July 2004

CITATIONS READS

0 379

3 authors, including:

Len Tiu Wright David Pickton

University of Huddersfield De Montfort University
90 PUBLICATIONS   1,383 CITATIONS    52 PUBLICATIONS   565 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Integrated Marketing Communications View project

Competitive Intelligence View project

All content following this page was uploaded by David Pickton on 08 February 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Valuing Brands: A Critical Review of Brand Valuation Models

Jürgen Abele, Len Tiu Wright and David Pickton

Author affiliations:
Jürgen Abele is a Brand Consultant and Manager at GPP. Werbeagentur GmbH in Stuttgart and
a Doctoral Researcher at De Montfort University.
Len Tiu Wright and David Pickton are from Leicester Business School, De Montfort
University.

Abstract
Over the last two decades the IT, financial, and retailing sectors have shown rapid growth with
the emergence of new product and service innovations that have been characterised by their
corporate and product brands. When the value of a brand name, translated into ‘brand equity’,
becomes a significant asset to a company, managers face difficulty in assessing brand worth
and choosing the best brand valuation approach to suit a specific set of circumstances. This
paper presents a literature review to examine the requirements and issues for brand valuation
models and, thus, highlights their contribution to brand equity building. The paper concludes
with propositions for further investigation.

Keywords: Evaluating brand models, brand equity, management and control

Background
Since the early 1980s there have been lively and serious discussions about the concept of brand
evaluation. In the 1990s brand evaluation was then popularised by Aaker (1991), Srivastava
and Shocker (1991), Kapferer (1992), and Keller (1993, 1998, 2002) to name but a few.
Recently, the intangible ‘brand asset’ and brand valuation have again become very
important in both marketing practice and academia because of the increasing importance of
marketing accountability (Ambler, 2000), and the increasing trend to integrate marketing
activities and marketing measurements into corporate measures (Doyle 2000; Srivastava,
Shervani and Fahey 1998). At present, it is additionally necessary to pay attention to the
brand’s environment and according to De Chernatony and McDonald’s (2003), understand the
brand as a value creator. The current brand environment put many manufacturers’ brands in
consumer and business-to-business markets under huge pressure. In consumer markets the big
retail chains have steadily created their own private label brands and outplaced manufacturers’
branded products. In 2003, the private label market share in Germany was 27% while in Britain
it was 31% (AC Nielsen 2003). In the business-to-business market, not only in the UK, but also
in Germany, it is estimated that about 70% of German industrial companies have more than one
significant brand in their portfolio and as a result, brand structures have become increasingly
complicated. In future, business-to-business companies have the possibility of managing and
cultivating their brands in a similar way to those operating in the business-to-consumer market
(IMU/FAZ 11.08.2003).
The literature discussion in this paper will examine the contribution of brand
management as a vital ingredient for success in corporate strategy. As demonstrated by the
rewards in financial markets for consistently focused international brand strategies, when a
corporate merger or acquisition is in the offering, a brand’s worth in market terms becomes an
important issue; it is increasingly important to put a figure on brand equity e.g. to maintain the
support of shareholders, for the “due diligence” business report on a company’s value. As a
result, the success of brand management has become a pointer for judging the effectiveness of
managers as they develop and implement their corporate and marketing strategies.
There are limitations existing in the literature. These point to a lack of a clear consensus about
the effectiveness of existing brand valuation models, the difficulties in assessing the worth of
brands given the positive gloss put on leading brands in company reports, and what strategies
need to be adopted to grow the value of brands. This paper will examine the requirements and
purposes of brand valuation models and provide suggestions that affect brand management.
The paper then concludes with a number of propositions for guiding future research.

Analyses of the Requirements and Purposes of Brand Valuation Models

In the year 2000, the University of St. Gallen in Switzerland made a study of ‘tools used for
brand monitoring’. The results were interesting in that only 9 % of these companies stated that
they made regular use of brand equity models. Over one fifth saw the building of brand equity
as an irregular exercise. This begs the question as to why building “brand equity” does not
appear to be as popular in practice as it should be, as portrayed in the literature. There have also
existed many different financially-oriented measurements concerning brand equity
(Wermelskirchen 1999, Wood 2000).
Companies require that their brand valuation models should be reliable, objective and
verifiable. These requirements derive from the necessity that brand valuation models have to be
integrated into financial accounting systems. To ensure a long-term view, any brand valuation
model should be future-oriented. A study from Kriegbaum (2001) demonstrated that companies
require brand valuation models to give reliable results and gain recognition for their
trustworthiness, see Figure 1.

