Does brand affect the firm’s value?
A survey on the top 60 best global brands.
Andrea Guerrini – Assistant Professor, Department of Economia Aziendale, University of Verona – Italy
Francesco Zaffin – Management Consultant, Vicenza – Italy
Andrea Guerrini, PhD is assistant professor at the University of Verona where he
teaches Management Control and Intangible Resource Management. He has authored
several international publications on Service Management and Controlling.
(corresponding author. E-mail: andrea.guerrini@univr.it)
Francesco Zaffin is management consultant. He provides brand development and
advertising service to SMEs in North East Italy.
Does brand affect the firm’s value?
A survey on the top 60 best global brands.
Abstract
Brand is a crucial asset for the success of a firm. There is a huge literature demonstrating how
brand affects a firm’s performance and value. By considering the top 60 global brands in
Interbrand’s annual ranking, this paper sets out to verify how brand value influences
performance and in which sector the relation between these two variables has the greatest
impact. Brand values and share prices from 2006 to 2010 were collected and their correlation
was tested through a bivariate regression model. The results obtained demonstrate that the
influence of brand on a firm’s value is not generalizable and valid for every company; in fact,
only two sectors out of the eight monitored were characterized by a strong positively brand
impact. These were sectors that supply intangible products, such as business and financial
services.
Key words: Brand Value; Stock Prices; Services Industry
Introduction
The current economic system is based mainly on innovation and knowledge, key drivers of
competitive advantage (Peteraf, 1993; Mahoney and Pandian, 1992). A competitive advantage
must be based on resources that serve to improve the efficiency and the effectiveness of
strategies (valuable), that are not widespread among competitors (rare), and that are not
imitable or substitutable (in-imitable and non-substitutable) (Barney, 1991). Such features are
typical of intangible assets, especially those developed internally (Lev, 2001). The stream of
research relating to the Resourced Based View (RBV) paradigm demonstrates that there is a
positive relationship between the quality of resources, especially intangibles, and value
created (Grant, 1991; Barney, 1991). In summary, the higher the value of resources, the more
intense the value creation process within the firm.
Intangible assets are defined as identifiable non-monetary assets that cannot be seen, touched
or physically measured, and that are controlled and identifiable as a separate asset (i.e. IAS
38). Intangible assets can be divided in two main categories: visible and invisible. The former
are those assets that can be ‘viewed’ in the financial statement, such as purchased trademarks,
patents, licences, and capitalized Research and Development (R&D) costs. The second
category includes certain key assets such as intellectual capital, relationship with
stakeholders, and internally developed trademarks that cannot be recorded in the financial
statement pursuant to International Financial Reporting Standard n° 38; however, they form a
system of resources that is relevant for the achievement of competitive advantage.
This research focuses on externally purchased trademarks and their role in the value creation
process. The aim of this article is to investigate the impact of brand quality on value created
by firm strategy during a certain period of time, as well as to examine the contextual variables
that facilitate or inhibit this relation. Specifically, the study focuses on the impact of variations
in brand value on share prices. Establishing a link between brand and firm value is important
(Yeung & Ramasay, 2008) because, like other investments, brand must produce future cash
flows to cover initial expenditure to justify the investment to the financial market; at the same
time, this makes it possible to include brand equity in the balance sheet.
Existing literature on brand equity, financial performance and shareholder value generally
demonstrates a positive relation among these variables. However, there is scarce evidence of
the estimation of the way in which a brand can affect firm value in a specific industry sector.
This paper seeks to add to the existing and relatively limited evidence in this area by
estimating the relationships between brand values and financial performance as well as stock
performance in 8 industry sectors.
To achieve this research aim, a sample was selected from the top 60 companies listed in
Interbrand’s Top 100, operating in 8 different industries. Then, stock market values and brand
values were collected from 2006 to 2010 for each company to verify the kind of relationship
linking these two variables. A total of 550 observations were collected.
This paper is structured as follows. The next section presents a literature review based on the
analysis of the role of intangible assets in the process of value creation. Then, a methods
section highlights the steps followed during research, the data collected and the statistical
tools used. Finally, a results and discussion section presents research evidence and practical
implications.
Literature review
Intangibles have been widely discussed by scholars, various studies being concerned with
their nature and the way they affect firm performance. More specifically, the authors who
investigated the relationship between intangibles and value created by a firm have observed
specific kinds of assets, such as relationships with customers, investments in R&D, brands
and patents.
