A fair analysis, though this blogger wonders about the meaning and the significance of the Google brand being worth $77 billion: it's not as if the company could dispose of the brand for that price, or that its competitors could get that sort of value from it if the various businesses under the Google brand were sold to them.
“In the short term, Google’s brand value will drop marginally as revenues from some of the smaller branded businesses are rebranded to Alphabet or, more likely, are given independent identities [this blogger wonders whether there will be even a perceptible drop: there might even be a small increase, given the facts that the restructuring has received such vast publicity -- just search on Google for 'google' and 'alphabet' -- and that so many people will be associating Alphabet with the Google brand]. However these make up only a very small proportion of overall revenues so the impact is unlikely to be that significant.
[indeed, where emphasis has been allowed to be placed on the sub-brand rather than the house brand, the sub-brand has tended to be used generically: iPod, iPad ...]. Google seems to have decided that something closer to a ‘house of brands’ approach suits it better. Youtube and Android are already major parts of the company not bearing the Google name. The creation of Alphabet suggests this approach will be expanded [YouTube and Android are such well established brands that it is difficult to think of any benefit that might be gained by stationing them under either the Google or Alpabet brands].
[agreed - and this point is well made irrespective of the choice of name].
From the legal point of view, Google is attracting more and more negative attention, whether as a result of lack of transparency, invasion of privacy or anti-trust concerns. Under the new structure there is likely to be more information about Google’s revenue streams, improving its accountability to shareholders and appeasing regulators. The restructuring paves the way for further subdivision to allay anti-trust fears and also means that legal issues of other kinds can be contained within that business rather than tarnishing the entire company [indeed, the word 'Google' carries a lot of unwanted baggage in terms of adverse connotations these days that this move will provide a fresh opportunity for analysts and commentators to view its various activities more dispassionately].
That point plays into branding too, if one part of the company is dragged through the mud, the risk of contagion is lessened if it is branded differently. Google has often been hoisted by its own petard over the ‘do no evil’ slogan, critics won’t be able to do the same to Alphabet or its non-Google brands.
Overall it is a sensible move that will see Google’s $77 billion brand value dip in the short term but probably grow faster and more sustainably in the longer term. We may also now see the emergence of a stable of new brands from Silicon Valley entering the upper echelons of Brand Finance’s brand value league tables in the next few years.”
"Where money issues meet IP rights". This weblog looks at financial issues for intellectual property rights: securitisation and collateral, IP valuation for acquisition and balance sheet purposes, tax and R&D breaks, film and product finance, calculating quantum of damages--anything that happens where IP meets money.
Monday, 17 August 2015
Google, Alphabet and the value of the Google brand
From Brand Finance CEO David Haigh comes one of the first serious appraisals of Google's Alphabet rebranding decision from the IP finance community. According to a press release from Brand Finance:
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Post a Comment