This year’s BrandZ ranking of the top 100 valuable global brands sees Apple maintain its reign at number one and the value of the top brands grow by 7 per cent to $2.6 trillion RankingBrandBrand value 2013 ($M)1Apple185,0712Google113,6693IBM112,5364McDonald’s90,2565Coca-Cola78,4156AT&T75,5077Microsoft69,8148Marlboro69,3839Visa56,06010China Mobile55,368The world’s biggest brands are worth hundreds of billions of dollars - and this year’s list of the 100 most valuable comes in at an astonishing $2.6 trillion, according to Millward Brown Optimor, which produces the annual BrandZ list.But what makes a brand worth as much as $185bn, the value of Apple this year? A balance of local and global strength, diversifying into new areas of business, having a strong corporate brand and either being a premium or everyday brand are some of the features which help to make it to the top. The top 10 brands, such as Google ($113.7bn), IBM ($112.5bn), McDonald’s ($90.3bn) and Coca-Cola ($78.4bn) have these qualities in spades, says global BrandZ director Peter Walshe.“What we see with the most popular or powerful brands is that brand lasts a lot longer, is more robust and doesn’t tend to slip as much, whereas the finances go up and down,” he says, suggesting that brand is more sustainable than financials. Apple maintains its top slot in the rankings this year because of the strength of its brand, with a value of $185.1bn. However, its rate of growth has slowed by 95 per cent due to a slip in stock price and negative investor sentiment.“Its brand value only increased by 1 per cent this year but it still holds the record for the most valuable brand. And it leads by a long way. The next brand in the ranking, Google, is worth $113.7bn [reversing a 3 per cent decline last year to a 5 per cent gain] so Apple is $71.4bn…

Diet Coke, Galaxy, Old Spice and KitKat are rekindling old advertising and slogans for today’s audiences. Is this the result of a creative deficit or are fears of a public backlash on social media smothering the urge to chance something new? “We used to say to clients the biggest risk you can take is not to take a risk because very few advertising campaigns could damage a brand. In order to get a decent return on your investment you have to take some risks and try new things because that’s what engages people. I’m not sure that’s true anymore,” says Tim Lindsay, chief executive officer at creative association D&AD and former agency head at TBWA and Publicis.Lindsay believes this is because of internet-empowered consumer groups who can respond to things they don’t like and get a reaction instantly. “Things have changed and, because of Mumsnet and countless other internet empowered groups, marketers are desperately scared of putting a foot wrong now. It doesn’t have to be their consumers, it can be anyone who happens to take umbrage and we have seen examples of it.” In the past month two brands have had to pull new advertising campaigns because they sparked a backlash on social media. An online video ad for soft drink Mountain Dew showed a beaten up waitress on crutches trying to identify her attackers from a line-up made up of a goat character, voiced by controversial rapper Tyler the Creator, and several black men.Brand owner PepsiCo removed the ad from Mountain Dew’s Green Label Sound website[1] after critics blasted it for making light of violence against women and portraying racial stereotypes. PepsiCo posted on Twitter and Facebook apologising for any offence caused, including the ‘hashtag’ #fail at the end of the statement.Just a few weeks before, Hyundai had…

As the industry waits for the Government’s reaction to the Bailey Review and lobby groups step up their efforts to ban advertising to under-11s, can there ever be an ethical way to market to children? The Government has pledged to crack down on irresponsible advertising“Suckled on lies” is the headline that columnist George Monbiot used for an article about how brands target children. It followed an open letter by lobby group Leave Our Kids Alone to the Daily Telegraph last month, urging a ban on advertising to under-11s.Monbiot’s strong views have sent ripples through the industry, not least among the brands he accused of targeting “defenceless” children with “precision and ruthlessness”.Clamping down on the commercialisation of children was one of the coalition Government’s key objectives when it came to power in 2010, but as the industry waits for recommendations following the Bailey Review (see speed read, right) the marketing landscape continues to gain complexity.The rise of digital communication channels and in-school advertising, in particular have been singled out as stress points by parents who claim there is a lack of control over messaging to youngsters. Earlier this month, a group of parents in the US sued Apple for ‘unfairly profiting’ from in-game purchases.Judging by children’s minister Edward Timpson’s initial findings of the review though, it seems a full-on ban is unlikely as he believes “heavy handed and unnecessary Government regulation of the ad industry is to be avoided” so long as self-regulation continues to effectively protect children and reassure parents. But nonetheless brands must take responsibility.Ian Twinn, Incorporated Society of British Advertisers (ISBA) public affairs director, says the biggest problem society faces today is that children have much easier access to digital media than their parents did growing up, so, as a result, have not always understood what their children…