In their study of non-financial measures, Ittner and Larcker (1998) demonstrated a strong
impact of customer satisfaction on the stock market, with a positive correlation between
customer satisfaction and share prices. Customer satisfaction was investigated further by
Anderson et al. (2004), who developed a theoretical framework to specify the influence of
customer satisfaction on future customer behaviors. The authors demonstrated a positive
relation between customer satisfaction and shareholder value; their results also highlight a
significant difference across industries and firms. These results make it possible to conclude
that certain intangible assets, such as market share and customer satisfaction, positively affect
the future financial performance trend, as shown also by Banker et al. (1999).
Among research enquiring into the effect of intangible investments on performance, Lev and
Sougiannis (1996) focused their study on the relevance of R&D investments, highlighting the
importance of such investments for shareholders and investors. The authors demonstrated that
high investments in R&D determined long-run stock returns. In this sense, Lev and Zarowin
(1998) also investigated the relationship between intangible assets and firm value, finding that
investments in R&D were directly linked with firm performance. In summary, these studies
presented science and technology investments as predictors of stock performance. This view
was adopted also by Deng et al. (1999) who tested the relationship between patent related
measures and stock returns, and concluded that patent citations are significantly related to
future capital market performance. With reference to technology, Aboody and Lev (1998)
examined the relevance for investors of software development costs. The authors analyzed the
relationship by linking the latter variable with stock prices and with future earnings, and
showed that annually capitalized software development costs are positively associated with
stock returns. With science and technology, intellectual capital is also crucial for firms’ longterm success, as Brennan and Connell (2000) demonstrated.
More in general, the studies cited above demonstrated that higher investment in intangibles
corresponded to growth in stock value (see also Hand and Lev, 2003).
Leaving aside the intangibles mentioned above, brand has been recognized as one of the most
important assets available to firms; several studies have focused on the relationship between
brand and firm performance. Farquhar (1989) developed a study on brand equity
management, showing that a successful brand extension leads to the creation of barriers to
entry against competitors. This was one of the first studies to evaluate the influence of brand
management on competitive performance. Then, following prior studies on intangibles, Aaker
and Jacobson (1994) showed that brand building pays off for shareholders. They proved that
stock returns are positively associated to changes in ROI and that there is a strong positive
relationship between stock returns and brand value. Lane and Jacobson (1995) observed stock
market reactions to brand extension announcements, but their findings revealed a nonlinear
relationship. Mizik and Jacobson (2008) tried to establish a link between brand attributes and
the financial bottom line, arguing that brands provide incremental information in explaining
stock returns: they found that stock returns were associated not only with accounting
performance measures, but also with perceived brand relevance and strength. Similar results
were obtained by Yeung and Ramasamy (2008) who investigated the link between brand
strength, financial ratios and stock returns. Rego et al. (2009) focused their research on
linking Consumer Based Brand Equity (CBBE) with firm risk, showing that brands with
higher levels of average CBBE help to reduce debt-holder risk, firms’ equity risk and, as a
consequence, firm’s value.
These studies focused on different aspects, yet all found that intangible assets played an
important role in creating higher value for companies, and that good management of
intangible assets led to better performance, even if the different research outcomes were in
some aspects contradictory. Without doubt, brand emerged as one of the most important assets
a company can leverage. Table 1 summarizes the literature on brand and value creation.
Table 1. Some relevant studies on the link between brand and firm value.
Following this approach, our study was designed to investigate a possible correlation between
a specific intangible asset, brand, and stock prices; moreover, unlike prior literature, it sought
to determine the role played in this relation by the industry sector in which a firm operates.
The literature on this second theme is rather scarce.
Kim and Kim (2003) found that for fast food, luxury hotel and chain restaurant brand equity
had a positive effect on firm value, showing that more than 50 per cent of performance can be
due to brand equity. Kim et al. (2003) studied in depth the hotel industry, observing a
positive correlation between brand equity and revenue per available room. Baldauf et al.
(2003) investigated building tile resellers, and provided supportive evidence that brand equity
components, such as brand awareness, perceived quality and brand loyalty, explained
respectively 34%, 31% and 17% of firm performance.
This article attempts to provide new evidence on the impact of brand on firm value by
considering a sample of companies from different industry sectors to investigate more
effectively the impact of the type of company activity on this relation.
Research questions and method
This study focused on the relationship between brand value and the share price of the
company holding this specific asset. The research questions were:
1) Does a company with a strong brand receive positive feedback from financial
markets and so record higher stock prices?