Figure 1: Importance and requirements of brand valuation models

Where companies use a brand valuation model, they use brand equity in the first place for
internal reporting, budgeting, brand monitoring and brand managing as well as for merger and
acquisition. Other purposes like external reporting, brand licensing, and infringement of brand
rights are of secondary importance. (PwC Deutsche Revision/ Sattler, H., 2001).

!2
Table 1 (at the end of the paper) summarises the more commonly used brand valuation models,
as presented in the literature. What now follows is an explanation of these models together with
a discussion of the situations requiring brand valuation and brand monitoring.

As Wood (2000) has shown, the existence of many different brand valuation models allow
companies to assess the value of their brands in various ways. Accordingly, these models can
be clustered as (A) company financial oriented models, (B) consumer oriented models and (C)
models containing both orientations.

A) Financial oriented models

The brand equity model originated as a financial concept consisting of the net present value of
all future net surpluses over the cash input that the owner of a brand could earn. Such financial-
oriented measurements of brand equity, like the capital market-oriented brand valuation, is a
suitable approach for expressing it as a monetary value. For example, it is required for purposes
of financial statements, licensing agreements, acquisition decisions, or the assessment of
damages when intellectual property rights have been infringed.

Capital market-oriented brand valuation model

Each brand can be assumed to be worth the maximum amount a purchaser would be prepared
to pay to acquire it (Simon and Sullivan 1992). Taking this as a basis, brand equity can be seen
as the stock price of a company reflecting the future potential of its brand. Simon and Sullivan
(1992) defined brand equity as the present value of all future earnings attributable solely to
branding.
However, shortcomings of this method exist and cannot be avoided. For example, to
create market identity, a transparent market is needed. Furthermore, the opportunity to apply
this method is dependent on whether a company is stock exchange-listed or not. Finally, multi-
brand companies can only estimate the brand equity of each brand because no profound
distinction is given.

Market value-oriented brand valuation

From a market value-oriented point of view, brand equity can be measured by comparing
market prices of comparative brands. This method causes problems in application not only due
to the difficulty in finding comparable brands, but also due to the subjectivity resulting from
such a comparison. It is widely acknowledged that a brand’s uniqueness is part of a brand’s
essence. Yet another problem is that market prices may not necessarily reflect an individual
purchaser’s or vendor’s sense of a brand’s value (Sander 1994).

Cost-oriented brand valuation

The investment theory as a representative of cost-oriented valuations calculates brand equity by
deducting cumulative brand costs to date from cumulative revenues attributable to the brand.
Weaknesses like the exact determination of costs and revenues caused by the brand itself and
the assumption that more investments in a brand would result in more value for the brand are
connected with this approach. Investigations have shown that this assumption has nothing in
common with reality because a low investment in a brand can also lead to a strong brand.

Brand valuation based on the concept of enterprise value (Repenn)

!3
Repenn as the most well-known representative of this perspective suggests that the value of a
brand is determined by using its underlying value, that is the cost of creating and maintaining
the brand and also adding in development costs, patent fees incurred and so on - plus the
brand’s operational value. The latter, which arises from the ongoing use of the brand, is
calculated at 10% of average annual revenues during the past five years (Repenn 1998).
Criticism of this approach state that the calculation of a brand’s operational value, the so-called
Repenn factor, cannot be estimated by using a fixed rate of 10% because each brand is unique
and different. A general arbitrage of 10% would not consider this aspect.

Earning capacity-oriented brand valuation (Kern’s x-times-model)

This perspective points out the monetary side of brand valuation by discounting estimated
future earnings flows to their present value. In this connection, a predetermined interest factor
is applied to gain the value of a brand at a specific point of time. The value of a company or
brand is established by applying multipliers, appropriate to the industry involved, to the
earnings or revenues generated by the company or brand (Kern 1962).
Positive aspects that can be derived from this model is the future-oriented perspective
considering the intrinsic nature of brand equity. One problem of this model is that estimates of
future developments, expert opinions on the license fee rate, the arbitrary determination of a
useful life for the brand and the imputed interest rate combine to allow subjective parameters to
have a considerable influence that would affect the final outcome (Herreiner 1992a).

