Quantcast
Xbox is the 87th Most Valuable Brand in the world

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Xbox is the 87th Most Valuable Brand in the world

Yes sure... Thanks for enlightening us. And of course the jabs on the first paragraph gave a nice touch.

Would be good if this supposed brand value would sell stuff and bring revenue.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network
VAMatt said:
I think a lot of you are missing the point. Value of a brand does not equal sales of that brand's products or services. Taking XBox versus Playstation, XB may simply be more recognizable to more people. In other words, if you say Xbox to your grandma, she knows its a gaming brand. If you say Playstation, she thinks is a playground at a McDonalds. I think we can say with certainty that XBox is much more recognizable than Switch. From a pure mass market branding perspective, Switch is a terrible name.

To be clear, I didn't read the methodology used here. But, I have studied branding quite a bit. This is my speculation as to how the rankings worked out this way.

That must be why in Europe as a whole consoles as a whole is called "playstations".

Not sure where in the world a grandma would know what a Xbox is but would think playstation is a playground on McDonalds.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Nice paper! Interesting read. Definitely heard of brandz before.



Fancy hearing me on an amateur podcast with friends gushing over one of my favourite games? https://youtu.be/1I7JfMMxhf8

VAMatt said:
I think a lot of you are missing the point. Value of a brand does not equal sales of that brand's products or services. Taking XBox versus Playstation, XB may simply be more recognizable to more people. In other words, if you say Xbox to your grandma, she knows its a gaming brand. If you say Playstation, she thinks is a playground at a McDonalds. I think we can say with certainty that XBox is much more recognizable than Switch. From a pure mass market branding perspective, Switch is a terrible name.

To be clear, I didn't read the methodology used here. But, I have studied branding quite a bit. This is my speculation as to how the rankings worked out this way.

What?  There is no universe where PlayStation or Nintendo has worse brand recognition than Xbox.

Much of the world calls video game systems "Nintendos" or "PlayStations".  If I ask any of my grandma's what an Xbox is, they're not going to have any clue.  

Nintendo in particular has decades worth of building up their brand.  



COKTOE said:
Azzanation said:

This is based off research, do you have any evidence or links to say otherwise? Or are you basing your opinion only on sales?

Research and evidence.....Do you have any evidence the basis of this contention is based off of research?

The wikipedia page for BrandZ, the entity doing the "research" in the linked "article" has only slightly more substance than a fortune cookie.

This is literally the biggest entry about them on their on their page:

Controversy

"The credibility of the Interbrand and BrandZ league tables have been cast into doubt by an article written in Marketing Week by Mark Ritson.[4] The lack of clear definitions and valuation dates in the both companies methodology raise questions about the subjectivity involved in brand valuations. Being part of multinational advertising groups, Interbrand and Kantar Millward Brown also suffer from the risk of objectivity. Transparencyand objectivity are two of the requirements of the ISO 10668 standard of monetary brand valuations."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrandZ

That puts this article into perspective.

VAMatt said:
Taking XBox versus Playstation, XB may simply be more recognizable to more people. 

That's definitely not the case.
Microsoft, yes. Not Xbox.
And this isn't comparing Xbox to Switch. It's comparing Xbox to Nintendo.

Nintendo and Playstation are definitely way more recognizable brands worldwide.
I know countries where they say "Playstation" or "Nintendo" instead of gaming, even if they don't know a thing about videogames.

If you check Forbes Top 100 lists, none of these three brands are even in the Top 100.
Kellog's is #100.

https://www.forbes.com/powerful-brands/list/#tab:rank

Last edited by Hiku - on 09 August 2019

Around the Network

Interesting. Would love to see their methodology and research. Kudos to Papa Phil.



I haven't looked into this too much, but I don't agree with the people who are suggesting that the research firm is skewing the rankings for their own benefit. Why would they put Microsoft in 87th place if that were the case. Also, this seems to be much bigger than just Nintendo vs Sony vs Microsoft. The world is bigger than gaming, and when the top ranking on the list is 87th place for gaming, then you can see that this research firm probably made no conscious effort to put Xbox ahead of Nintendo/Sony.

I'd like to know the precise ranking metric, as there are not many metrics where Xbox would outrank Nintendo / Sony, but clearly one exists.



Good work ms the new strategy seems to work



Jigsawx1 said:
Good work ms the new strategy seems to work

I remember you claiming their strategy would make Xbox outsell Playstation with the release of X1X, how is that strategy working?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

The results don't make sense to me, but I'll concede I'm not an expert.