Schmalenbach Business Review Vol. 53 October 2001 pp.

263 294

Thomas Gnther/Catharina Kriegbaum-Kling*

BRAND VALUATION AND CONTROL:

AN EMPIRICAL STUDY**
ABSTRACT
In economies with a growing service sector, the importance of intangible assets like
brands, customer relationships, and organizational capabilities is rapidly increasing, as is
the importance of information and knowledge for the production of goods and services.
New concepts in such areas as knowledge management or intellectual capital management underline the increasing importance of these soft production factors. Both financial
and managerial accounting still focus on the hard production factors, especially the
physical and tangible assets of the production area. From the managerial accounting perspective, the question is how a firms valuable intangible assets can be managed, controlled, and evaluated.
Brands represent very important intangible assets, that have been especially in the light of
marketing research. We use an empirical survey, based on 132 German companies with
brands, to investigate the state of the art of brand accounting, brand control, and brand
valuation. The focus of our study is the general perception of brands as an (intangible)
asset and as an investment, the organization of brand management, the valuation of
brands for internal control purposes, and the tactical and strategic performance measures
for brand management. We also examine the budgeting process, the brand-related decision making and the underlying incentive systems. Our results show a gap between the
perception of brands as valuable intangible assets and the implementation of an adequate
management control process (implementation gap). Our study discusses implications for
better strategies in brand management and control that can also be used in the management control process of other intangible assets.
JEL-Classification: M41, M31.

1 RELEVANCE

OF INTANGIBLE ASSETS AND BRANDS

In recent years both managers and researchers have expressed doubts that the traditional financial accounting method of recognizing assets is adequate to support
managerial decision making. In all financial accounting systems set by legislation
(for example, the commercial law in Germany and other countries) or by accounting standard-setting bodies such as the IASB, APB, FASB, and SEC in the
Anglo-American world self-created intangible assets usually cannot appear in the

**

Prof. Dr. Thomas Gnther, Chair of Managerial Accounting, Department of Business and Economics, Dresden University of Technology, Mommsenstrasse 13, D-01062 Dresden (Germany) and Dr.
Catharina Kriegbaum-Kling, MBA, Trumpf GmbH + Co. KG, Ditzingen (Germany).
We are grateful for helpful comments from an anonymous referee.

sbr 53 (4/2001)

263

T. Gnther/C. Kriegbaum-Kling

balance sheet 1. Investments in these intangible assets must be immediately set off
from income and are considered to be current expenses.
On the other hand, in most of our economies the service sector comprises a significant share of the GDP. Information and knowledge are gaining importance in
our increasingly communications-oriented society. Management now focuses more
attention on such intangible assets as brands, customer relationships and knowledge. Both academics and practitioners are developing different concepts of
incorporating intangible assets in managerial decision making. Prominent examples for these new concepts are intellectual capital by Edvinsson/Malone 2,
hidden balance sheet by Sveiby 3, the intellectual capital navigator of Stewart 4, and
the statement of intellectual property by Maul/Menninger 5. Like many other
companies (such as Celemi International, WM-data AB, KREAB, Jacobson &
Widmark, Carl Bro a/s, Coloplast a/s, Deutsche Bank AG, etc.) the Scandinavian
financial service group Skandia supplements its annual reports with a special
report on the created intellectual capital, using a balanced scorecard type ratio
system called Navigator. The Austrian Research Center Seibersdorf has created a
balance sheet for knowledge that informs on the value of the companys knowledge management activities.
Exhibit 1: The most valuable brands in the world 6
N o .

1
C
2
M
3
I
4
I
5
N
6
G
7
F
8
D
9
M
1 0
A

B r a n d
N a m e

o c a -C o la

U
S
W in d o w s

U
B M

U
n te l

U
o k ia

F
e n e r a l
E le c tr ic
U
o rd

U
is n e y

U
c D o n a ld s

U
T & T

U

C o u n t r y
o f

O r ig in

.S .

.S .

.S .

.S .

in la n d

.S .

.S .

.S .

.S .

.S .

T

In d u str y

B r a n d
V a lu
1 9 9 9

( U S
$
m )

e v e ra g e s

8 3 ,8 4
o ftw a re

5 6 ,6 5
o m p u te rs

4 3 ,7 8
o m p u te rs

3 0 ,0 2
e le c o m

2 0 ,6 9
iv e rs ifie d

3 3 ,5 0
u to m o b ile s

3 3 ,1 9
n te rta in m e n t

3 2 ,2 7
o o d

2 6 ,2 3
e le c o m

2 4 ,1 8

e
B r a n d
V a lu
2 0 0 0

( U S
$
m )

5

7 2 ,5 3
4

7 0 ,1 9
1

5 3 ,1 8
1

3 9 ,0 4
4

3 8 ,5 2
2

3 8 ,1 2
7

3 6 ,3 6
5

3 3 ,5 5
1

2 7 ,8 5
1

2 5 ,5 4

e
M a r k e t
V
3 0 .0 6 .0
( U S
$
m
7

1 4 2
7

4 2 0
4

1 9 4
9

4 4 7
8

2 3 9
8

5 2 4
8

4 8
3

8 0
9

4 4
8

1 1 8

a lu
0

)

,1 6
,9 9
,2 3
,7 1
,8 2
,3 5
,7 8
,6 4
,0 1
,6 7

e
B r a n d
V
2 0 0 0
in
%
M a r k e t
V
3

2

6

9

8

1

1

5

2

1

a lu e


o f

a lu e

5 1
%

1 7
%

2 7
%

9
%

1 6
%

7
%

7 5
%

4 2
%

6 3
%

2 2
%

Exhibit 1 shows that one of the most frequently discussed intangible assets is
brands.
In this paper, we focus on the accounting, control, and valuation of brands as an
example of intangible assets. The purpose of our study is to gain insights from the
special field of brands and draw conclusions that might apply to intangible assets
in general.
1 See 248 II HGB for the German commercial law and IAS 38, APB Opinion 17 in connection with
AIN-APB Opinion 17, FRS 10 for the regulations in Anglo-American countries.
2 See Edvinsson (1997) und Edvinsson/Malone (1997).
3 See Sveiby (1997).
4 See Stewart (1997).
5 See Maul/Menninger (2000), pp. 529.
6 Based on an estimate of Interbrand. See www.interbrand.com/league_chart.html

264

sbr 53 (4/2001)

Brand Valuation

Much research has already been conducted to quantify the value of brands 7.
However, to continue to research brand valuation we must first determine if companies use the existing brand valuation methods. If companies are not using these
methods, we wish to find out why not. Further, we wish to identify and analyze
the problems that occur when companies do try to apply brand valuation
methods. Our results can then be applied to the research needed to solve existing
problems. Without such a study, empirical research and the day-to-day needs of
companies will drift further apart.
Therefore, the purpose of the research project Brand Management State of the
Art 8 was to examine how and if German companies use brand value measures
and how these companies manage and control their brands.
Sattler and Pricewaterhousecoopers (PWC) 9 have conducted a similar study in
which the minor focus is on accounting and control of brands. We compare the
results of our study with those of Sattler and PWC in that fields that were covered
by both studies.
2 AIMS

OF THE

STUDY

AND

STUDY DESIGN

We base our study on a broad empirical survey that examines the question
whether, and if yes, how German companies evaluate and control brands. We
examine:
Whats the companies general understanding of the term brand?
Who is responsible for brand management?
How do firms value brands?
How do firms run the tactical and strategic management and control of
brands?
How do companies budget for brands?
How do firms procure brand related information?
How do firms motivate brand managers to establish and preserve the integrity
of brands over the long run?
What are differences in brand accounting, control and valuation between
durable goods and consumer goods companies?

7 See the overview at Kriegbaum (1998).

8 The research project was supported financially by the Arthur Andersen Foundation.
9 See PricewaterhouseCoopers/Sattler (1999).
sbr 53 (4/2001)

265

T. Gnther/C. Kriegbaum-Kling

Exhibit 2: Design of the study 10

R e le v a n c e

Relevance of Brands as an Asset

Perception of Brands

P e r c e p tio n

(General Understanding of Brands)(3.2)

M a n a g e m e n t
A c c o u n tin g
S y ste m

R e s p o n s ib ility
f o r
B r a n d s
( 3 .3 )

V a lu a tio n
o f
B ra n d s
(3 .4 )

V a lu a tio n
y e s /n o

E x is te n c e
o f
S e p a r a te




D e p a r tm e n ts

M o n e ta r y
V a lu a tio n




y e s /n o

T y p e
o f
O r g a n iz a tio n

T y p e
o f
V a lu a tio n

P u r p o s e s
o f
V a lu a tio n

In d u str y
B ia s

C o n tr o llin g
o f
B r a n d s
( 3 .5 )

S tra te g ic
a n d
T a c tic a l




I n s tr u m e n ts

P e r fo rm a n c e
M e a s u r e s

I n c e n tiv e
S c h e m e s

Influence of Type of Industry

E x p la n a tio n :

I n te r a c tio n
e m p iric a lly
te s te d

The aims of the study are primarily to describe the present state of brand valuation and brand accounting/control in German companies and to assess the
requirement for future research. Second, we examine possible interactions
between different areas of the study where we could define variables to test different hypotheses. Exhibit 2 shows the design of our study.
Because our sample includes only those companies with at least one patented
brand, we can assume the relevance of brands for the company in the sample.
What we wish to determine is how a companys management understands and
perceives the brand management function (perception). Even if the hypothesis
holds that managers perceive brands to be assets and investments, we ask how
management controls, evaluates, and accounts for the firms brands (management
accounting system).
Our study determines the extent to which companies apply conceptually possible
approaches of brand valuation and brand control in actual practice. Because we
hypothesize a difference between durable goods and consumer goods companies
in the brand management system (industry bias), we empirically test all interactions between the different fields of the study (double arrows in exhibit 2). As a
result, we can deduce the weaknesses and inconsistencies of the management
accounting system for brands and develop new approaches for future research
projects 11.
10 In brackets relevant chapters of this article.
11 See Kriegbaum (2000).