Price premium-oriented brand valuation

Factors such as brand quality, brand awareness or brand strength enable a company to deliver
additional value to customers for which they are willing to pay a little more. This so-called
price premium can be identified by comparing the price of a branded product with the price of
an identical unbranded one. To obtain total brand value, the unit price differential is multiplied
by the quantity sold (Bekmeier-Feuerhahn 1998).
The objective determination of brand equity can be seen as an advantage of this approach
whereas the lack of forward-driven factors is a critical advantage. Consumers’ judgments are
not subjected to any external distortions such as those that occur when criteria are imposed or
weighting coefficients used.

B) Consumer-oriented brand valuation models

The literature about branding contains criticisms by both marketing practitioners and
theoreticians of financial models that do not take into account the essential qualities of strong
brands at all. Such models are based on quantities e.g. stock market capitalization, earning-
capacity value, license revenues, acquisition costs, price premiums or customer contribution
margins. To meet the requirements of demand-oriented components, new models have been
developed containing the brand strength as a value considering the fact of what goes on in
customers’ or potential customers’ “hearts and minds”.

Aaker’s brand equity approach

Aaker’s brand equity approach is one of the best-known theoretically oriented models in this
group. Aaker defined brand equity as “a set of assets and liabilities linked to a brand, its name
and symbol that add to or subtract from the value provided by a product or service to a firm

!4
and/or to that firm’s customers”. He defined the brand as a symbol associated with a large
number of mental assets and liabilities that serve to identify and differentiate products. He
expounded five determinants of brand equity: brand loyalty, brand awareness, perceived
quality, brand associations and other brand assets (Aaker 1991).
This approach contains problems if the determinants are interdependent as, for instance,
the determinant of ‘quality’ is also partly a function of ‘awareness’, ‘associations’ and ‘loyalty’.
This approach is considered to be insufficient due to the requirements posed by sound
measurement techniques that use information about the financial value of particular dimensions
of the model.

Kapferer’s brand equity model

According to Kapferer, “brands identify, guarantee, structure and stabilize supply. They draw
their value from their capacity to reduce risk and uncertainty” (Kapferer 1992). The brand
name gives a benefit by reducing the transaction risk for both the producer and consumer. The
main focus is the consumer’s purchase pattern, which itself depends on the experience the
consumer has with the quality and price of the brand in conjunction with the branded product.
This may generate a habitual purchasing decision and brand preference. Kapferer’s brand
equity model trades a seal of quality for automatic repeat purchasing. Unlike Aaker who
attributed this change to brand loyalty, Kapferer attributed this change to a reduction of
purchase risk. This model clearly differentiates between its determinants and outcomes, thus
ensuring it is functionally logical. Although this model is used to indicate the consumer’s
purchase pattern, the model neither considers changes in consumer values nor competitors’
strategies or other factors that can have a retarding effect on brand equity growth (Schlaberg
1997).

Keller’s brand equity approach

Keller’s assumption is that the “customer-based brand equity” or the consumer-oriented brand
value is connected to brand knowledge and is based on comparison with an unbranded product
from the same product category. He defines brand value as “the differential effect of brand
knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of the brand” (Keller 1993) so the brand
equity considers consumers’ responses to an element of the marketing mix for the brand and
compares these with the reactions of the same marketing mix element that are “attributed to a
fictitiously named or unnamed version of the product or service”. The brand equity approach
should combine brand knowledge with the awareness and image of the brand (Keller 1993).

The icon Brand Trek approach

Brand image and brand assets serve as the basis for the brand value known here as brand
strength of the icon Brand Trek approach, also known as the “brand iceberg” model. To
consumers the “visible” tip of the iceberg is the brand image which contains the following
components of a brand: brand awareness; the lasting impact of advertising; the advertising
pressure as subjectively perceived; the distinctiveness of brand identity; and the clarity and
appeal of internal brand image. In other words, these are the short-term measures in the
marketing mix. In comparison to the brand image, the brand assets (the “foundation” of a
brand) contain the brand appeal, the trust in the brand and the brand loyalty. The sum of
internal brand image and brand assets is the internal brand value (Andresen 1991; Andresen
and Esch 1999).