2) Do different types of company activity affect the intensity of the brand value-share
price relation?
Considering the principal results of the literature review, our first hypothesis was that a
positive correlation exists between variations in brand value and variations in share prices.
According to the prior literature, it was possible to hypothesize that growth in intangible value,
due to new investments or to an increase in current value, will positively affect stock prices
and, consequently, firm value. The second hypothesis was that the intensity of the relation
could be affected by other variables, such as industry sector. More specifically, it was
hypothesized that companies operating in a more intangible economy, such as firms providing
business and financial services or luxury goods, would show a more intense effect of brand
value on stock prices.
These research hypotheses were tested by collecting financial data for 60 listed companies for
five years. We compared the brand values provided by Interbrand’s annual Best Global
Brands report from 2006 to 2010, and the historical stock prices publicly available on the web.
Interbrand is the world’s largest brand consultancy, with 40 offices in 25 countries. Best
Global Brands includes a ranking of the best 100 brands with their specific value. A brand can
be valued according to three main criteria (Salinas and Ambler, 2009). The first is oriented
toward costs and is based on the historical cost of creation of the brand or of a similar brand.
The second looks to the market and estimates brand value by observing the current prices at
which this kind of asset can be exchanged. The third method evaluates a brand through the
discounted future cash flows that this asset will be able to generate. Interbrand develops its
report with a specific method. To include a brand in the ranking, several criteria are
considered (www.interbrand.com). 30% of revenues must come from outside the home
country and no more than 50% from the same continent: this criteria determines some
excellent outsiders not included in the ranking, such as Walmart. A second criteria states that
every brand must be present in at least 3 continents and in growing and emerging markets,
with publicly available performance data: as a consequence, BBC, Facebook and Mars are not
considered. Following selection of the companies, brand earnings are defined by multiplying
economic profit by role of brand, the portion of income attributable to brand and derived from
research or expert panel assessment. The final brand value is the result of branded earnings
actualized by a brand strength discount rate.
Of the three methods presented above, the one applied by Interbrand is based on discounted
cash flows generated by the brand.
Our sample was defined by considering Interbrand’s 2010 Best Global Brands report. The top
60 companies monitored were categorized in 8 industries, as presented in table 2.
Table 2. The research sample
Most of the sample companies are listed on the New York Stock Exchange, the world’s
largest stock exchange by market capitalization; we used the closing share prices on the last
trading day for each year considered. For the few companies listed on other stock markets, we
used historical exchange rates to convert prices into USD, and then compared these with the
other values collected. From the initial sample, we had have to exclude five companies owing
to lack of data. First of all, MTV was excluded because it owns a brand but is not listed, so it
was not possible to record its share prices. Then, other companies such as RIM and Thomson
Reuters were included in the Top 100 Best Global Brand for a shorter period than time
horizon. In total 550 observations were analyzed, after collecting brand values and stock
prices recorded at the end of each year from 2006 to 2010 for 55 companies.
Following collection of data on brand value and share prices, annual share price variations
and brand value variations for each company were calculated.
Then, the hypothesis was tested using a bivariate regression analysis model that included the
abovementioned variations. The model was applied to the entire sample and also to each
subsample of companies operating in individual sectors to identify possible differences across
industries.
Results and discussion
This section presents and discusses the key research findings. Table 3 shows variations in
brand values and share prices from 2006 to 2010 for each of the 55 companies.
Table 3. Sample company data
First of all the regression model was applied to the entire sample. The dependent variable,
measured by the annual stock price variation was negatively correlated to the independent
variable, identified by annual brand value variation (β = - 0.0190). However the p-value was
very high (p-Value: 0,75) and consequently this relation was not significant. As a result
hypothesis one had to be rejected. This result was clearly due to the great number of variables
affecting stock prices aside from brand. As was widely demonstrated by prior studies, stock
prices depend also on other financial indicators, such as annual net income and cash flows,
financial ratios and specific occurrences (change of governance, entry of a new competitor to
the market and so on).
Despite this far from exciting result, the hypothesis that brand value affects share price in
specific industry sectors was tested. Table 4 presents the mean value of share price and brand
value variations for each industry.
Table 4. Mean brand values and share price variations for each industry.