266

sbr 53 (4/2001)

Brand Valuation

To develop a consistent concept for the design of a questionnaire (pre-testing), we

conducted interviews with leading German companies such as Henkel Detergents
GmbH, Procter & Gamble GmbH, Nestle Germany AG, BMW AG, GfK AG. We then
developed a standardized questionnaire, which we tested in companies that are
members of the GEM (Gesellschaft zur Erforschung des Markenwesens (Society
for the Research of Branding)).
To cover various industrial branches, we selected 1,016 companies out of 4,558
registered companies of the Hoppenstedt-Data Base that had annual sales revenues exceeding 15 million Deutsche Mark. We also required that the companies
in our sample have patented brands. This sample gave us a database that covers a
broad area of industrial branches 12. The study was conducted in July and August
1999.
Our sample includes both durable goods producers as well as the consumer
goods industry. For consumer goods, the importance of brands in the decisionmaking process for a products performance is widely accepted. However,
because durables are linked with higher acquisition costs and longer periods of
use, branding importance is problematic. Management views the purchase of
durable goods as an investment that requires a comprehensive process of information procurement about specific distinctive product features. Important criteria for purchase decisions are not only the price and the brand of a product, but
its quality and reliability, a good price-performance ratio and a powerful aftersales-service 13. Yet, the brand can become a decisive purchase criterion for
durable goods, especially when it is difficult to distinguish one product from
another by its technology or quality. For example, the cost-driven strategy of standardizing and platform development that is widely used in the car manufacturing
industry, might actually harm the unique brand identity and blur the image of a
particular vehicle brand.
Among the companies that we interviewed and investigated during the project
were 84 whose brands have, according to measures of the market research
company Gesellschaft fr Konsumforschung (GfK) AG, an extraordinarily high
customer recognition 14. Inclusion of these 84 firms ensured that the sample contained companies whose brands have a significant intangible value.
To examine interactions and correlations between variables, we performed contingency and correlation tests. We performed all tests at a significance level of
= 0.05. We could not test LISREL models because of the stringent requirements
on the size of the sample. Because of space considerations, we present here only
the most important results. We also restrict the description of our tests to only the
most relevant test parameters.

12 In the study of PricewaterhouseCoopers/Sattler (1999) 403 questionnaires were sent to the top
hundred German companies concerning sales volume as well as to members of the German brand
association.
13 See Lenz (1996), p. 153.
14 GfK Panel Services/Nrnberg provided brand rankings based on consumer recognition.
sbr 53 (4/2001)

267

T. Gnther/C. Kriegbaum-Kling

3 RESULTS
Out of the 1,016 companies surveyed, 276 replied (27.2%). We received 132 completed questionnaires (13.0%) 15. Out of the companies that did reply but did not
send in questionnaires, 22 companies stated that they did not fill in the questionnaire because our investigation was not relevant for them. Four companies told us
that their marketing activities were outsourced, and another 11 companies stated
that brand management was in the responsibility of the foreign headquarter. Thirteen companies could not pass on internal data due to security reasons. A few
companies cited time restrictions as another reason for not filling in the questionnaire properly.
3.1 STRUCTURE

OF THE

SAMPLE

Exhibit 3 illustrates the structure of all industrial branches in the analysis. It shows
that the groups of the durable goods and consumer goods companies each comprise about 50% of the total sample. Large companies with revenues exceeding
100 million Deutsche Mark represent more than 60% of the sample (Exhibit 4).
The questionnaires were most often completed by the firms marketing or sales
department (72.0%). 4.5% of the respondents work for the marketing department
and 3.8% for other departments at the companys headquarters. 10.6% belong to
the top management. Only 2.3% of the questionnaires were completed by employees who work in financial accounting or controlling departments. The remaining
6.8% work for other departments such as public relations, legal departments, etc.
Because we required that each company in our sample should have patented
brands, each company therefore owns at least one patented brand, and each of
these companies primarily distributes its own brands: 71.3% of all companies in
the sample stated that they have generated at least 90% of their total earnings
during the last fiscal year by selling producers brands, i.e. their own products.
3.2 THE GENERAL UNDERSTANDING

OF

BRAND

So far, we have been unable to find a consistent definition of brand in the business literature. The German trademark law (Markengesetz) defines all producers
marks as protected trademarks that legally distinguish one companys products
and services from those of its competitors, and which can be graphically displayed. The definition of a graphic display includes words, displays of a product, letters, numbers, three-dimensional designs (including the shape of a products packaging material) as well as other elements such as colors.

15 The PricewaterhouseCoopers/Sattler (see PricewaterhouseCoopers/Sattler (1999)) study analyzed 126

questionnaires, or 31%.

268

sbr 53 (4/2001)

Brand Valuation

Exhibit 3: Structure of industrial branches within the sample

I n d u s t r ia l
B r a n c h

fo o d
in d u s tr y

b e v e r a g e s
in d u s tr y

c o s m e tic s
in d u s tr y

d e te r g e n ts
in d u s tr y

to b a c c o
in d u s tr y

o ffic e
a n d
s ta tio n e r y
s u p p lie s
c h e m ic a l
/
p h a r m a c e u tic a l


te x tile s


s u p p lie r s
to
a u to m o tiv e
in d u s
e le c tr ic a l
e n g in e e r in g

fu r n is h in g



c a r
m a n u fa c tu r e r s

p r e c is io n
e n g in e e r in g
/
o p tic s
s p a c e -
a n d
a ir c r a ft
e n g in e e r in
m e c h a n ic a l
e n g in e e r in g


m e ta l
in d u s tr y

o il
in d u s tr y

p a p e r


je w e lry

c o n s u m e r
e le c tr o n ic s

p o r c e la in


b u ild in g
e q u ip m e n t
in d u s tr y

in fo r m a tio n
te c h n o lo g y
in d u s
a u to m o tiv e
in d u s tr y

to y
a n im a ls

h e a tin g
s y s te m s

le a th e r

p o w e r
g e n e r a tio n

te le c o m m u n ic a tio n

c o n s u m e r
g o o d s

( 5 1 .5
% )

try

g

d u r a b le
g o o d s

( 4 8 .5 % )

try

T o ta l

1 0 0 .0 0

F r e q u e n c y

P e r c e n t

2 5

2 4

7

5

4

3

1 1

8

7

6

3

3

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 8 .9 4

1 8 .1 8

5 .3 0

3 .7 9

3 .0 3

2 .2 7

8 .3 3

6 .0 6

5 .3 0

4 .5 5

2 .2 7

2 .2 7

1 .5 2

1 .5 2

1 .5 2

1 .5 2

1 .5 2

1 .5 2

1 .5 2

1 .5 2

0 .7 6

0 .7 6

0 .7 6

0 .7 6

0 .7 6

0 .7 6

0 .7 6

0 .7 6

0 .7 6

1 3 2

1 0 0 .0 0

Exhibit 4: Size of questioned companies

S a le s

n o
u p
to
5 0
m
5 0
-
1 0 0
m
m o r e
th a n
1 0

s ta te m e n ts

illio n
D M
p e r
y e a r

illio n
D M
p e r
y e a r

0
m illio n
D M
p e r
y e a r

T o ta l

sbr 53 (4/2001)

F r e q u e n c y

P e r c e n t

2

2 4

2 2

8 4

1 .5 0

1 8 .1 8

1 6 .6 7

6 3 .6 4

1 3 2

1 0 0 .0 0

269

T. Gnther/C. Kriegbaum-Kling

However, studies in business and social sciences are less consistent in their definitions of brand 16. On the one hand, authors refer to the trademark law, stating
that brands are graphics that a company applies to its products to distinguish them
from products of its competitors. Other authors regard brands not only as trademarks, but expand the definition to include labeled products, services, or both.
Clearly, a trademark alone is not a brand. Only in combination with other product
qualities does the trademark becomes a brand.
Because the understanding of brand as separate from the product has a significant influence on the valuation and control of brands, we investigated the general
understanding of brands among the participants. Only 12.4% believe that a brand
is just a label, but 87.6% state that a product is part of the brand (Exhibit 5).
Exhibit 5: Understanding of brand (sample size: 129 companies)
A
b r a n d
is
a
...
la b e lle d
p ro d u c t
3 5 .7 %
m a rk
1 2 .4 %

b o th
5 1 .9 %

Nevertheless, 78.1% of all participants agree with the statement that brands have a
value even without a product. Another 63.3% also agreed that the value of a brand
does not depend on the profit that is generated by the labeled products. This
finding can be interpreted to imply that brands are widely accepted as intangible
assets, but that to make that value accessible to a buyer, they also need an object
that carries the brand name.
Another possible explanation for the varying defintions of brand might be that
all participants had only little experience in purchasing or selling brands without
products. Our study shows that more than 50% of the investigated companies
have never conducted such a transaction (Exhibit 6). The PricewaterhouseCoopers/
Sattler study even supposes that since the German trademark act from 1995 is still
rather new 17, many people do not know that it is possible to buy or sell isolated
brand names.

16 See 3 part 1 as well as 8 part 1 German trademark law, as well as Hentschel (1996), p. 438;
Schrder (1997), p. 168.
17 PricewaterhouseCoopers/Sattler (1999), p. 16.