!5
 But the Brand Trek approach also indicates different problems: As the model offers only
relative value, and not absolute financial brand value, the reference determinants to be
compared are not brand image and brand assets of unbranded products, but other branded
items. An objective valuation is nearly impossible as a main factor of a brand is its uniqueness.
Brand value, determined in this way, could serve only to delineate a basic trend for brand value.
Additionally, the brand comparison invites the contentious issue of whether differences in
strength between brand image and brand assets can be offset (Bekmeier-Feuerhahn, 1998).

Young & Rubicam’s Brand Asset Valuator

The Young & Rubicam’s Brand Asset Valuator was developed to support brand management
like the icon Brand Trek approach. Young & Rubicam identified four areas for generating brand
value: differentiation, relevance, esteem and confidence. Aaker (1996) described the four areas
in this way: “Differentiation measures how distinctive the brand is in the marketplace, ...
relevance measures whether a brand has personal relevance for the respondent, ... esteem
measures whether the brand is held in high regard and considered the best in its class, ...
(confidence) knowledge is a measure of understanding as to what a brand stands for ...”. For
evaluating these four areas fifty-two (sub-) criteria are necessary. However, the problem is that
these criteria are not published as well as the configuration guidelines, so it is difficult to assess
the contribution to the brands concerned. Secondly, the model does not determine monetary
brand value.

C) Consumer-oriented and financial-oriented brand valuation models

The idea is to combine the company financial oriented and consumer oriented models in order
to eliminate disadvantages. These models are able to analyse the status of a brand in the market,
and to transfer these non-monetary values into monetary values (brand equity).

The Interbrand brand value approach

One of the best known indicator models in this third group is the Interbrand ‘brand value
system’. First, a scoring system with a point-based valuation model is applied for an earnings-
based approach. This scoring system contains seven factors that are operationalized based on a
total score of 100: (a) brand leadership (strength factor 25); (b) brand stability (15); (c) the
market (10); (d) internationality (25); (e) trend (10); (f) support (10); and (g) protection (see De
Chernatony and McDonald 2003). One classic weakness of this model is the strong influence of
subjective components, such as the selection and weighting of factors and their criteria for
determining brand strength, the arbitrary scale system for the multiplier, the delineation of the
relevant market and the estimation of brand earnings. Second, the determination of monetary
brand value earnings after taxes makes the brand value dependent on the tax system in use
(Sander 1994). Third, the data used by this model are mainly estimated values, with the result
that the created financial brand value offering is likely to be a trend value.

The A. C. Nielsen Brand Performance

This model focuses on the marketing decision-makers and the specific information they need
for brand planning. Thus, it provides relevant data by creating a correlation between complex
market environments, long-term brand cultivation and successful brand management. The
modular structure makes it possible to supplement several measurements of brand value with

!6
analyses for the purpose of brand steering, financial brand valuation and tracking of brand
leadership (Bekmeier-Feuerhahn 1998).
The main problem areas of A.C. Nielsen’s Brand Performance are its three assumptions;
the same net operating margin for all brands, a perpetual life cycle for all brands, and an
attraction theorem of brand preference familiar from the literature on market response theory.
Just as it was with the Interbrand model, there are still subjective factors in the process for
determining revenue potential, estimating net operating margin and calculating the risk
premium integrated into the earning capacity-value formula. With missing adjustment
components for future development the model is conditional on its future-orientation. Last, but
not least, the determinant of customer acceptance is standardized only for certain phases of
information processing with the result that they are not sufficiently operationalized (Bekmeier-
Feuerhahn 1998).