The data highlights some differences among sectors. More specifically, it seems that brand
values and stock prices have similar variations in some industries, such as Business Services,
Financial Services and Fast Moving Consumer Goods. This suggests that in these sectors a
correlation exists between the variables observed. To investigate this aspect further, the
regression model was applied to each industry. Table 5 presents β coefficients and related pValues.
Table 5. β coefficient and p-Value.
Six industries out of eight were characterized by a strong influence of brand on stock value. It
is interesting to observe the nature of this relationship (positive or negative) and its intensity.
Four sectors (Automotive, Diversified, FMCG and Luxury) presented a negative relation:
hence an increase (decrease) of brand value was related to a decrease (increase) of the stock
price. This unexpected relation is attributable to other variables, mentioned at the beginning
of this section, that may condition stock prices.
Conversely, two services industries, Business Services and Financial Services, were
characterized by a positive relation between the two variables. So, an increase (decrease) of
brand value determined a certain increase (decrease) of stock prices. These results show that
brand can dramatically influence firm value, but only in some specific sectors, especially
those offering ‘only’ flows of know-how rather than tangible products to their customers. For
the Business Services sector, which includes global leaders in Information & Technology,
such as IMB and SAP, and in Consulting and System Integration, as Accenture, results
obtained demonstrated that brand values and stock prices varied by the same proportion, with
a β coefficient of 0.85. As a matter of fact, these latter companies base their success above all
on brand, rather than other resources. The same considerations can be made for the Financial
Services sector, even though in this case negative variations were recorded for both variables.
In conclusion, while hypothesis 1 was rejected, hypothesis 2 was partially accepted. The
hypothesized relation affected the Business Services and the Financial Services sectors, while
the Luxury industry showed a negative correlation between brand and firm value. This result,
which differs from what was was initially forecasted, could be due to the small number of
firms included in the Luxury sector (only three) or to the impact of other variables not
observed in this study.
Conclusion
This study enquired into the effects produced by brand on a firm’s value. It was based on the
RBV paradigm, whereby a competitive advantage is created by a stock of resources held by a
firm: among these, intangible assets play a key role in the process of value creation, on
account of their specific features such as rarity, imperfect imitability and substitution. Prior
literature provided evidence of the effect of brand on firm value: the majority of scholars
showed that stock prices were influenced by various aspects including the brand value trend.
Conversely, this article found no linear correlation between the two variables investigated, if
all the 550 observations were considered. In summary, it is not possible to generalize that
brand strength influences firm value. Consequently, our first hypothesis was rejected.
However, the data confirmed the second hypothesis that a correlation exists between
variations in brand value and variations in stock prices characteristic of intangible asset
intensive industries, such as Business Services and Financial Services. This implies that
companies operating in these two industries earn a greater part of their revenues from brand
awareness, perceived quality and loyalty compared to firms from the other sectors monitored.
In conclusion, this research shows that not every company needs to pay attention to brand to
the same extent. Brand is a critical success factor particularly in industries that do not offer a
tangible product, so that customers have to evaluate the quality of supply through brand
power.
One strength of this study was its cross-sectoral point of view, although it was characterized
by two main limitations. The first was that the dataset included only two variables, brand
value and share prices variations, while in fact other measures could be monitored to explain
the trend of the dependent variable. Secondly, to investigate the intensity of the relation
between brand and share price in each sector, more robust results would have been obtained
from a larger sample.
References
Aaker, D. A. (1995) Building strong brands. Brandweek 36(37): 28-34.
Aaker, D. A. and Jacobson, R. (1994) Study shows brand-building pays off for stockholders.
Advertising Age 65(30): 18.
Aboody, D. and Lev, B. (1998) The value relevance of intangibles: the case of software
capitalization. Journal of Accounting Research 36(3): 161-191.
Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C. and Mazvancheryl, S. K. (2004) Customer satisfaction and
shareholder value. The Journal of Marketing 68(4): 172-185.
Baldauf , A . , Cravens , K . S . and Binder , G . ( 2003 ) Performance consequences of brand
equity management: Evidence from organizations in the value chain. Journal of Product And
Brand Management 12(4): 220 – 236.
Banker, R. D., Potter, D. and Srinivasan, D. (1999) An empirical investigation of an incentive
plan that includes nonfinancial performance measures. The Accounting Review, 75(1): 65-92.
Barney, J. (1991) Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of
Management 17(1): 99-120.
Brennan, N. and Connell, B. (2000) Intellectual capital: current issues and policy implications.
Journal of Intellectual Capital. 1(3): 206-240.
