Corporate Eye

...compare, compete, excel

Brand

Google+ Turns 3 Years Old

google plus icon watercolorGoogle+ will be three years old on June 28, 2014 (Google+ brand pages won’t turn 3 until November 8, 2014), and a new infographic from DPFOC is filled with facts and stats about Google’s latest attempt at social networking.

As you can see in the infographic, Google+ has over 300 million users, and while that is a very large number of people, it is still only a quarter of the users that Facebook has. Furthermore, Google+ has a very large number of inactive accounts.

Google+ also has a more targeted demographic of users — predominantly males in technology or related fields while Facebook’s users come from all fields and are split almost 50/50 between males and females. Google+ also suffers from poor navigation that makes it seem more intimidating and less user-friendly than other social networks.

However, those negatives only tell a small part of the story for Google+.

Looking on the positive side, Google has seen great success in using Google+ as a tool to support its social search functions and to integrate its various products more closely. Google has also gotten far more information about users from their Google+ profiles and use of the Google +1 button across the web. According to the infographic, the +1 button is used over 5 billion times each day and websites that use the +1 button have three times more visits on a daily basis than sites that do not use the +1 button. Furthermore, the average Google+ user spends 12 minutes on the site per day, and the Google+ mobile app was the fourth most used mobile app in the latter half of 2013.

In other words, Google+ might be a long way from competing with Facebook, but that doesn’t mean it hasn’t been a success for Google. Remember, Google’s core brand mission isn’t to be the world’s biggest and most popular social network. It’s to organize the world’s information. Google+ is just one part of making that mission a reality.

What’s ahead for Google+? Only Google knows the answer to that question despite the many rumors that have circulated in recent months (some of those rumors are mentioned in the infographic). One thing is for certain, Google won’t hesitate to kill a product that isn’t adding value to its mission. However, Google+ seems to have more value to give. What do you think?

You can see all of the statistics in the infographic below.

DPFOC IG Google Plus

Image: Tanja Scherm licensed CC BY-SA 2.0

5 Reasons Google Overtook Apple as World’s Most Valuable Brand

google officeLast month, I shared the results of the 2014 BrandZ Top 100 Most Valuable Brands ranking and the big news everyone was talking about was the fact that Google ousted Apple from the top spot. Apple stole the number one ranking from Google in 2011, but in 2014, Google took it back. Today, Google’s brand value is estimated at $158 billion, which is an increase of 40% over its 2013 value. On the other hand, Apple’s brand value in 2014 is $148 billion, which is a decrease of 20% from 2014.

What happened? How did Google’s brand value increase by 30% in one year while Apple’s brand value plummeted by 20%?

Those are two questions that Finances Online and Ruby Media Corporation try to answer in their new infographic (shown below). They offer five reasons why Google is on the rise and Apple is on the decline. Here is an overview of their analysis with my thoughts added in:

1. Consumer Perception

According to the analysis in the infographic, consumers are excited about Google which launches products more frequently by enticing consumers and building excitement with series of beta launches before a completed product is fully launched.

This is actually a form of perpetual marketing that can be very effective. Each time Google makes a small tweak to a product and announces a new version, there is inevitable buzz about it online. In contrast, Apple holds its product development close to the vest and launches with a bang. Both strategies can work, but it appears that Google’s is working better in 2014.

2. Differentiation

Google pursues a broad differentiation strategy with products that surround consumers with Google branded experiences. As the infographic points out, Google has mobile products, wearable products, cloud-based products, productivity tools, and even driverless cars! On the other hand, Apple is far more focused in its brand strategy. Again, both strategies can work, but Google is dominating today.

3. Corporate Reputation

As the infographic explains, Google’s corporate culture focuses on a team of creative and innovative people working together to organize the world’s data and launch products that make life easier. Apple is in a state of flux. It’s brand and strategy were so closely tied to Steve Jobs in consumers’ minds that there is a great deal of brand confusion now.