The Semion brand value approach

Semion defined four brand value drivers whose levels, in turn, are determined by indicators
(Wermelskirchen 1999). The financial value of the company, the brand protection, the brand
strength and the brand image are the influencing factors. The sub-criteria for these factors are
categorised are as follows: (1) financial value of the company (including: earnings before taxes,
earnings trend); (2) brand protection (product classification, brand environment, international
protection); (3) brand strength (market share, market influence, marketing activities,
distribution rate, degree of familiarity, identity and potential); and (4) brand image (consumer
associations, image position in the market - among consumers vis-à-vis product).
The process shows that subjective influences cannot be avoided. As Semion does not
publish these values, it seems that the selection of determinants and the individual weighting
factors for establishing the factor values are arbitrary and unverifiable. Secondly, the
determinants seem to be interdependent. Thirdly, the model neglects future-oriented values,
indications of development potential and brand sustainability (Nussbaum 1998).

The Weak Points of Current Brand Valuation Models

After this brief discussion of the models and their main disadvantages and limitations, Table 1
shows a detailed overview of the requirements and purposes of the various brand valuation
models. In practice, the following main disadvantages result:
(1) Nearly all models do not meet requirements such as reliability, verifiability and objectivity.
(2) All consumer-oriented models do not consider financial values and as a result are not
suitable for merger and acquisition, external reporting, budget planning, brand licensing and
infringement of brand rights. In contrast, all financial-oriented models do not take into
account brand panning and brand management.
(3) Only the models combining both consumer-oriented and financial-oriented aspects take into
consideration monetary aspects as well as non-monetary aspects. As a result, the brand
evaluation is highly subjective concerning the transformation of non-monetary values into
monetary values by using e.g. none empirically tested scoring-models. Furthermore, they
are not transparent due to their commercial background.
(4) An unrestricted, accepted model does not exist.
(5) An additional and often neglected point is the holistic consideration of the company and its
several corporate evaluation approaches. These approaches should harmonize with each

!7
 other. A shortcoming of brand valuation models is the difficulty of orchestrating these
approaches into a single integrated company structure which is typically compounded by a
lack of transparency.

An improved model should first and foremost allow for situation-specific brand valuation. Only
when this approach is taken, can a brand valuation model be assured of addressing the
particular issues that arise from the type of situation requiring the valuation. In the context of
brand management issues, for instance, situation-specific brand valuation means that the model
can be used as a brand-steering tool.
It can be seen from the literature that academics have tended to create various models
that are limited in scope; consumer-oriented models (e.g. Aaker, Keller, etc.) and financial-
based models (e.g. Simon/Sullivan, Repenn, Sander, etc.). All models that consider both areas
have been developed by commercial companies and are not transparent to others. A modern
brand valuation model must offer practical use. This requires further research into the
transformation from non-monetary values into monetary values to reduce subjectivity.
To integrate an accepted model into a company organisation successfully, a holistic
consideration is required. At present, this is the second main criticism. Currently, there are
difficulties for companies to successfully implement a brand valuation model into their
corporation valuation system. Present brand valuation models do not offer such possibilities.
An integration into the corporation valuation can be supported by interfaces between the brand
valuation model and the corporation valuation system, so-called brand monitoring (Kernstock,
2001, de Chernatony and McDonald, 2003). This system should enable the fit between the
model and the company as well as offer to a company the recognized elements of key figures,
benchmarking, and an exchange of data between both systems. Additionally, the system has to
discover and analyse efficient ways of brand planning and brand managing. To work correctly
the brand monitoring system needs a comprehensive data input by the brand valuation model.
This requires the possibility of working on the brand strength (brand planning and brand
management) as well as on the monetary brand equity. Models offering such combinations
attempt to solve this problem by using scoring-models instead of, for example, using the cause-
effect-chain applied in the brand strength concept.
By using a transparent and concrete framework based on cause-effect relationships, an
integration of both consumer-based, non-monetary values and financial-based monetary values
(turnover, costs, price premium etc.) is possible. This framework should not only underlie the
theoretical analysis, in particular the consumer-based investigations (Keller 1998, 2002, Aaker
1996, etc.), but also practical issues concerning planning and decision making (Backhaus,
2000).
The problem is that current cause-effect chains are focused on consumer-based values and not
on both consumer-based and financial-based values although it is recognized that financial
values can only be increased on the basis of non-monetary values. Additionally, the chain can
be used as an early-warning system, based on the advantage that it can show the monetary
changes caused by changes in non-monetary values. In particular, cause-effect relationships do
not have equal strength and degree of belief.
Results obtained using this approach can provide brand managers with relevant decision-
making aids – founded on a clear, consistent brand strategy – as they plan, deploy and control
their brand management tools. From this action-oriented marketing perspective, identification
of monetary brand value in absolute terms can help corporate management to track a brand’s
contribution to shareholder value on an ongoing basis. For other valuation purposes, however –

