-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Brand Finance ranks Disney as the world's most powerful brand in new study
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
note2001
Well-Known Member
I don't think this "study" really tells us or Disney anything they didn't already know. What I would like to see is how are these companies being studied use their status and financial power to not only stand at or near the top, but to do so while being responsible toward their workers and the environment. If these last two items were brought into consideration for most powerful brand, I'm sure Disney would fall fast and land hard.
Last edited:
raven
Well-Known Member
Under those circumstances, Disney probably wouldn't score in the top 10. They always seem to hold a certain idealism over their employees heads: "It is YOUR pleasure to work for US and that should be enough to stifle your low wage complaint."
DisneyFans4Life
Well-Known Member
I'm not surprised. Everyone in the world knows the name Disney...and if they keep acquiring other well known brands, their brand value will just continue to increase.
Uncle Lupe
Well-Known Member
Oh boy! We'll be unstoppable.
ford91exploder
Resident Curmudgeon
Until Disney destroys the brand by pushing it lower and lower on the food chain.
CaptainAmerica
Premium Member
It's hilarious that "Brand Finance" doesn't understand what the word "brand" means. The publication includes Star Wars, Marvel, and ESPN as part of the reason that the Disney brand is so strong, but those things are unique brands, not the "Disney" brand. Proctor and Gamble is not a brand, for example. Bounty, Gain, and Gillette are brands owned by P&G, but P&G is not the brand. The Disney brand is Mickey Mouse, Walt Disney World, and Frozen. The Disney brand is not The Force Awakens, The Avengers, or SportsCenter. Those brands are owned by The Walt Disney Company, but that's not the same as saying they're part of the Disney brand.
note2001
Well-Known Member
I agree in your definition of the term brand which we take to mean more of a product line, trademark brand name. These brands may be product lines or entire smaller companies owned by the larger which could easily survive on their own, and most likely did so before being acquired.
There is a lucrative corporate speaker business out there to invent new terms and twist the meanings of existing terms. I blame these folk for twisting the term 'brand' to mean the the overall perceived image of a company is one of many byproducts of this business. Why did they choose to use a term that already meant something else and is too close to their meaning? My theory is because it was a term corporations already felt comfortable with.
This short article published on Forbes does a better job of defining the difference between a product brand, and a corporate brand. One is tangible, the other is not.
Last edited:
plutofan15
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately, that is not unique to Disney. That is the attitude of many large corporations including the one I work for. They put up a facade of caring about the employee but when it comes down to bottom line you'll be out the door without a second thought if your position not fit the "future vision of the company".Under those circumstances, Disney probably wouldn't score in the top 10. They always seem to hold a certain idealism over their employees heads: "It is YOUR pleasure to work for US and that should be enough to stifle your low wage complaint."
Jon81uk
Well-Known Member
All of the Star Wars merch now has a Disney logo on it. Some Marvel stuff does too I think. For merchandise its seems that Star Wars is Disney and never Lucasfilm.
CaptainAmerica
Premium Member
Sure, to convey ownership of the intellectual property. Branding isn't about legality, it's about marketing.
Disney is in small letters on the back of the box. This is a Star Wars brand toy, not a Disney brand toy.
Lucasfilm isn't the brand, either. Star Wars is the brand.
Jon81uk
Well-Known Member
RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
Stock is trading at $89.56
ford91exploder
Resident Curmudgeon
And falling like a safe.
Awww, don't panic! Cramer has already explained the reasoning behind this. Disney is being punished for ESPN, but overall it still remains a solid long term investment.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/10/cramer-death-to-mickey-where-disney-went-wrong.html
note2001
Well-Known Member
I'm not worried about the Disney stock prices. Just ride it out. The guys in charge at Disney are smart about keeping the value of their investments. ESPN may have trouble now, but they're working on solutions.
Interesting side note: I also read that Disney is quite invested in Comcast. You all know who Comcast owns, yes?
Interesting side note: I also read that Disney is quite invested in Comcast. You all know who Comcast owns, yes?
flynnibus
Premium Member
Yet conglomerates that market their product lines... still spend MILLIONS building and protecting their Corporate IMAGE AND BRAND.
Like all those GE commercials? Boeing Commercials? Northrop? Siemens... 3M... Johnson&Johnson.. etc
Those are examples of companies trying to build and mold the public perception of their corporate image and brand value.
When you want the Disney name to mean something when you put it on the package... thats a BRAND. Even if it's a Marvel toy.
Boeing isn't trying to sell consumers 787s when they show all those ads... they are trying to shape public perception of what the name means when you see it. Just like Disney wants their name to mean something when they put it in front of a movie, on a toy, or on a show.