270

sbr 53 (4/2001)

Brand Valuation

Exhibit 6: Purchase or sale of trademarks without products

(sample size: 127 companies)
p u rc h a se d
1 0 .2 %
s o ld
3 .9 %
p u r c h a s e d
a n d
s o ld
7 .1 %

n e v e r
5 4 .4 %

p u r c h a s e d
a n d /o r
s o ld
to g e th e r
w ith
a
c o m p a n y

2 4 .4 %

Clearly, although a brand is rarely regarded as an independent and intangible

asset, in most cases decisions about a brand are always linked with decisions
affecting a product. Therefore, it is not surprising that, for example, expenses for
quality improvements of a product are regarded as direct expenses for the brand
(73.0% of all participants) as well as expenses that are supposed to benefit a
brand directly (e. g., advertising (96.8% of sample), brand protection (88.9%), sales
promotion (82.5%)) (see Exhibit 7).
Exhibit 7: Expenses for brands (sample size: 126 companies, multiple statements
possible)
E x p e n s e s
f o r
b r a n d s
a r e
...
a d v e rtis in g
b r a n d
p r o te c tio n
s a le s
p r o m o tio n
p r o d u c t
q u a lity
im p r o v e m e n t
d e s ig n
o f
la b e l
p a c k a g in g
m a r k e t
r e s e a r c h
in te r n a l
q u a lity
m a n a g e m e n t
R
&
D
p r o d u c tio n
o f
la b e ls
f ie ld
s e r v ic e
s h e lv in g
s u p p o r t
f o r
r e t a i l e r 's
m a r k e t i n g

m a te r ia l
p ro d u c tio n
lis tin g
e x p e n s e s
o th e rs

2 3 .8
2 1 .4
2 0 .6

2 .4
0 .0

2 0 .0

3 2 .5
3 1 .7

3 9 .7

5 4 .0
5 2 .4
5 1 .6

4 0 .0

6 5 .9
6 4 .3
5 9 .5

6 0 .0

7 3 .0

8 0 .0

8 2 .5

8 8 .9

9 6 .8

1 0 0 .0

Another question was designed to find out if managers perceive brands as cost
units that cause current expenses, or as investments objects that lead to future
cash flows. The results indicate that only 4.2% regard brands as current expenses.
The majority, 65.8%, see them as investments and 30.0% agree on both statements
(Exhibit 8).

sbr 53 (4/2001)

271

T. Gnther/C. Kriegbaum-Kling

This result implies that almost all companies appreciate the long-term benefit of
brands. We use this question as a proxy for the variable perception of brands in
the design of the study shown in Exhibit 2.
Exhibit 8: Brands as current expenses or investments for the future
(sample size: 120 companies)
E x p e n s e s
f o r
b ra n d s
a r e
...

c u r r e n t
e x p e n s e s

4 .2

in v e s tm e n ts
f o r
th e
f u tu r e

6 5 .8

b o th

3 0 .0
0 .0

2 0 .0

4 0 .0

6 0 .0

8 0 .0

1 0 0 .0

Exhibit 9: Valuation of investments in brands (sample size: 126 companies,

multiple statements possible)
I n v e s tm e n ts
in
b r a n d s
...
b e
e v a lu a te d .
s h o u ld
a ls o
m o n e ta rily

3 0 .2

c a n
a ls o
m o n e ta rily

2 2 .2

c a n
o n ly
q u a lita tiv e ly
0

2 2 .2
2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

1 0 0

Although the majority of companies that responded regard brands as an investment for the future, only 30.2% state that brands should be given a monetary valuation similar to the valuation of tangible assets. Only 22.2% believe that a monetary valuation is possible (Exhibit 9). A contingency test to examine the correlation
between the perception of brands as investments (Exhibit 8) and the method for
valuing brand investments (Exhibit 9) did not show a significant correlation
(degree of freedom (df) (k 1)(l 1) = 1; 2 = 0.1, = 0.752 > 0.05).
272

sbr 53 (4/2001)

Brand Valuation

3.3 RESPONSIBILITY

FOR

BRANDS

Of all companies within the sample (sample size: 131 companies), 70.2% have an
organizational unit which assigned to brand management. Our results could not
reject the hypothesis that the perception of brands as investments is unrelated to
the existence of a separate department responsible for brands (df = 2; 2 = 0.461,
= 0.794 > 0.05).
However, we find that these departments are more likely to exist in the consumer
goods industry than in the durable goods industry (Exhibit 10). A chi-square test
rejects the hypothesis that the existence of a department responsible for the brand
management is not influenced by the type of industry (consumer or durable
goods) (df = 1; 2 = 4.02, = 0.045 < 0.05).
Exhibit 10: Existence of organizational units with special responsibilities for brand
management in the consumer goods industry and the durable goods
industry (sample size: 63 companies of the consumer goods and
68 companies of the durable goods industry).
D o e s
a n
o r g a n iz a tio n a l
u n it
w ith
s p e c ia l
r e s p o n s ib ility
f o r
b r a n d s
e x is t?

6 1 .9
H a r d
g o o d s
in d u s tr y
C o n s u m e r
g o o d s
in d u s tr y

y e s
7 7 .9

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

1 0 0

In 53.2% of the companies in our sample, the organizational unit assigned to

brand management reports directly to top management. This fact may indicate the
importance of brands for the companies. 50.0% of these companies stated that the
product management division was responsible for the brands. This finding underlines the close connection between brand and product. Only 24.5% of these companies have an organizational unit assigned to brand management. 4.3% pass on
the responsibility for their brand to external consultants or to advertising agencies
(Exhibit 11). The other departments that were mentioned as having special responsibilities for a brand were the legal and patent departments, and the departments for corporate communication and strategic planning.

sbr 53 (4/2001)

273

T. Gnther/C. Kriegbaum-Kling

Exhibit 11: Departments with special responsibilities for the brand

(sample size: 92 companies, multiple statements possible)
c o m p a n y
m a n a g e m e n t
p r o d u c t
m a n a g e m e n t
b r a n d
m a n a g e m e n t
2 4 .5
m a rk e tin g
/
s a le s
1 6 .8
m a rk e tin g
c o n tr o llin g
9 .6
m a rk e t
re s e a rc h
5 .3
c e n tr a l
o f fic e
5 .3
q u a lity
m a n a g e m e n t
4 .3
b r a n d
c o n tro llin g
4 .3
e x te r n a l
c o n s u lta n ts
4 .3
a d v e r tis in g
a g e n c ie s
4 .3
o th e rs
4 .3
c o rp o r a te
fin a n c e s 1 .1
c o rp o r a te
c o n tr o llin g 0 .0
0 .0
2 0 .0

5 3 .2
5 0 .0

4 0 .0

6 0 .0

8 0 .0

1 0 0 .0

In most companies (84.5%), the responsibilities of the brand management units

are limited to the tactical level and only cover the responsibility for costs, revenues, or profit. Only 8.3% are responsible for the return on investment of the
brand (including decisions about investments and divestments) even though this
department belongs to the top management in more than 50% of all companies in
the sample (Exhibit 12).
Exhibit 12: Type of organization of those units responsible for brand management
(sample size: 92 companies)
c o s t
c e n te r

3 8 .1

p r o fit
c e n te r
r e v e n u e
c e n te r

3 5 .7

in v e s tm e n t
c e n te r

1 0 .7

o th e rs

8 .3

7 .1
2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

1 0 0

On one hand, our analysis of the data showed that there is no statistically significant connection between the general understanding of a brand as an investment
and the type of organization of the units responsible for brand management. On
the other hand, we find a statistically significant bias for the type of industry on
the type of the organization (df = 4; 2 = 11.732, = 0.019 < 0.05). Consumer
274

sbr 53 (4/2001)

Brand Valuation

goods companies have a higher percentage of profit center and revenue center
organizations than durable goods producers.
Clearly, the perception of a brand as an investment does not affect a companys
organizational structure at all. Despite the fact that brands require high investments, most units that are responsible for a brand have no responsibility for the
return on investment.
This finding underlines a criticism that has been made in several prior studies, that
profit-oriented planning targets for a brand lead to incentives for short-term
actions that will harm the brand in the long run 18. In general, actions intended to
improve and develop a brand do not have immediate noticeable effects. Therefore, if they are measured with traditional indicators, long-term actions do not
appear to be reasonable in the short run 19. For example, increasing expenses for
marketing activities will negatively affect profit, so business units that are organized around a cost or profit center organization will certainly not have incentives to market the brand.
Our study also identifies other organizational structures (7.1% of the sample) for
the brand management units. These structures are mainly organizational units of
the headquarter (such as specialized service centers or strategic business units).
Most of the companies in our sample indicated that among all the tasks that are
most frequently assigned to the brand management unit are the development of
strategies for a brand, the design of an annual marketing program, and an annual
revenue forecast. Companies also cited cooperation with advertising agencies and
achieving set targets for a brand as important tasks.
Most companies with special brand management units also valued initiatives for
product improvements, budgeting for a brand, and manager oversight of a brands
product development. Again, this finding clearly shows that decisions about
brands coincide with decisions about the product development.
Also, most companies perceive the continuous collection of customer and retailer
responses as a major task of the specialized business units (Exhibit 13).
Only 37.2% of all companies consider the appraisal of investments in brands as an
important task of the brand management. Again, we can interpret this finding as
empirical evidence for the short-term orientation of current brand management.
Management develops strategies but does not evaluate them in a financially and
future-oriented way.
In 36.4% of our sample, companies base the organizational integration of business
units with strategic character, called strategic business units, on brands. However,
30.4% of all companies assign brand management to their units according to categories or segments. This category management is characterized by specialization
18 See Barwise et al. (1989), p. 34; Aaker (1991), p. 25; Rubinson (1994), p. 48.
19 See Barwise et al. (1990), p. 57; Roeb (1994), p. 59.
sbr 53 (4/2001)

275

T. Gnther/C. Kriegbaum-Kling

Exhibit 13: Tasks of the department responsible for a brand

(sample size: 91 companies, multiple statements possible)
d e v e lo p m e n t
o f
a
b ra n d
s tra te g y

8 9 .4

c r e a tio n
o f
a n
a n n u a l
m a r k e tin g
s c h e m e

8 8 .3

c o - o p e ra tio n
w ith
a d v e r tis in g
a g e n c y

8 5 .1

a s s e s s m e n t
o f
s e t
g o a ls
fo r
th e
b ra n d

8 1 .9

in itia tio n
o f
p ro d u c t
im p r o v e m e n ts

7 8 .7

b u d g e tin g
o f
b ra n d ( s )

7 7 .4

s u r v e i l l a n c e
o f
t h e
d e v e l o p m e n t
o f
a
b r a n d 's
p r o d u c t s

7 5 .5

c o lle c tio n
o f
in fo r m a tio n
a b o u t
p ro d u c t
p e r fo r m a n c e

7 3 .4

c o lle c tio n
o f
in fo r m a tio n
a b o u t
c u s to m e r
a n d
re ta ile r
re s p o n s e s

6 2 .8

f o re c a s t
o f
f u tu re
p a y - o ff s
d u e
to
in v e s tm e n t
in
b ra n d s .