!8
for instance, the acquisition of brands and/or companies that own brands – identifying
monetary brand value is vital. This situation-specific brand valuation model must be capable of
determining both monetary and non-monetary (consumer) aspects of brand equity.
Objectivity is given in the context of company evaluation by adding various evaluation
models (Drukarczky, 2001). In this case, objectivity of brand valuation models is linked with
the one of company evaluation methods to measure the degree of objectivity. This will be the
task of future investigations.

Figure 2: Brand valuation concerning all 3 elements

To summarize, the development of brand valuation models should contain the following factors
to be more accepted in practice:
- Interfaces between brand valuation models and company valuation
- Consequent realization of the cause-effect-chain to possibly achieve a reduction of
subjectivity.

Propositions
Based on the discussed shortcomings of existing brand valuation approaches, there is a
catalogue of requirements – covering content, practicality and formal criteria – that appear
essential to be taken into account when creating a new, integrated brand valuation model. Fast-
moving and slow-moving consumer goods, industrial goods and services have elements that
require greater diversity and overlaying of information content for branding models, when
needed. Most companies are at present very sceptical about using brand equity as a tool in
decision-making, which therefore, prejudices the selection of a brand valuation model. If they
remain unconvinced about brand equity models, seeing them as short of independent viability,
transparency, economic efficiency and implementation, then the case for further research and
development becomes imperative. Stemming from this, there are certain propositions that could
be used to guide future empirical research:
!9
 • Proposition 1: Implementation is only practical when the model’s derivation and results
become clear and attributable. This necessitates the brand valuation model being
compatible with a company’s valuation system. From a measurement point of view all
(monetary and non-monetary) determinants have to be examined concerning:
their relevance;
their mutual independence;
how qualitative determinants can be converted into monetary units;
the prevention of the unduly strong influence of subjective components e.g. the
selection and weighting of factors and/or their criteria for determining brand
strength;
ensuring a sufficient functional hierarchy of criteria and the correlations between
indicators so as not to distort the results.
• Proposition 2: As nearly all existing models are developed for a general application, it is
necessary to check for the inclusion of an individual/specific “sector or branch factor”
and with it the consideration of individual market facts, conditions and habits.
• Proposition 3: Company acceptance will be given when the companies can evaluate
their brand(s) independently without reliance on the models commercially available,
this requires a transparent model.
• Proposition 4: Analysis is necessary to allow modifications between different types of
brand e.g. corporate brands and product brands.

Conclusions
The discussion draws attention to the importance of brand valuation models in the building of
brand equity for product and corporate brands. Limitations of existing models are discussed
and propositions are suggested to guide research about how companies can improve their brand
valuation.
Any new brand valuation approach must allow maximum application. The model must ensure
that brands of different types – i.e. product or service and corporate brands or mono brands,
family brands and umbrella brands – can be evaluated with equal success. The cost-efficiency
and feasibility of the valuation approach, i.e. the requisite time, effort and costs, must be in
proper proportion to the usefulness of the findings. In other words, the data needed must be
easily available and accessible, not requiring immense effort and investment to generate them.
The valuation model should also be relatively easy for managers to use and should provide
operationalizable results that are actually relevant to day-to-day brand-related decision-making.
As the literature discussion indicated, a brand valuation model has to be integrated into existing
strategic planning tools and as shown, for example, in the Balanced Scorecard used in the
context of CRM, that is also applicable to a company’s information technology capabilities (see
Woodcock, Stone and Foss 2003).
Finally, any brand valuation model must meet the formal requirements of validity, reliability
and objectivity. It must actually measure the aspects it claims to measure, avoid random errors
and, as a result, ensure stability and consistency, no matter who carries out the valuation,
whether for public sector organisations or for companies in the private sector.