Deng, Z., Lev, B. and Narin, F. (1999) Science and Technology as predictors of stock
performance. Financial Analyst Journal 55(3): 20-32.
Farquhar, P. H. (1989) Managing brand equity. Marketing Research 1(9): 24-33.
Grant, R. (1991) The Resource-based Theory of Competitive Advantage: Implication for
Strategy Formulation. California Management Review 33(3): 114-135
Hand, J. and Lev, B. (2003) Intangible assets: values, measures, and risks. Oxford University
Press, Oxford
Ittner, C. D. and Larcker, D. F. (1998) Are nonfinancial measures leading indicators of
financial performance? An analysis of customer satisfaction. Journal of Accounting Research
36: 1-46.
Kim , H . B . , Woo , G . H . and Jeong , A . A . ( 2003 ) The effect of consumer-based brand
equity on firms’ financial performance. Journal of Consumer Marketing 20(4): 335 – 351.
Kim , W . G . and Kim , H . B . ( 2004 ) Measuring customer-based restaurant brand equity:
Investigating the relationship between brand equity and firms’ performance. Cornell Hotel &
Restaurant Administration Quarterly 45(2): 115 – 131.
Lane, V. and Jacobson, R. (1995) Stock market reactions to brand extension announcements:
The effects of brand attitude and familiarity. The Journal of Marketing 59(1): 63-77.
Lev, B. (2001) Intangibles: Management, Measurement, and Reporting. Donnelley and Sons,
Harrisonburg, Virginia.
Lev, B. and Sougiannis, T. (1996) The capitalization, amortization, and value-relevance of
R&D. Journal of Accounting and Economics 21(1): 107-138.
Lev, B. and Zarowin, P. (1998) The market valuation of R&D expenditures, NYU Stern
School of Business, New York.
Mahoney, J. T. and Pandian, J. R. (1992) The Resource-Based View Within the Conversation
of Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal, 13(5): 363-380.
Mizik, N. and Jacobson, R. (2008) The financial value impact of perceptual brand attributes.
Journal of Marketing Research 45(1): 15-32.
Peteraf, M. A. (1993) The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view.
Strategic Management Journal, 14(3): 179-191.
Rego, L. L., Billet, M. T. and Morgan, N. A. (2009) Consumer-Based Brand Equity and Firm
Risk. Journal of Marketing, 73(6): 47-60.
Yeung, M. and Ramasamy, B (2008) Brand value and firm performance nexus: Further
empirical evidence. Journal of Brand Management 15(5): 322-335.
Table 1. Some relevant studies on the link between brand and firm value.
Authors
Published in
Focus on
Farquhar (1989)
Journal of
Advertising
Research
Aaker &
Jacobson (1994)
Advertising
Age
Kallapur &
Kwan (2004)
The
Accounting
Review
Mizik &
Jacobson (2008)
Journal of
Marketing
Research
Explaining stock
return
Yeung &
Ramasamy
(2008)
Journal of
Brand
Management
Link between brand
value and firm's
performance
Rego, Billet &
Morgan (2009)
Journal of
Marketing
Consumer Based
Brand Equity and
firm risk relationship
Brand equity
management
Brand building and
stockholder
relationship
The value relevance
and reliability of
brand assets
Method
Sample
A successful brand
extension leads to barriers
to entry
Theoretical Study
n/a
EquiTrend database
34 major US
corporations
Global Vantage's
1998
33 UK firms for
financial year since
1985
Y&R BAV database;
CRSP database;
COMPUSTAT
quarterly database;
Thomson Financial
database
The Business Week
Top 100
Global Brand Value
and a proprietary
financial
database, Thomson
Banker One Database
EquiTrend database;
COMPUSTAT
database; CRSP
database
Results
275 "monobrand"
publicly traded
firms
50 US companies
over the 2000-2005
period
252 firms over the
2000-2006 period
A strong positive
association between brand
equity and stock return
Positive association
between market returns
and brand asset values
Analysis shows that
perceived brand relevance
and energy provide
incremental information
to accounting measures in
explaining stock returns
The study proved
a link between the brand
equity measure (brand
values) and multiple
profitability ratios and
stock market performance
measures
Firms that possess brands
with strong CBBE are
able to significantly
reduce their equity risk
Table 2. The research sample
Industry
N° of companies
Automotive
8
Business Services
5
Diversified
5
Electronics, Computer&Internet
14
Financial Services
6
FMCG
10
Food & Beverages
4
Luxury
3
Total
55
Table 3. Sample company data
2007
Sector/ firm
Automotive
Audi
BMW
Daimler
Ford
Honda
Porsche
Toyota
Volkswagen
Business Services
Accenture
Cisco Systems
IBM
Oracle
Sap
Diversified
Adidas
Caterpillar
General Electric
Nike
Siemens
Elect. Com& Int.