3 7 .2

n e g o tia tio n s
w ith
d e a le rs

1 9 .1

o th e rs

8 .8
0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

1 0 0

and delegation of responsibility along similar product lines or categories (e. g.,
body lotions, washing powders). These categories can include several brands with
similar products. About 25% of our sample companies define their strategic business units according to their products. These results clearly show that only a few
companies appreciate the importance of a strategic management that is purely
brand-oriented (Exhibit 14).
Exhibit 14: Definition of strategic business units (sample size: 88 companies)
b ra n d -o rie n te d
3 6 .4 %

p r o d u c t-o rie n te d
2 2 .7 %

o th e rs
2 .3 %
c u s to m e r- o rie n te d
4 .5 %
m a rk e t-o rie n te d
3 .4 %
c a te g o r y -o rie n te d
3 0 .7 %

276

sbr 53 (4/2001)

Brand Valuation

3.4 BRAND VALUATION

In general, companies perceive brands as an essential part of the net worth of a
company 20. This fact is not surprising, since customers tend to transfer a brands
image to the overall perception of a company 21. Hence, if brands create a sustainable competitive advantage and greatly increase actual company value, then
investments in the brands assure the long-term company value. Nevertheless,
management often underestimates brands true importance as an asset and therefore often neglect brand management 22. Therefore, brand valuation should be an
opportunity to uncover these misperceptions and improve the controlling of a
brand.
To examine this aspect of brand management, our study investigates the extent to
which German companies believe a brands value is an effective performance
measure.
81.9% agree with the statement that using the brand value as a performance
measure offers incentives to increase the brands value over the long term.
Another 69.3% also agree that brand valuation is a suitable way to assess the performance of a department that is responsible for the brand (refer to Exhibit 15 for
further statements).
Exhibit 15: Statements about brand valuation (sample size: 128 companies)
A
b r a n d -o r ie n te d
b u d g e tin g
p ro c e s s
le a d s
to
a
m o re

e f fe c tiv e
a p p lic a tio n
o f
fu n d s .
B ra n d
v a lu a tio n
c o n tr ib u te s
to
a n
im p r o v e m e n t
o f

th e
c o r p o ra te
c o m m u n ic a tio n
b e tw e e n
m a r k e tin g

a n d
f in a n c e -/
c o n tr o llin g
d e p a rtm e n ts .

5 0 .4

3 0 .7

4 8 .8

B ra n d
v a lu a tio n
is
a
s u ita b le
m e a s u re
to
a s s e s s
th e

p e r fo r m a n c e
o f
th e
s e c tio n
th a t
is
r e s p o n s ib le
fo r

th e
b r a n d .

2 9 .4
6 9 .3

T h e
b r a n d 's
v a l u e
a s
a
p e r f o r m a n c e
m e a s u r e
o f f e r s

in c e n tiv e s
fo r
a
lo n g -te r m ,
v a lu e -in c r e a s in g

b e h a v io r.
T h e
v a lu a tio n
o f
b r a n d s
im p r o v e s
th e

c o m m u n ic a tio n
w ith
th e
o w n e r s
o f
th e
c o m p a n y .

4 8

T h e
c
c o rp o
b ra n d
b ra n d

5 1 .2

a p ita lis a tio n
o

ra te
a c c o u n tin

s u p p o r t
a n d
b

w o u ld
b e
tre a

f
s e lf -m a d e
b r a n d
v a lu e s
in
th e

g
w o u ld
in c r e a s e
e x p e n s e s
f o r

ra n d
d e v e lo p m e n t
b e c a u s e
th e

te d
lik e
a n
a s s e t.

a g r e e
(% )

d is a g re e
( % )

1 8 .9

2 6
2 0 .8

2 2 .2
1 9 .7

1 1

8 1 .9 6 .3

1 1 .8
2 6
2 8

d o n 't
k n o w
( % )

20 See e.g. Kunisch (1998), p. 6.

21 See Bruhn (1994), p. 643.
22 See Franzen (1994); p. 1625; Mussler/Mussler (1995), p. 184.
sbr 53 (4/2001)

277

T. Gnther/C. Kriegbaum-Kling

Despite the predominantly positive statements supporting brand valuation, only

37.2% of the companies in our sample perform a monetary and/or non-monetary
valuation of their brand (Exhibit 16) 23.
Exhibit 16: share of companies that do/do not evaluate their brands
(sample size: 129 companies)
y e s
3 7 .2 %

n o
6 2 .8 %

However, almost 25% of all companies that do not evaluate their brands stated
that there had been discussions about doing so (Exhibit 18). However, we could
find no statistically significant correlation between the appreciation of a brand as
an investment and the actual brand valuation. Neither could our statistics give significant support to any bias in the type of industry on the implementation of any
kind of valuation (df = 1; 2 = 0.384, = 0.536 > 0.05).
As we noted earlier, if companies do not understand the necessity of brand valuation, we cannot use this as a reason why brand valuation rarely takes place. Only
19% see no good reason for brand valuation. However, 31.9% (too time consuming 10.3%; too cost intensive 1.3% and too time and cost intenstive 20.3%) see it as
very useful, but state that it is too time and/or cost intensive 24. 36.7% of all companies claimed that there is no suitable method available for brand valuation.
(Exhibit 17) 25, which could be the reason for the restricted recognition of selfcreated intangible assets in financial accounting.
Other companies noted that brand values could not be treated as assets and therefore this topic had no priority for them. Only 17.8% (11.6% + 5.4% + 0.8%) of all
companies try to derive a monetary value for their brands. 11.6% assign both a

23 In the PricewaterhouseCoopers/Sattler study, only 26% of the participants had already valued their
brands (see PricewaterhouseCoopers/Sattler (1999), p. 14).
24 The PricewaterhouseCoopers/Sattler study also mentions the time and cost effort necessary as a
reason against brand valuation. The study identifies this reason as the second most important for
why companies do not value brand (see PricewaterhouseCoopers/Sattler (1999), p. 15).
25 The PricewaterhouseCoopers/Sattler study also identifies this point as the main reason for not
valuing brands (see PricewaterhouseCoopers/Sattler (1999), p. 15).

278

sbr 53 (4/2001)

Brand Valuation

Exhibit 17: Reasons, why brand valuation is not done (sample size: 79 companies)
T h e r e
is
n o
s u ita b le
m e th o d
f o r
b r a n d
v a lu a tio n

3 6 .7

B r a n d
v a lu a tio n
is
u s e f u l,
b u t
to o
tim e -
a n d

c o s t
in te n s iv e

2 0 .3

T h e r e
is
n o
p r o p e r
r e a s o n
f o r
b r a n d
v a lu a tio n

1 9 .0

O th e rs

1 2 .7

B r a n d
v a lu a tio n
is
u s e f u l,
b u t
to o
tim e

c o n s u m in g .

1 0 .3

B r a n d
v a lu a tio n
is
u s e f u l,
b u t
to o

c o s t
in te n s iv e

1 .3
0 .0

2 0 .0

4 0 .0

6 0 .0

8 0 .0

1 0 0 .0

monetary and non-monetary value to their brand. 19.4% (3.1% + 16.3%) prefer to
use qualitative performance measures (Exhibit 18).
Exhibit 18: Brand valuation in German companies (sample size: 129 companies)
A r e
b r a n d s
e v a lu a te d ?
n e ith e r
m o n e ta r y
n o r
n o n - m o n e ta r y
v a lu a tio n

3 4 .1

n o
v a lu a tio n ,
b u t
th is
to p ic
h a s
a lr e a d y
b e e n
d is c u s s e d

2 4 .8

o n ly
n o n - m o n e ta r y
v a lu a tio n

1 6 .3

m o n e ta r y
a n d
n o n - m o n e ta r y
v a lu a tio n

1 1 .6

o n ly
m o n e ta r y
v a lu a tio n

5 .4

n o n - m o n e ta r y
v a lu a tio n ;
m o n e ta r y
v a lu a tio n
is
p la n n e d

3 .1

n o
v a lu a tio n ,
b u t
n o n - m o n e ta r y
v a lu a tio n
is
p la n n e d

2 .3

n o
v a lu a tio n ,
b u t
m o n e ta r y
v a lu a tio n
is
p la n n e d

1 .6
0 .8

o n ly
m o n e ta r y
v a lu a tio n ;
n o n - m o n e ta r y
v a lu a tio n
is
p la n n e d

0 .0

2 0 .0

4 0 .0

6 0 .0

8 0 .0

1 0 0 .0

Whether the brand valuation is monetary or non-monetary or not, has no relation

to the perception of brands as investments (df = 16; 2 = 17.223, = 0.371 > 0.05)
or to the type of industry (consumer compared to durable goods) (df = 8;
2 = 10.964, = 0.204 > 0.05).

sbr 53 (4/2001)