!10
References
Aaker, David A. (1991). Managing Brand Equity, New York: Free Press, 1991.
Aaker, David A. (1996). “Measuring Brand Equity Across Products and Markets”, California
Management Review, Vol. 38, No 3, pp102 –120.
AC Nielsen. (2003). The Power of Private Label; A Review of Growth Trends Around the
World, July.
Andresen, T. (1991). “Innere Markenbilder:MAX –wie er wurde, was er ist”, Planung und
Analyse, No 1, pp28 –34.
Andresen, T. and Esch, F-R.(1999). “Messung der Markenstärke durch den Markeneisberg”, in
Esch, F.-R.(ed.), (1999). Moderne Markenführung, Wiesbaden:Gabler, pp. 1011 –1033.
Backhaus, Klaus; Erichson, Bernd; Plinke, Wulff; Weiber, Rolf (2000). Multivariate
Analysemethoden; Springer, Berlin, 2000
Bekmeier-Feuerhahn, S. (1998). Marktorientierte Markenbewertung: eine kon-sumenten- und
unternehmensbezogene Betrachtung, Wiesbaden: Gabler, pp84-85.
Coupey, E. (2001). Marketing and the Internet, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA
De Chernatony, L. and McDonald, M. (2003). “Creating powerful brands”, Elsevier/
Butterworth-Heinemann, 3rd ed, pp454.
Doyle, Peter (2000). Value-Based Marketing, John Wiley and Sons Ltd
Drukarczyk, Jochen (2001). Unternehmensbewertung, Vahlen-Verlag
Herreiner, T. (1992a). “Der ‘Wert’ der Marke – Darstellung und kritische Würdigung von
Verfahren der Markenevaluierung” working paper in the series: Schwerpunkt Marketing, Vol
37, University of Augsburg, pp38-39.
IMU/FAZ (Homburg, Ch.) (2003). “Marken sind auch für Industriegüter ein Thema” in:
Frankfurter allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), Vol: 11.08.2003
Kapferer, J.N. (1992), Strategic Brand Management, Kogan Page. London.
Keller, K.L. (1993). “Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand
Equity”,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, January 1993, pp1 –22.
Keller, K.L. (1998). Strategic Brand Management – Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand
Equity, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Kern, W. (1962). “Bewertung von Warenzeichen”, Betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung und
Praxis, No.1, pp17–31.
Nussbaum, C. (1998). “Der Wert der Marke in Mark und Pfennig”, Media Marketing, Heft 6,
pp.16-21.
PwC Deutsche Revision/Sattler, H. (2001). Praxis von Markenbewertung und
Markenmanagement in deutschen Unternehmen, 2. Auflage, Fachverlag Moderne Wirtschaft
Reinecke, S./Tomczak, T./Geis, G. (2001). “Einsatz von Instrumenten und Verfahren des
Markencontrollings in der Praxis“ in Handbuch Marckencontrolling“, Frankfurt/Wien
Wirtschaftsverlag Ueberreuter 2001, pp76-89.
Repenn, W. (1998). Handbuch der Markenbewertung und -verwertung, Weinheim, New York:
Wiley-VCH.
Sander, M. (1994). “Die Bestimmung und Steuerung des Wertes von Marken: eine Analyse aus
Sicht des Markeninhabers”, Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag, pp98-134.
Sander, M. (1995). “Markenbewertung auf Basis der hedonischen Theorie” in: Markenartikel,
No 2, pp76 –80.
Schimansky, A. (2003). “Schlechte Noten für Markenbewerter“ in: Marketingjournal, No 5, pp
44-49.

!11
Schlaberg, F. (1997). “Wettbewerbsvorteil und Bewertung von Marken: Entwicklung eines
Bewertungsmodells zur Effizienzsteigerung im Markenmanagement und –controlling auf Basis
mikroökonomisch und finanztheoretisch fundierter Untersuchungen”, Dissertation, University
of St. Gallen.
Simon, C. J. and Sullivan, M. W. (1993). “The Measurement and Determinants of Brand
Equity: A Financial Approach”, Marketing Science, Vol 12, No1, Winter, pp28-52.
Wermelskirchen, S. (1999). “Kraft des Namen”, Wirtschaftswoche, Heft 47,18th Nov,
pp154-160.
Srivastava R.K., Shervani, T.A. and Fahey, L. (1998). Market-Based Assets and Shareholder
Value: A Framework for Analysis, in: Journal of Marketing, 62, pp 2-18
Wood, L. (2000). “Brands and brand equity: definition and management”, Management
Decision, 38/9, pp662-669.
Woodcock, N., Stone, M. and Foss, B. (2003). The Customer Management Scorecard.
Managing CRM for Profit, Kogan Page.