4. Relationships

As the infographic says, “Google is the master of crowdsourcing, involving users to perfect the product. Apple works on secret labs and wants to surprise the crowd.” As discussed in #1 above, Google’s strategy has gained favor with consumers over the past year, and Apple is feeling the effects.

5. Consumer Expectations

As I always say, once you set consumer expectations for your brand, you must meet them in every customer interaction. If you don’t, consumers will become frustrated, disappointed, and confused, and they’ll turn away from your brand in search of one that does meet their expectations in every interaction. As the infographic rightly says, “With each product launch, consumers expect Apple to redefine a category in the magnitude of iPod/iTunes, iPhone and iPad. Anything less is mediocre.”

What do you think are the primary reasons Google ousted Apple as the most valuable brand in 2014? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

most valuable brands 2014

Comparison by Emily Bead

Image: Keng Susumpow licensed CC BY-2.0

The Effect of Company Culture on Brand Image

company cultureWhich brand do you prefer as a consumer—Apple or Google? Which company would you rather work for as an employee—Apple or Google? Which company would you rather invest in as a shareholder—Apple or Google?

Are your answers to those questions the same or different? For many people, their answers will be different because we prioritize different factors when evaluating a brand as a consumer versus as an employee or investor.

As Google and Apple trade the top spot in the list of the most valuable global brands from year to year, both brands continue to enjoy positive brand reputations from most of their key stakeholders. However, all news hasn’t been good. Both companies have been in the news recently for having disproportionately high numbers of male executives, being intellectual property bullies, and compromising the security of consumers’ private information.

We can see what’s happening to these companies on the outside, and externally, they’re holding up just fine. But what is it like to work for these companies? Is the company culture at one company significantly better than the other?

Company culture can play a significant role in giving a business a competitive advantage in the marketplace, so evaluating the cultures of Google and Apple can give us a better perspective on how well these companies truly are positioned for the future.

Good.Co put together a culture analysis of the engineering teams at Apple vs. Google, and you might be surprised by some of the results. Considering how important the engineering teams are in terms of keeping both companies ahead of the innovation curve, it makes sense to compare and contrast the engineers and the cultures they work in each day.

According to the study, Apple engineers are more tolerant of stress than Google engineers. They also have greater social confidence, are more innovative, and more willing to take risks than Google engineers. On the other hand, Google engineers are more competitive, more collaborative, more empathetic, and more adaptable socially than Apple engineers.

Even more interesting is Good.Co’s analysis of the “group-level fit” of Apple and Google engineers. According to the analysis, Apple engineers are a better fit for Google’s company culture (66% fit to Google vs. 59% to Apple), and Google engineers are a better fit for Apple’s company culture (56% fit to Apple vs. 52% fit to Google).

Company culture can have a significant impact on business success. Imagine if one of these companies had a team of engineers who were a 100% fit for their company culture. Do you think the battle for first place in the annual list of the most valuable global brands would still be as close?

Are your employees the right fit for your company culture? How does your company culture affect your brand image for customers, employees, investors, and other key stakeholders? Invest the time and money into developing a company culture that effectively supports your brand promise or you’ll be missing a huge competitive advantage.

Image: DaVinciS

Best Global Brands of 2014

global brand valueInterbrand has released its 15th annual ranking of the best global brands, and the 2014 list reflects a lot of brand value growth in all industries.

The ranking is developed based on Interbrand’s analysis of three things: the financial performance of the branded product and service, the role the brand plays in influencing consumer choice, and the strength the brand has to command premium prices or to secure earnings for the company.

Overall, the best global brands according to Interbrand’s ranking haven’t changed much since 2013. In fact, the top 6 brands are identical to the 2013 ranking.