279



0. 0 0 1

.0 0 8

0. 0 6

3. 0 4

.0 0 4

.0 0 2

5. 1

s l e d o m
c i n o d e h
f
o n o i t a c i l p p A

0. 0

0. 3

l e d o m
n oi t a ul a v e
d n a r b r et n I
hti w
n oi t a ul a V

) st s o c
t n e m e c a l p e r
=
e ul a v
d n a r b (
d n a r
b a
r o f
s t s o c
t n e m e c a l p e r
f o
n o i t a n i m r e t e D

s e s yl a

t n e m e r u s a e M
t n i o j n o C
n o p u
d e s a b
t i f e n e b
's d n a r
b a
f o
n o i t a n i m r e t
s e s yl a n A
t n e m er u s a e M
t ni oj n

n o p u
d e s a b
s d n a r b
r of
st n e m y a p
l a n oiti d d a
r o f
s s e ni d a e r
f o
n oit a ni mr et

o C
e D

e D

n A

d n ar b
a
ot
g ni r e f e r

st n e m e c n u o n n a
r et f a
st k r a m
k c ot s
n o
s n oit c a e r
n o p u
d e s a b
n oi t a ul a V

0. 3
5. 4
5. 4
0. 6

sr e ht O

4. 0 1

or
e
ve
e

n e s l ei N
f o
r e c n a m r o f r e P
d n a r B
hti w
n oi t a ul a V

sti f

d et al e r
d n ar b
d et s a c er o f
f o
e ul a v
t n e s e r p
s a
e ul a v
d n ar b
f o
n oit a ni mr et
s e u ne

d et al e r
d n ar b
d et s a c er o f
f o
e ul a v
t n e s e r p
s a
e ul a v
d n ar b
f o
n oit a ni mr et

4. 0 1
4. 0 1
4. 3 1

s e i n a p m o c
e l b a r a p m o c
f o
s e u l a v
d n a r
b o
t e c n e r e f e R

s l e d o m
n oi t a ul a v e
K f G
hti w
n oi t a ul a V

9. 7 1

) m u i m e r p
e c i r p
=
e u l a v
d n a r b (
m u i m e r p
e c i r p
's d n a r b
f o
n o i t a n i m r e t e D

9. 4 1

9. 7 1
9. 0 2
9. 3 2

) s t s o
c n o i t i s i u q c a
=
e u l a v
d n a r b (
st s o c
d et al e r
d n ar b
f o
n oit a ni mr et e D
d e t a l e r
d n a r b
=
e u l a v
d n a r b (
d n a r
b e h t
w
s a
s m ui m e r p
e cir p
f o
n oit a ni mr et e D
et al er
d n a r b
=
e ul a v
d n ar b (
d oi r e p
r e p
u n e v er
d et al e r
d n ar b
f o
n oit a ni mr et e D

sbr 53 (4/2001)

280

) d oi r e p
r e p
s e u n e v er


ot
d e r e f e r
e b
n a c
t a ht
s el a s
l at ot
s a
ll e
) d oi r e p
r e p
ti f o r p
d

st s o c
d et al er
d n a r b
s a
ll e w
s a
s e

Exhibit 19: Applied methods for brand valuation

(sample size: 46 companies, multiple statements)

T. Gnther/C. Kriegbaum-Kling

Brand Valuation

When we investigate those companies that do value brands, our study shows that
few companies use only one single method of brand valuation. 63% of all companies use two or more methods 26, 58.7% use two, three, or even four methods.
In our sample of 46 companies, the most popular method for valuing brands is
the calculation of the brand-related profit, which again underlines the short-term
orientation in brand management (Exhibit 19). Therefore, we see that firms do not
consider the value of a brand as essential to future success, but merely as the
current profit generated by a brand (actually, the products that are sold with that
brand) in one single accounting period.
Of the commercially available brand valuation models, we find that 14.9% of all
companies in our sample use GfK models, 10.4% apply the Nielsen Brand Performancer Model, and 3% use the brand valuation models of Interbrand. Other
methods that were mentioned were primarily based on qualitative performance
indicators, such as image, reputation of the brand compared with competitors, and
the uniqueness of a brand.
Again, we could find no correlations between the applied methods and the perception of brands as investments (df = 10; 2 = 7.197, = 0.707 > 0.05), or the type
of industry (df = 5; 2 = 7.773, = 0.169 > 0.05).
61.7% of all companies that value brands use the brand valuation for internal
control purposes only, whereas 59.6% derive decisions for the brand budgeting
(Exhibit 20) 27. The reasons for brand valuation do not seem to be related to the
perception of brands as investments and intangible assets (df = 2; 2 = 2.25,
Exhibit 20: Reasons for brand valuation
(sample size: 47 companies, multiple statements possible)
in te rn a l
c o n tr o l
p u rp o s e s

6 1 .7

b u d g e tin g
d e c is io n s

5 9 .6

lis tin g
n e g o tia tio n s
w ith
d e a le rs

in
th e
c o u r s e
o f
a c q u is itio n s
a n d

s p in -o ffs
f ix in g
o f
lic e n s e
fe e s

3 6 .2
2 9 .8
1 4 .9

f in a n c ia l
c o m p e n s a tio n
o f
m a n a g e m e n t

d e te r m in a tio n
o f
c o m p e n s a tio n
f o r

b r a n d
a b u s e
a s
w a r ra n ty
fo r
c r e d its

1 2 .8
8 .5
2 .1
0 .0

2 0 .0

4 0 .0

6 0 .0

8 0 .0

1 0 0 .0

%
26 For an overview of brand valuation methods see, for example, Kriegbaum (1998).
27 The PricewaterhouseCoopers/Sattler study also finds that the reasons for brand valuation include
the internal management and control of brands. Further, brand valuation is used for decisions concerning mergers and acquisitions (see PricewaterhouseCoopers/Sattler (1999), p. 15).
sbr 53 (4/2001)

281

T. Gnther/C. Kriegbaum-Kling

= 0.325 > 0.05). A chi-square test (df = 1; 2 = 7.27, = 0.007 < 0.05) shows significant differences between the consumer goods and durable goods industries
and the application of brand valuation for budgeting decisions.
Looking at the number of companies that view budgeting decisions as a major
reason for brand valuation (Exhibit 21), the study shows that companies in the
consumer goods industry re-evaluate their brands much more frequently than do
companies in the durable goods industry. Statistics show a low level of significance (df = 1; 2 = 3.372, = 0.066 > 0.05).
Exhibit 21: Budgeting decision as reason for brand valuation, grouped by
durable goods/consumer goods industry (sample size: 21 consumer
and 26 durable goods companies)
B u d g e tin g
d e c is io n s
a r e
a
r e a s o n
f o r

b r a n d
v a lu a tio n
c o n s u m e r
g o o d s

h a r d
g o o d s

7 6 .9
y e s
3 8 .1

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

1 0 0

Planning targets that are not brand-oriented appear to play a more important role
in the budgeting in the durable goods industry. Companies in the consumer goods
industry appreciate the importance of their brands value and therefore have a
more brand-oriented planning.
All the other stated reasons stated in Exhibit 20 show no significant correlation
between the branch of industry and the reason.
Of the companies that have already bought or sold a brand (25 companies) 61.5%
say that they had not performed an explicit brand valuation to support the purchase or sale decision. Other companies derived a brands value as a starting point
for price negotiations, based on, e. g., total acquisition costs, image analyses, and
price comparisons of brand brokers. However, it is unclear how companies caluculated the final price for a brand. Since a brands price can reach several million
dollars 28, it is difficult to understand why an explicit monetary brand valuation still
has no meaning for many companies.
28 The trademark rights for the trademark Rolls Royce were sold to BMW AG for 120 Mio. DM.

282

sbr 53 (4/2001)

Brand Valuation

13.7% of the companies in the sample appreciate the brand value as a performance measure, but 37.3% stated that they would use a companys value as suitable
performance measure. Nearly 70% of all companies use the profit or revenue as a
measure. This measure is characterized by a short-term, single-period valuation
based on past performance, in contrast to the future-oriented and multi-period
company valuation (Exhibit 22). In addition, we could find no significant correlation between the companies that use the value as a performance measure and the
companies that use the brand value (df = 1; 2 = 0.218, = 0.641 > 0.05). Therefore, we conclude that the performance measurement systems of most of the companies are not consistent in their structure, since companies that focus on creating
shareholder value would also evaluate their intangible assets, such as their brand
values.
Exhibit 22: Performance measures in use
(sample size: 102 companies, multiple statements possible)
r e v e n u e s
o f
b r a n d ( s )

7 4 .5

p r o f its
o f
b r a n d ( s )

6 9 .6

p r o f its
o f
b r a n d
r e la te d
p r o d u c ts

6 9 .6

r e v e n u e s
o f
b r a n d
r e la te d
p r o d u c ts

6 8 .6
5 8 .8

m a rk e t
s h a re
4 8 .0

R o I
o f
c o m p a n y
3 7 .3

c o m p a n y
v a lu e

3 3 .3

R o I
o f
c o m p a n y
u n it

V a lu e
b a s e d
m e a s u r e s

1 6 .7

b r a n d
s tr e n g th
b r a n d
v a lu e

1 3 .7

R o I
o f
b r a n d ( s )

1 2 .7
5 .9

o th e rs
0 .0

2 0 .0

4 0 .0

6 0 .0

8 0 .0

1 0 0 .0

%
( u s e r s
o f
p e r f o r m a n c e
m e a s u r e s )

62% of the companies (sample size: 47 companies) perform their own brand valuations. When companies do consult external advisors, 63% of 19 companies hire
management consulting firms that specialize in brand valuation. 59.6% of all companies that do value their brands admit that the actual valuation is not a regularly
scheduled undertaking. This is an astonishing finding, since the most frequently
mentioned purpose of valuation is the internal control over the brand and its use
in long-term planning (Exhibit 23).
We follow earlier studies in constructing very detailed specifications of requirements for the valuation of brand 29. Our goal is to reveal which requirements for
the internal controlling of brands are relevant in practice. Therefore, we asked our
sample companies to grade the importance of given requirements on a scale from
one (important) to five (unimportant). Exhibit 24 shows that the most important
29 See Barwise et. al. (1989), pp. 66; Arthur Andersen & Co (ed.) (1992), p. 29; Hammann (1992),
p. 214; Berndt/Sander (1994), p. 1370; Sattler (1995), p. 666; Brockington (1996), p. 177; BekmeierFeuerhahn (1998), pp. 66; Irmscher (1997), p. 100; Sattler (1997), p. 4.
sbr 53 (4/2001)