Amazon
Apple
Canon
Dell
eBay
Google
HP
Intel Corp.
Microsoft
Nintendo
Nokia
Panasonic
Sony
Yahoo
Financial Services
American Express
Citi
Goldman Sachs
HSBC
JPMorgan
Morgan Stanley
FMCG
Avon
Colgate
Danone
Gillette
Heinz
Johnson&Johnson
Kellog's
Kimberly
L'Oreal
Nestlè
Food & Beverages
Budweiser
Coca-Cola
McDonald's
Pepsi
Luxury
Gucci
Hermes
Louis Vuitton
stock price
variations
23.43%
35.62%
-1.48%
41.24%
-10.39%
-15.77%
59.69%
-20.83%
99.34%
7.61%
-2.44%
-0.47%
12.38%
32.11%
-3.54%
30.95%
47.62%
18.31%
-0.59%
29.71%
59.68%
43.46%
134.46%
134.78%
-18.62%
-2.86%
10.38%
51.25%
23.17%
31.51%
19.37%
117.15%
88.14%
1.74%
26.84%
-8.93%
-15.59%
-14.26%
-47.07%
7.11%
-8.41%
-9.75%
-21.13%
20.52%
19.64%
19.50%
18.55%
64.04%
3.71%
1.03%
4.66%
2.05%
43.40%
28.65%
20.73%
0.00%
27.43%
34.15%
21.34%
61.15%
41.14%
1.34%
140.96%
brand equity
variations
6.89%
16.83%
10.17%
8.13%
-18.76%
5.57%
10.46%
14.78%
7.94%
7.20%
8.44%
8.94%
1.58%
8.63%
8.42%
7.20%
11.12%
10.46%
5.44%
10.15%
-1.16%
10.17%
14.96%
20.89%
6.15%
-5.73%
10.38%
44.13%
8.50%
-4.22%
3.13%
17.85%
11.83%
3.97%
10.36%
0.18%
10.09%
6.04%
9.25%
10.61%
16.70%
12.03%
5.92%
5.21%
1.25%
6.96%
7.17%
4.27%
5.16%
7.89%
6.44%
-5.00%
10.22%
7.75%
1.47%
-0.09%
-2.50%
6.90%
1.56%
11.12%
7.53%
10.40%
15.42%
2008
stock price
variations
-39.62%
-30.81%
-49.07%
-59.80%
-65.97%
-35.44%
-96.22%
-38.44%
58.82%
-24.44%
-8.99%
-39.82%
-22.73%
-21.65%
-29.02%
-42.98%
-47.98%
-38.44%
-56.19%
-20.44%
-51.86%
-48.38%
-45.23%
-56.24%
-31.35%
-57.77%
-57.94%
-55.73%
-27.95%
-44.74%
-45.32%
-49.48%
-58.81%
-39.14%
-60.10%
-47.55%
-56.73%
-64.33%
-76.29%
-60.26%
-42.07%
-27.64%
-69.80%
-25.75%
-39.21%
-12.08%
-32.79%
-50.36%
-19.45%
-10.30%
-16.81%
-23.94%
-39.24%
-13.32%
-2.91%
38.88%
-26.85%
4.09%
-27.77%
-36.26%
-46.62%
10.55%
-72.70%
brand equity
variations
5.04%
11.12%
7.80%
8.52%
-12.09%
6.01%
4.53%
6.17%
8.23%
9.54%
8.94%
11.56%
3.40%
11.11%
12.70%
4.42%
6.40%
4.53%
2.94%
5.57%
2.66%
8.93%
18.91%
24.51%
2.79%
1.22%
7.18%
43.47%
5.91%
0.99%
0.51%
13.48%
6.67%
3.53%
5.24%
-9.41%
-6.08%
5.34%
-13.94%
-3.11%
-3.10%
-5.77%
-15.90%
5.10%
3.16%
6.84%
7.75%
11.14%
1.56%
3.98%
3.95%
0.78%
6.57%
5.23%
2.16%
-1.84%
2.06%
5.62%
2.80%
7.02%
7.24%
7.52%
6.30%
2009
stock price
variations
53.19%
7.30%
44.55%
39.23%
336.68%
56.80%
-18.13%
27.83%
-68.76%
37.93%
26.56%
44.65%
54.00%
36.35%