!12
Table 1: Overview of brand valuation models and company requirements and purposes
✓= yes, in
sep bran fri
✗= no, ca anal sep d
arab ext ng
fu rec us ysin arab int me
○ = ility plan ern e
tu og e- g ility ern rge ning dra br
mo bet al/ m
conditional, re ve ob re niz ec an the bet al/ r , wi an
req net wee out en
lia rif je - ed/
? = n o uir on d- bra wee in- an bran ng d
ary n - t
bi ia cti d
or acc
information o eff nd n ho d up lic
em val bra man ho of
lit bl vi ie ept m ect tran bra use ac bu en
ent uat nd age use br
y e ty nt ed ic an sfer nd rep qui dg si
Models: s/ ion & men rep an
ed mo al pote and ort siti et ng
pu busi t& ort d
del ysi ntia pro ing on
rp ness portf ing ri
s l duct olio
ose area gh
s: ts
A) Financial
oriented models:

Capital market-
oriented brand ✗ ✗ ✓ ○ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ○ ✗ ✗ ✗ ○ ✗ ✗ ✗ ○ ○
valuation model

Market value-
oriented brand ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ○ ✗ ✓ ✗ ○ ✗ ○ ○ ✗ ✗ ○ ✗ ○
valuation model

Cost-oriented brand
valuation ✗ ○ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ○ ○ ✗ ○ ○ ✗ ○
Brand valuation
based on the concept
of enterprise value ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ○ ○ ✗ ✗ ○ ✗ ○
(Repenn)

Earning capacity-
oriented brand
valuation model ✗ ○ ✗ ✓ ✗ ○ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ○ ○ ✗ ✗ ○ ○ ○
(Kern’s x-times-
model)

Price premium-
oriented brand ✗ ○ ✗ ✗ ✗ ○ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ○ ○ ✗ ✗ ○ ✗ ○
valuation model

B) Consumer
oriented models:

Aaker’s brand equity

approach ✗ ✗ ○ ✗ ○ ✗ ○ ✗ ○ ✗ ✗ ○ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗
Kapferer’s brand
equity model ✗ ✗ ○ ✗ ✗ ✗ ○ ✗ ○ ✗ ✗ ○ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗
Keller’s brand equity
approach ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ○ ○ ○ ✗ ✗ ○ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗
icon Brand Trek
approach ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ○ ○ ✗ ○ ✗ ✗ ○ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗
Young & Rubicam’s
Brand Asset Valuator ? ? ? ✗ ✗ ? ✓ ✗ ? ? ? ○ ✗ ✓ ✗ ? ? ?
C) Models with
both orientations:

Interbrand brand
value approach ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ○ ○ ✓ ✓ ? ? ? ○ ✓ ✓ ○ ✓ ✓ ✓
A. C. Nielsen Brand
Performance ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ○ ○ ✓ ? ? ? ○ ✓ ✓ ○ ✓ ✓ ✓

!14
 ✓= yes, in
sep bran fri
✗= no, ca anal sep d
arab ext ng
fu rec us ysin arab int me
○ = ility plan ern e
tu og e- g ility ern rge ning dra br
mo bet al/ m
conditional, re ve ob re niz ec an the bet al/ r , wi an
req net wee out en
lia rif je - ed/
? = n o uir on d- bra wee in- an bran ng d
ary n - t
bi ia cti d
or acc
information o eff nd n ho d up lic
em val bra man ho of
lit bl vi ie ept m ect tran bra use ac bu en
ent uat nd age use br
y e ty nt ed ic an sfer nd rep qui dg si
Models: s/ ion & men rep an
ed mo al pote and ort siti et ng
pu busi t& ort d
del ysi ntia pro ing on
rp ness portf ing ri
s l duct olio
ose area gh
s: ts
Semion brand value
approach ? ? ? ✗ ✗ ✗ ○ ✓ ? ? ? ○ ✓ ✓ ○ ○ ✓ ✓

15

View publication stats