283

T. Gnther/C. Kriegbaum-Kling

Exhibit 23: Frequency of brand valuation (sample size: 47 companies)

irre g u la rly

5 9 .6

a n n u a lly

2 1 .3

m o n th ly

1 2 .8

q u a rte rly

o th e rs

4 .3

2 .1
0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

1 0 0

criteria were the methods reliability, the ability to verify the valuation, the objectivity, and the future orientation of the applied method.
Exhibit 24: Assessment of the importance of requirements for brand valuation
methods (sample size: 123 companies)
re lia b ility

1 .6
1 .7

p o ss ib ility
o f
v e rific a tio n

o b je c tiv ity
f u tu r e
o rie n ta t io n

1 .7
2 .2

g e n e r a l l y
a c c e p t a n c e

2 .3
2 .3

e ff ic ie n t
u tilis a ti o n

2 .4
2 .4

s u i t a b l e
f o r
c a u s e
a n d
e f f e c t
a n a l y s e s
d e te rm in a tio n
o f
m o n e ta ry
v a lu e
a s s e s s m e n t
o f
t r a n s f e r
p o t e n t i a l s

2 .7

f l e x i b l e
u s e
o n
d i f f e r e n t
p l a n n i n g
l e v e l s

2 .7
2 .8

h ig h
c o n trib u tio n
to
e x p la n a tio n

s e p a r a b ility
o f
th e
p r o d u c t

2 .9
2 .9

s e p a r a b ility
o f
th e
b u s in e s s
1
im p o r ta n t

3
a v e ra g e

5
u n im p o rta n t

Some companies mentioned other requirements, such as the possibility of doing

benchmarking studies, the speed of doing the valuation, and the ability to repeat
the valuation precisely. Companies rated the ability to separate the brand as an
independent, intangible asset as the least important requirement, with an average
factor of 2.9. Again, we interpret this finding as evidence for the assumed relation
between brands and products and the less appreciated stand-alone value of a
purely intangible asset brand.
284

sbr 53 (4/2001)

Brand Valuation

Companies assign little importance to the meaning of possible transfer potentials

(average factor of 2.7), although future brand transfers could increase income and
reduce expenses. This statement is even more surprising when we remember that
53.4% of all interviewed companies have already done a brand transfer. In fact,
only 45.7% of our sample value the transfer potential of their brands. Only 74.6%
value their brands transfer potential before the actually transfer brands to other
products. Furthermore, only 44.1% revalue the transfer ex post to measure its
success.
Exhibit 25 summarizes companies statements on the valuation of transfer potential. Slightly more than half (50.4%) of the sample believed that a brands transfer
potential should be evaluated. However, only 34.1% (6.2% + 8.5% + 19.4%), as
Exhibit 25 shows, of those companies stated that the valuation must be monetary.
Exhibit 25: Assessment of the valuation of transfer potentials
(sample size: 129 companies, multiple statements possible)
T h e
tr a n s f e r
p o te n tia l
o f
b r a n d s
s h o u ld
b e
e v a lu a te d

q u a lita tiv e ly
in
b r a n d
v a lu a tio n

5 0 .4

T h e
tr a n s f e r
p o te n tia l
o f
b r a n d s
is
e v a lu a te d
q u a lita tiv e ly

in
o u r
c o m p a n y
b e f o r e
a
tr a n s a c tio n
ta k e s
p la c e .

3 1 .8

T h e
tr a n s f e r
p o te n tia l
o f
b r a n d s
to
p r o d u c ts
s h o u ld
b e

e v a lu a te d
m o n e ta r ily
in
b r a n d
v a lu a tio n .

1 9 .4

T h e
s u c c e s s
o f
b r a n d
tr a n s f e r s
is
m e a s u r e d
q u a lita tiv e ly

o n ly
a f te r w a r d s .

1 5 .5

T h e
s u c c e s s
o f
b r a n d
tr a n s f e r s
is
m e a s u r e d
m o n e ta r ily

o n ly
a f te r w a r d s .

8 .5
6 .2

T h e
tr a n s f e r
p o te n tia l
o f
b r a n d s
in
o u r
c o m p a n y
is

m e a s u r e d
m o n e ta r ily
b e f o r e
th e
tr a n s f e r .
T h e
tr a n s f e r
p o te n tia l
o f
b r a n d s
is
ir r e le v a n t
f o r

b r a n d
v a lu a tio n

2 .3
0 .0

2 0 .0

4 0 .0

6 0 .0

8 0 .0

1 0 0 .0

3.5 CONTROLLING BRANDS

3.5.1 TACTICAL

AND STRATEGIC CONTROLLING INSTRUMENTS FOR BRANDS

To identify applied controlling instruments in strategic and tactical brand management, we investigate the extent to which our sample companies use known instruments.
We examine whether instruments are especially applicable for brands as intangible
assets, or for products/product groups. We follow the predominant understanding
of brand by using applied instruments that are product-oriented (Exhibit 26).
However, we note that in practice, a purely brand-oriented brand management or
controlling does not exist.

sbr 53 (4/2001)

285

T. Gnther/C. Kriegbaum-Kling

Exhibit 26: Product- or brand-oriented demarcation of applied controlling instruments (sample size: 85 companies)

p ro d u c t-o rie n te d

1 8 .8

9 .4

b ra n d -o rie n te d

7 1 .8

b o th

0 .0

2 0 .0

4 0 .0

6 0 .0

8 0 .0

1 0 0 .0

Among the strategic instruments, competitor analyses play a predominant role.

However, Exhibit 27 shows that more than half of all investigated companies also
use portfolio analyses and benchmarking studies.
Exhibit 27: Applied analyzing instruments in strategic brand management
(sample size: 117 companies, multiple statements possible)
c o m p e tito r
a n a ly s e s

7 5 .2

p o rtfo lio
a n a ly s e s

5 9 .8

b e n c h m a rk in g

5 5 .6

S W O T
a n a ly s e s

4 9 .6

p r o d u c t
lif e
c y c le
a n a ly s e s

4 3 .6

p r o g r a m m e
s tr u c tu r e
a n a ly s e s

3 7 .6

c a p ita l
e x p e n d itu re
a c c o u n t
m e th o d

2 3 .1

u tility
a n a ly s e s

1 9 .7

c o n jo in t
a n a ly s e s

1 1 .2

o th e rs
0

0 .9

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

1 0 0

More than 75% of all companies use break-even analyses in the field of the tactical
brand management. Only one third of all sample companies use income statements for brands, customers, promotional activities, or distribution channels.
Only 15.3% of all companies apply financial variance analyses of income or
expenses per brand as planning and controlling instruments. Indeed, 10.8%
analyze variances of a brands strength. However, statistically, only 5.4% analyze
the variances of a brands value. Companies measure the variances of factors
affecting a brands actual value even more rarely (3.6%) (Exhibit 28).
286

sbr 53 (4/2001)

Brand Valuation

Exhibit 28: Instruments for planning and control in the field of the tactical
brand management
(sample size: 111 companies, multiple statements possible)
b r e a k - e v e n -a n a ly s e s
b r a n d
r e la te d
c o n tr ib u tio n
m a r g in
a n a ly s e s
b r a n d
r e la te d
in c o m e
s ta te m e n ts

7 2 .1
4 0 .5
3 5 .1
3 4 .2
3 0 .6
3 0 .6
2 7 .9
2 4 .3

b r a n d
r e la te d
s ta g e d
c o n tr ib u tio n
m a r g in
a n a ly s e s
a c tio n
in c o m e
s ta te m e n ts
c u s to m e r
in c o m e
s ta te m e n ts
d is tr ib u tio n
c h a n n e l
in c o m e
s ta te m e n ts
re la tiv
v a ria n
v a ria n
v a ria n
v a ria n
v a ria n
o th e rs

e
d ir e c t
c
c e
a n a ly s
c e
a n a ly s
c e
a n a ly s
c e
a n a ly s
c e
a n a ly s

o sts
e s
o
e s
o
e s
o
e s
o
e s
o

c a lc u la tio n s
f
b r a n d
r e la te d
in c o m e
f
b r a n d
r e la te d
e x p e n s e s
f
q u a lita tiv e
b r a n d
s tr e n g th s
f
m o n e ta ry
b r a n d
v a lu e s
f
in p u t
f a c to r s

1 5 .3
1 5 .3
1 0 .8
5 .4
3 .6
1 .8
0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

1 0 0

Strategic and tactical instruments are vital to effectively control brands. However,
from our point of view, it is not theoretically possible to properly derive statistically testable hypotheses on the interaction between the perception of brands as
valuable assets and on the type of industry and the spread of selected strategic
and tactical instruments.
3.5.2 MEASURES

FOR A BRANDS SUCCESS

Because the standard business literature presents several different approaches for
measuring a brands strength and its input factors 30, we investigate the question of
which input factors should have a noticeable influence on a brands value, and
which ones are applied to measure a brands success. The majority of companies
in our sample believe the brands image has a strong influence on the actual
brand value (88.4%), but only 53.7% of the respondents use image as an indicator
for the brands success. Although companies regard product quality as second in
terms of importance (80.2%), Exhibit 29 shows that only 39.7% use its actual application as an indicator.
Only 38.8% of the sample use customer satisfaction, which is fourth on the list of
input factors that affect a brands value (76.9%), as a measure. Therefore, customer
satisfaction is listed on rank 11. In contrast, companies more frequently apply
those measures for a brands value that are relatively easy to derive. These measures include the brands image, absolute market share, development of the
market share, and relative market share, as well as the brands popularity and its
revenues. The revenues measure illustrates the great gap between recognized
influence and its application. Although revenues are listed on position five, the
actual influence is weak (position 27).
30 See the overview at Sattler (1994), pp. 12; Sattler (1997), p. 51.
sbr 53 (4/2001)