The top 10 global brands of 2014 according to Interbrand are:

  1. Apple = $118.9 billion brand value
  2. Google = $107.4 billion brand value
  3. Coca-Cola = $81.6 billion brand value
  4. IBM = $72.2 billion brand value
  5. Microsoft = $61.2 billion brand value
  6. GE = $45.5 billion brand value
  7. Samsung = $45.5 billion brand value (2013 rank: 8)
  8. Toyota = $42.4 billion brand value (2013 rank: 10)
  9. McDonald’s = $42.3 billion brand value (2013 rank: 7)
  10. Mercedes-Benz = $34.4 billion brand value (2013 rank: 11)

It’s interesting to compare the Interbrand ranking to the 2014 ranking of the most valuable brands by BrandZ that was released in May. That analysis ranked Google first ($158 billion brand value) and Apple second ($148 billion). IBM came in 3rd ($108 billion) in that ranking while Microsoft ranked fourth ($90 billion) and IBM ranked fifth ($108 billion).

Back to the Interbrand ranking, here are some of the most interesting findings within the data:

  • 40% of the top 10 brands (and 40% of the top 20 brands) are in the technology industry.
  • Only 17% of the top 100 brands lost brand value between the 2013 and 2014 rankings.
  • The biggest loser in terms of lost brand value between the 2013 and 2014 rankings was Nintendo, which decreased its brand value by 33%.
  • The biggest winner in terms of gained brand value between the 2013 and 2014 rankings was Facebook, which increased its brand value by 86%.
  • There were five new brand entrants on the 2014 ranking: DHL (#81), Land Rover (#91), FedEx (#92), Huawei (#94), and Hugo Boss (#97).
  • The gap between the top ranked brand and the brand ranked 100 is enormous: #1 Apple’s brand value in 2014 is $118.9 billion while #100 Nintendo’s brand value in 2014 is $4.1 billion.
  • This was the first year that Interbrand tracked two global brands with values over $100 billion (Apple and Google).
  • 54% of the top 100 brands are from the United States.

Five brands on the 2014 list of the best global brands are from the United Kingdom. All five increased brand value between 2013 and 2014, and one is a new entrant to the 2014 ranking. The best global brand from the U.K. is HSBC (#33) with a brand value of $13.1 billion (up 8% over 2013). Burberry ranks at #73 with a brand value of $5.6 billion (up 8% over 2013), and Johnnie Walker ranks at #86 with a brand value of $4.8 billion (up 2% from 2013). Smirnoff ranks at #90 with a brand value of $4.6 billion (up 8% over 2013). Land Rover is the new U.K. entrant to the ranking at #91. Its 2014 brand value according to the Interbrand ranking is $4.5 billion.

You can follow the link at the beginning of this article to get all of the data from Interbrand’s 2014 ranking of the best global brands. What do you think? Any surprises on this year’s list? Leave a comment and share your thoughts.

Image: Barun Patro

Google Kills Orkut

orkutJust two weeks ago, I wrote an article for Corporate Eye about Google+ turning three years old and Google’s strategy for the future. A few days later, Google announced that it would be shutting down Orkut.

What is Orkut? If you don’t live in Brazil, you might not know the Orkut brand. Long story short, Orkut is a Google-owned social network. Back in 2004, over half of Orkut’s traffic was from the United States, but it quickly fell out of favor. However, it stayed popular in Brazil and India, and in 2007, it was one of the most trafficked sites in both countries. In fact, Orkut operations moved to Brazil in 2008. In 2014, nearly half of Orkut’s traffic was from Brazil while nearly 15% was from India.

In a blog post, Google explained that Orkut would completely shut down on September 30, 2014, giving users just three months to export all of their profile data, community posts, and pictures using Google Takeout. Additionally, an archive of all public Orkut communities will be made available on September 30, 2014. The blog post included an apology from Google saying, “It’s been a great 10 years, and we apologize to those of you still actively using the service. We hope you will find other online communities to spark more conversations and build even more connections for the next decade and beyond.”

It can be assumed that Google hopes most of the Orkut users will shift to Google+. The blog post to users, written by Paulo Golgher, Engineering Director, stated, “Over the past decade, YouTube, Blogger and Google+ have taken off, with communities springing up in every corner of the world. Because the growth of these communities has outpaced Orkut’s growth, we’ve decided to focus our energy and resources on making these other social platforms as amazing as possible for everyone who uses them.”

