The Futurelab 100 – 4th Edition (2008)

futurelab default header

What would you prefer if you were an A-brand? To be considered by the advertising and financial community as a brand that matters? Or to be considered as highly relevant and liked by ordinary folks that surf the internet? For companies like Coca Cola and Yahoo these questions are becoming every more relevant. The Interbrand 100 ranks them respectively at number 1 and 65. The Futurelab 100 which we published today  inverts their positions by putting them at number 57 and 2. 

Obviously the right answer to the question is that any brand should want to score high in both categories. But it continues to amaze me that high value offline brands still do not seem to cut it in the online world. After all, surely a brand like Coca Cola should be able to beat the likes of Prada or Avon when it comes to online relevance. But inversely I’m also amazed that if a brand like Yahoo ranks #2 online, this does not translate in a higher Interbrand score.

I’m growing increasingly confused by the disconnect. Actually to the point that I’m starting to wonder whether there is something wrong with the way brand values are measured by the market at large. And I’m not alone. In his book Brand Bubble, John Gerzema also highlights his concerns that there is a growing disconnect between the way investors and the public at large value brands. I’m not saying the Futurelab 100 is the answer, but if I have to choose, I’ll choose the customer’s voice any time.

UPDATE: For more explanation on the methodology, and comparisons with previous versions, please look here:

Futurelab 100 – 2007

Futurelab 100 -2006

Futurelab 100 – 2005/6