287

T. Gnther/C. Kriegbaum-Kling

Exhibit 29: Comparison of an input factors appreciated influence on the brands

value and its actual application for the assessment of the brands
success (sample size: 121 companies)
b r a n d
im a g e
p r o d u c t
q u a lity
d e v e lo p m e n t
o f
m a r k e t
s h a r e
c u s to m e r
s a tis f a c tio n
b r a n d
k n o w le d g e
a b s o lu te
m a r k e t
s h a r e
b r a n d
lo y a lity
c u s t o m e r s '
a s s o c ia ti o n s
w it h
b r a n d
d a ta - b a s e d
b r a n d
k n o w le d g e
m a r k e t
v o lu m e
a d v e r tis in g
e x p e n s e s
o f
fo r m e r
p e r io d s
r e la tiv e
m a r k e t
s h a r e
c o m p a n y 's
i m a g e
b r a n d
id e n tif ic a tio n
b r a n d
p r o te c tio n
p r o d u c t's
p r i c e
d e g r e e
o f
d is tr ib u tio n
d e g r e e
o f
c o n s u m e r
r e a c h
p r o f it
d e v e lo p m e n t
o f
la b e lle d
p r o d u c ts
q u a lity
o f
d is tr ib u tio n
a d v e r tis in g
r e c a ll
p r e s e n t
a d v e r tis in g
e x p e n s e s
im ita b ility
o f
p r o d u c t
p r ic e
p o s itio n
r e la tiv e
to
c o m p e tito r s
d e g r e e
o f
m a r k e t
p e n e tr a tio n
b r a n d
p r e fe r e n c e
re v e n u e s
d e g r e e
o f
s e r v ic e
r e c e n t
e x p e n s e s
f o r
s a le
p r o m o tio n s
r e o r d e r
r a te
lif e
c y c le
p h a s e
p r e s e n t
e x p e n s e s
f o r
s a le
p r o m o tio n s
c o n tr ib u tio n
m a r g in
o f
p r o d u c t
d e m a n d
p o te n tia l
o f
d e a le r s
r a n k i n g
i n
t h e
r e t a i l e r 's
s h e l v e
lo y a lity
o f
r e ta ile r s
c r o s s
p r ic e
e la s tic ity
a m o u n t
o f
p r o d u c ts
p r ic in g
a c c o r d in g
to
r e c o m m e n a tio n
b r a n d 's
p r i c e - p r e m i u m
a g e
o f
b r a n d
p r o f it
p o te n tia l
o f
o f f e r e r s
p r o f it
m a r g in
p u rc h a s e
in te n tio n
p r ic in g
p o s itio n in g
d u r in g
p r o m o tio n
p r o d u c t
c a te g o r y
p r o d u c tio n
c o s ts
a d d itio n a l
c o s t
f o r
c u s to m e r s
w h e n
c h a n g in g
b r a n d s
o th e rs

8 8 .4

8 0 .2
7 6 .9
7 6 .9
7 6 .9
7 5 .2
7 3 .6
6 9
6
6
6

3 9 .7
3 8 .8
4 2 .1
3 2 .2
3 2 .2

.4
7 .8
6 .9
6 .9
6 6 .1
6 4 .5
6 4 .5

3 8
3 5 .5

6 2
6 1 .2
5 8 .7
5 7 .9
5 7
5 6 .2
5 6 .2
5 5 .4
5 5 .4
5 3 .7
5 2 .9
5 0 .4
4 9 .6
4 8 .8
4 7 .1
4 7 .1
4 6 .3
4 6 .3
4 6 .3
4 3 .8
3 8 .8
3 8 .8
3 5 .5
3 5 .5
3 3 .9
3 2 .2
3 2 .2
2 9 .8
2 6
2 5
2 5
2

1 0 0

8 0

6 0

4 0

.4
.6
.6
3 .1
2 1 .5
1 6 .5

1 .7

2 0

1 .7

in flu e n c e

8 .3

5 3 .7
4 9 .6
5 3 .7

4 3 .8

4 6 .3
3 3 .9
2 9 .8
3 2 .2
4 0 .5
3 6 .4
2 3 .1
3 8 .8
3 3 .9
2 9 .8
4 0 .5
2 0 .7
3 3 .9
2 8 .1
2 4
4 3 .8
2 1 .5
2 3 .1
2 6 .4
2 2 .3
2 9 .8
3 8 .8
2 3 .1
1 6 .5
1 4 .9
1 3 .2
2 0 .7
1 9 .8
1 4 .9
1 6 .5
1 6 .5
2 2 .3
2 0 .7
1 7 .4
1 4 .9
2 4

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

1 0 0

a p p lic a tio n

To analyze the association between the variables appreciation as an influencing

factor and application for the assessment of a brands success, we perform a
statistical correlation calculation. We calculate, a Bravais-Pearson correlation coefficient of + 0.853, thus determining the strength and the direction of the association.
This result means that both variables correlate positively on a high significance
level ( < 0.0001). Hence, we also apply factors that we expect to influence a
brands value, despite the exceptions mentioned above. However, even though
companies appreciate their influence on a brands value, we emphasize that some
firms do not use certain measures. Exhibit 29 displays the comparison of both
variables.

288

sbr 53 (4/2001)

Brand Valuation

Again, the interdependence between the application of these performance measures, the perception of brands as investments (df = 2; 2 = 2.25, = 0.325 > 0.05),
and the type of industry (df = 1; 2 = 1.066, = 0.302 > 0.05) could statistically not
be rejected.
When asked for indicators that they use for brand management, 64% of the companies answered that they used indicators to control distribution. 42.1% use indicators to control prices, and 35.1% apply indicators to manage communication.
31.6% use a so-called Balanced Scorecard, which is a system of connected, quantifiable measures for the financial perspective (ROI, cash flow, etc.), customer perspective (customer satisfaction, etc.), internal perspective (quality, etc.), and the
innovation and development perspective. Firms use the scorecard for internal
control of a brand 31.
3.5.3 FINANCIAL

INCENTIVE SCHEMES FOR BRAND-RESPONSIBLE EMPLOYEES

Our examination of financial incentive schemes in brand management shows that

70.8% of all companies within the sample (sample size: 120 companies) use financial incentives for the payment of their managers, but only 28% apply financial
incentive schemes in brand management. If there is a variable financial portion in
a brand managers salary, it varies between 8.9% and 24.4% of the gross salary.
In 69.7% of all sample companies, the evaluation
able portion is calculated ranges between one
company with an evaluation period exceeding five
of less than one year. We regard both results as
short-term orientation in brand management.

period against which the variand five years. There is no

years, and 30.3% use a horizon
evidence for the predominant

The profit generated by a brand is most frequently used as a basis for calculating
the variable portion of a brand managers salary (62.5%). Only 6.3% base incentive
systems on a brands strength and 3.1% on a brands value, which means that
these measures are essentially meaningless for financial incentive schemes (Exhibit
30).
This result is surprising, since a total of 69.3% firms agreed with the statement that
... the evaluation of brands is a reasonable method to assess the performance of
the unit which is responsible for the brand. But it is not surprising that the
hypothesis of an interdependence between the perception of brands as investments and the applied measures for the incentive scheme could not be rejected
(df = 2; 2 = 0.012, = 0.994 > 0.05). However, the low level of significance (df = 1;
2 = 3.665, = 0.056 > 0.05) might indicate that the type of industry introduces
some bias on the measurement system for the incentives. Perhaps, for those firms
that apply financial incentives in brand management, many brand managers believe that a brands profit is an adequate estimate for the actual value of a brand.

31 See Kaplan/Norton (1996), p. 11; Bruhn (1998), p. 150; Reinecke/Tomczak (1998), p. 100.
sbr 53 (4/2001)

289

T. Gnther/C. Kriegbaum-Kling

Exhibit 30: Applied measures for incentive schemes

(sample size: 32 companies, multiple statements possible)
p r o fit
o f
b ra n d (s )
r e v e n u e s
o f
b ra n d (s )
p r o fit
o f
p ro d u c ts
m a rk e t
s h a r e
o th e rs
r e v e n u e s
o f
p ro d u c ts
R o I
o f
c o m p a n y
c o m p a n y
v a lu e
R o I
o f
c o m p a n y
u n it
b r a n d
s tr e n g th
R o I
o f
b ra n d (s )
b r a n d
v a lu e

3 .1
0

3.6 SUMMARY

6 .3
6 .3
6 .3

1 5 .6
1 0 .7

2 0

2 1 .9

3 4 .4
3 4 .4
3 1 .3

4 3 .8

6 2 .5

4 0
6 0
8 0
%
(u s e rs
o f
p e r fo r m a n c e
m e a s u r e s )

1 0 0

OF STATISTICAL CORRELATIONS

Because we choose only companies with at least one major brand for our general
sample, the interaction between relevance and perception is not statistically
testable because there is no control group. However, we can analyze the interaction by using descriptive statistics.
In Exhibit 31 we see that the tests show almost no statistically significant correlations between the perception of brands as investments and valuable intangible
assets, and the variables of the management accounting systems. However, we do
find some differences between consumer and durable goods industries in the
structure of the management accounting system. Out of 18 tested interactions,
only two (for the industry bias) show statistically significant correlations. We conclude that the current management accounting systems for brand management do
not support the companies perceived relevance of brands. Our testing confirms
that there is a wide implementation gap for the majority of the companies in the
sample.
4 CONCLUSIONS
Our study derives the following implications for the accounting, control and valuation of brands in German companies:
Brands are usually thought of as labeled products. This finding emphasizes the
close connection between the intangible asset brand and the underlying tangible product. In many cases, companies regard brands and underlying products
as one and the same.