28.07%
21.94%
40.31%
27.58%
-7.41%
28.17%
21.06%
50.09%
160.24%
140.18%
33.29%
37.28%
68.55%
99.35%
39.37%
36.73%
54.88%
-34.54%
-19.39%
15.35%
32.48%
37.54%
48.51%
116.11%
-52.98%
95.98%
16.96%
30.46%
84.54%
24.93%
31.09%
19.86%
1.83%
83.39%
13.72%
7.66%
20.69%
20.80%
28.54%
21.79%
2.66%
-24.13%
25.27%
0.08%
9.41%
-4.36%
-73.33%
-4.21%
64.47%
brand equity
variations
-7.54%
-7.34%
-6.98%
-6.69%
-11.28%
-6.69%
-5.37%
-7.99%
-7.99%
0.09%
-2.99%
3.40%
2.00%
-0.95%
-1.00%
-2.59%
6.41%
-5.37%
-10.00%
4.00%
-7.99%
0.97%
22.13%
12.31%
-4.00%
-12.01%
-8.02%
24.97%
2.50%
-2.00%
-4.00%
4.99%
-3.00%
-1.31%
-12.00%
-7.01%
-24.87%
-31.76%
-49.17%
-10.48%
-20.03%
-11.35%
-26.41%
4.10%
-6.59%
1.76%
10.21%
0.67%
9.00%
7.40%
7.39%
-5.00%
3.20%
13.00%
3.49%
3.45%
3.10%
3.95%
3.45%
-0.87%
-0.87%
0.50%
-2.23%
2010
stock price
brand equity
variations
variations
34.16%
1.01%
18.26%
9.00%
85.06%
3.00%
36.26%
5.50%
67.90%
2.71%
16.90%
3.95%
27.45%
-6.00%
-6.30%
-16.40%
27.74%
6.29%
9.99%
4.78%
16.84%
-2.97%
-15.46%
5.40%
12.35%
7.50%
27.72%
8.63%
8.48%
5.37%
34.17%
-2.10%
20.44%
1.82%
64.34%
-6.00%
21.28%
-10.40%
29.29%
4.00%
35.50%
0.10%
7.78%
7.73%
35.52%
23.00%
53.50%
37.00%
22.14%
10.00%
-5.64%
-13.71%
18.27%
15.01%
-3.48%
36.20%
-17.72%
11.50%
3.24%
4.50%
-8.40%
7.50%
9.46%
-2.39%
-19.22%
-15.40%
-1.74%
2.98%
23.86%
-4.99%
-0.89%
-2.99%
5.60%
4.68%
6.05%
-6.86%
43.81%
-13.33%
-0.02%
1.34%
-10.04%
10.00%
1.87%
28.94%
-8.07%
8.00%
6.33%
4.51%
-7.75%
3.15%
-2.17%
5.63%
2.57%
6.76%
42.40%
2.00%
15.67%
4.00%
-3.97%
8.01%
-3.61%
5.88%
-1.05%
3.00%
-0.48%
3.01%
21.65%
3.62%
14.09%
3.17%
10.80%
3.54%
14.67%
2.50%
23.09%
4.04%
7.81%
2.59%
36.77%
3.17%
5.25%
2.00%
56.96%
4.00%
48.11%
3.50%
Table 4. Mean brand values and share price variations for each industry.
Mean stocks price
Mean brand equity
variations
variations
17.79%
1.35%
7.77%
5.40%
11.02%
1.73%
13.24%
6.95%
-4.55%
-4.04%
6.51%
4.73%
8.64%
2.57%
14.33%
5.11%
Sector
Automotive
Business Services
Diversified
Electronics, Computer&Internet
Financial Services
FMCG
Food & Beverages
Luxury
Table 5. β coefficient and p-Value.
Industry
Automotive
Business Services
Diversified
Electronics
FMCG
Financial Services
Food & Beverages
Luxury
β
-0.4123
0.8589
-0.4351
-0.0172
-0.3557
0.3803
-0.1497
-0.7354
p-Value
0.0082*
0.0000*
0.0297*
0.8879
0.0112*
0.0382*
0.5289
0.0018*