Overall, the shutdown of Orkut shouldn’t be surprising. The last time the Orkut blog was updated was 2012 and other development appears to have stopped around the same time. Google+ is Google’s priority today, and Orkut wasn’t delivering the value that it needed to deliver if it wanted to stay alive. Couple Google’s current strategic focus with the legal entanglements, privacy concerns, and security issues related to Orkut in recent years, and the writing was on the wall. However, Orkut was an early player in the world of social networking. It actually debuted a month before Facebook. As a result, Orkut retains a sense of nostalgia and will hold a place in social networking history just like MySpace.

The question now becomes, what’s next for Google? What do you think?

Image: Programa Novo TV Culturo licensed CC BY 2.0

1 out of 2 Olympic Viewers Cannot Identify Brand Sponsors

coca-cola 2014 winter olympicsOnly 52% of 2014 Winter Olympics viewers in the United States can identify a brand sponsor of the Games. However, many of those people cannot accurately identify brand sponsors according to new research conducted by YouGov.

Results are reminiscent of a Toluna Global Omnibus Survey from 2012 which found that most consumers in the United States didn’t know which brands were actually sponsors of the 2012 Summer Olympics in London. At the time, nearly 30% of brands identified by viewers as Olympics sponsors were not Olympic sponsors or partners in any form.

The new research from YouGov has found similar results for the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi. Of the 52% of Olympic Games viewers who identified brand sponsors, many named brands that were not actually sponsors. In fact, 36% of the brands identified as Olympics sponsors were not Olympic sponsors or partners in any form. Here is the breakdown from the 2014 research (follow the link above to compare it to 2012 Toluna Global Omnibus Survey data).

Percentage of U.S. Olympic Viewers Who Identify a Brand as an Official Sponsor of the 2014 Winter Olympics:

  • McDonald’s = 32% (worldwide partner)
  • Coca-Cola = 29% (worldwide partner)
  • Visa = 26% (worldwide partner)
  • Pepsi = 21% (not a partner)
  • Nike = 21% (US Team Partner only)
  • Red Bull = 17% (not a partner)
  • Adidas = 10% (not a partner)
  • Procter & Gamble = 10% (worldwide partner)
  • Samsung = 9% (worldwide partner)
  • Starbucks = 9% (not a partner)
  • GE = 8% (worldwide partner)
  • Volkswagen = 8% (national partner)
  • Yamaha = 6% (official supplier)
  • Panasonic = 6% (worldwide partner)
  • Rolex = 5% (not a partner)
  • Philips = 5% (not a partner)
  • DuPont = 3% (not a partner)
  • Unilever = 3% (not a partner)
  • Siemens = 2% (not a partner)
  • Aeroflot = 2% (national partner)
  • Dow Chemical = 2% (worldwide partner)
  • IGM Global Services = 1% (worldwide partner)
  • Avaya = 1% (official supplier)
  • PWC = 1% (national partner)
  • Atos Origin = 1% (worldwide partner)
  • Don’t Know = 48%

It’s interesting to note that Pepsi appeared in the fifth position on the list in 2012 and the third position in 2014. Clearly, brands like Pepsi are leveraging the Olympics through messaging and visuals that create a perceived connection between the brand and the Games without investing the huge sponsorship dollars that other brands are spending.

In a separate study this month by Experian, the Olympic Games were found to be very effective for brand advertisers to boost brand awareness through relevant brand messages and experiences. According to the survey results, 9% of American Olympic viewers are more likely to buy from companies that sponsor sporting events and 13% are more likely to be loyal to brands that sponsor sporting events.

The 2014 Winter Olympics are more than half way over. Brands should take note of these survey results, which are consistent from year to year. Smart brand marketers will consider this data closely as they develop future sports sponsorship investments, including future Olympic Games sponsorships.

What do you think? Leave a comment and share your thoughts.

Image: Artis Rams