290

sbr 53 (4/2001)

Brand Valuation

Exhibit 31: Statistically significant correlations between the analyzed variables of

the study

R e le v a n c e

Relevance of Brands as an Asset

S ta tis tic a lly
n o t
te s ta b le

Perception of Brands

P e r c e p tio n

(General Understanding of Brands)(3.2)

M a n a g e m e n t
A c c o u n tin g
S y ste m

R e s p o n s ib ility
f o r
B r a n d s
( 3 .3 )

E x is te n c e
o f
S e p a r a te




D e p a r tm e n ts

T y p e
o f
O r g a n iz a tio n

V a lu a tio n
o f
B r a n d s
( 3 .4 )

V a lu a tio n
y e s /n o

M o n e ta ry
V a lu a tio n




y e s /n o

T y p e
o f
V a lu a tio n

P u r p o s e s
o f
V a lu a tio n

In d u str y
B ia s

C o n tr o llin g
o f
B r a n d s
( 3 .5 )

S tra te g ic
a n d
T a c tic a l




I n s tr u m e n ts

P e r fo r m a n c e
M e a s u r e s

I n c e n tiv e
S c h e m e s

Influence of Type of Industry

E x p la n a tio n :

T e s te d
to
b e
s ta tis tic a lly
s ig n if ic a n t

In practice, companies do not perceive brands as independent, intangible

assets. A possible reason for this might be that only about a quarter of all companies has ever purchased or sold a brand name without its underlying
product.
Despite most companies accept and appreciate the fact that brands as long-term
investments, companies perform the actual valuation and control on a shortterm profit- or cost-oriented perspective. Furthermore, only one third of all
investigated companies believe that they should do a monetary valuation,
similar to the valuation of tangible assets. Thus we see a gap between perception and appreciation on one hand and the actual implementation on the other
hand (implementation gap).
Although they accept the valuation of brands as a suitable assessment of performance and an incentive for long-term-oriented behavior to increase a brands
value, more than 60% of all companies do not evaluate their brands.
The lack of suitable methods to assess a brands value is regarded to be a main
reason for the neglect of brand valuation.
If companies evaluate brands monetarily, the assessment is primarily based on
the brand-related profit or revenue. Long-term future-oriented evaluation
methods play no significant role in practice.
sbr 53 (4/2001)

291

T. Gnther/C. Kriegbaum-Kling

Commercially available brand valuation models (such as the so-called Brand

Performancer, Interbrand or GfK) are used infrequently.
Companies perform evaluations primarily for internal control purposes and
budgeting decisions. However, because of the irregular evaluation periods of at
least 60% of all companies, these aims are unlikely to be reached.
In strategic brand control, qualitative instruments dominate the forecast and the
analysis.
The sample companies note many factors that should influence a brands value.
Hence, we expect a complex network of causes and effects. However, our
study shows that quantitative factors (such as market shares, revenues and contribution margins) that can be evaluated more easily, are applied more often in
brand valuation than are the qualitative factors (such as product quality, customer satisfaction or the popularity of a brand) that are more difficult to derive.
A brands strength and value do not play a significant role as performance measures for incentive schemes. However, short-term measures (such as brandrelated profit, brand-related revenues, product-related profit or market share)
have great importance.
The study shows differences between companies of the consumer goods and
the durable goods industries. Consumer goods companies tend to put more
effort into their brands. We find such companies are more likely to have departments with special responsibilities for a brand that they perform brand valuations more regularly, and that they construct brand-related budgets more frequently.
We find a gap between the perception of a brand as an intangible asset that represents a long-term investment and the actual management of brands in practice.
Brand management predominantly focuses on short-term, tactical, single-period
targets. This fact becomes obvious when we look at the present definition of
brand, the state-of-the-art brand valuation, and the organization of brand management and control. We do not find any currently available method for brand
valuation that can be used for control purposes.
Despite the fact that brand management has been focused in marketing management and marketing research for decades our results are disappointing. If we
assume that the management of other intangibles such as knowledge or organizational capital is years behind the development of brand management, we might
find an inconsistency when analyzing the management, control, and valuation of
other intangibles. There remains much to be done in future research and in the
future implementation in the companies.

292

sbr 53 (4/2001)

Brand Valuation

REFERENCES
Aaker, David. A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity, Capitalizing on the Value of Brand Name.
Arthur Andersen & Co. (ed.) (1992), The Valuation of Intangible Assets, Special Report No. P 254, The
Economist Intelligence Unit, January 1992.
Barwise, Patrick/Higson, Chris/Likierman, Andrew/Marsh, Paul (1989), Accounting for Brands, London
Business School.
Barwise, Patrick/Marsh, Paul R./Wensley, Robin (1990), Brands as Separable Assets, in: Business Strategy Review, Vol. 1, Summer 1990, pp. 43 59.
Bekmeier-Feuerhahn, Sigrid (1998), Marktorientierte Markenbewertung eine konsumenten- und unternehmensbezogene Betrachtung, Habil.
Berndt, Ralph/Sander, Matthias (1994), Der Wert von Marken Begriffliche Grundlagen und Anstze
zur Markenbewertung, in: Bruhn, Manfred (ed.), Handbuch Markenartikel, Volume 2: Markentechnik, Markenintegration, Markenkontrolle, pp. 1353 1371.
Brockington, Raymond (1996), Accounting for Intangible Assets A New Perspective on the True and
Fair View.
Bruhn, Manfred (1994), Markenpolitik, in: Diller, Hermann (ed.), Vahlens Groes Marketing Lexikon,
pp. 643 645.
Bruhn, Manfred (1998), Balanced Scorecard: Ein ganzheitliches Konzept der Wertorientierten
Unternehmensfhrung?, in: Bruhn, Manfred/Lusti, Markus/Mller, Werner. R./Schierenbeck, Henner/
Studer, Tobias (ed.), Wertorientierte Unternehmensfhrung, Festschrift zum 10jhrigen Bestehen des
Wirtschaftswissenschaftlichen Zentrums (WWZ) der Universitt Basel, pp. 145 167.
Edvinsson, Leif (1997), Developing intellectual capital at Skandia, in: Long Range Planning, Vol. 30,
no. 3, pp. 366 373.
Edvinsson, Leif/Malone, Michael S. (1997), Intellectual Capital: Realizing Your Companys True Value By
Its Hidden Roots.
Franzen, Ottmar (1994), Markenbewertung mit Hilfe von Ertragswertanstzen, in: Deutsches Steuerrecht, Vol. 44, pp. 1625 1629.
Hammann, Peter (1992), Der Wert einer Marke aus betriebswirtschaftlicher und rechtlicher Sicht, in:
Dichtl, Erwin/Eggers, Walter (ed.), Marke und Markenartikel als Instrumente des Wettbewerbs,
pp. 205 245
Hentschel, Ulrich (1996), Das neue Markenrecht, in: Betrieb und Wirtschaft, Vol. 50, no. 12, pp. 438 440.
Irmscher, Markus (1993), Modelling the Brand Equity Concept, in: Marketing and Research Today,
Vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 102 110.
Kaplan, Robert S./Norton, David P. (1996), The Balanced Scorecard.
Kriegbaum, Catharina (1998), Valuation of Brands A Critical Comparison of Different Methods,
Dresdner Beitrge zur Betriebswirtschaftslehre, no. 13/98.
Kriegbaum, Catharina (2001), Markencontrolling Bewertung und Steuerung des immateriellen
Vermgenswertes Marke.
Kunisch, Rolf (1998), Markenwert und Shareholder Value, in: Marketing Journal, Vol. 31, no. 1, p. 6.
Lenz, Rainer (1996), Die Entwicklung von Handelsmarken Untersuchungen und Zukunftsperspektiven im Gebrauchsgterbereich, in: Bruhn, Manfred (ed.), Handelsmarken im Wettbewerb,
pp. 149 169.
Maul, Karl-Heinz/Menninger, Jutta (2000), Das Intellectual Property Statement eine notwendige Ergnzung des Jahresabschlusses?, in: Der Betrieb, Vol. 53, 2000, pp. 529 533.
Mussler, Dieter/Mussler, Sven (1995), Marken-Bewertung in der Praxis eine Zwischenbilanz, Teil 1, in:
Marketing-Journal, Vol. 28, March, pp. 184 187.
PriceWaterhouseCoopers/Sattler, Henrik (1999), Praxis von Markenbewertung und Markenmanagement
in deutschen Unternehmen.
Reinecke, Sven/Tomczak, Torsten (1998), Aufgabenorientiertes Marketingcontrolling, in: Reinecke,
Sven/Tomczak, Torsten/Dittrich, Sabine (ed.), Marketingcontrolling, pp. 90 109.
Roeb, Thomas (1994), Markenwert: Begriff, Berechnung, Bestimmungsfaktoren.
Rubinson, Joel R. (1994), Brand Equity zum Management komplexer Markenportfolios, in: Planung
und Analyse, Vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 48 51.

sbr 53 (4/2001)

293

T. Gnther/C. Kriegbaum-Kling

Sattler, Henrik (1994), Der Wert von Marken, Manuskripte aus den Instituten fr Betriebswirtschaftslehre der Universitt Kiel, no. 341.
Sattler, Henrik (1995), Markenbewertung, in: Zeitschrift fr Betriebswirtschaft, Vol. 65, pp. 663 682.
Sattler, Henrik (1997), Monetre Bewertung von Markenstrategien fr neue Produkte.
Sveiby, Karl E. (1997), The new organizational wealth: Managing & Measuring Knowledge-Based
Assets.
Stewart, Thomas A. (1997), Intellectual Capital, the new Wealth of Organizations.

294

sbr 53 (4/2001)