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:
"The credibility of the Interbrand and BrandZ league tables have been cast into doubt by an article written in Marketing Week by Mark Ritson. 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."
That puts this article into perspective.
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.
Last edited by Hiku - on 09 August 2019
Kellog's is #100.