Product & brand mangement, Praxis Business School

1. “Brand is a valuable asset of the corporation,
and should be treated like any other asset.
This means it must be invested in, put to
work to generate value and held accountable
for the results.”
-Joanna Seddon, Millward Brown

2. Brand Tracker
Phase III– Brand Value
Measurement
A report submitted to
Prof. Srinivas Govindrajan
In partial fulfilment of the requirement of the
course
Product and Brand Management
On 16th September 2012
By
Abinas Mishra (B11002)
Anubhuti Anup (B11008)
Piyush Das (B11031)
Sumedha Dutta (B110047)
2|P ag e

3. Executive Summary
During the 1980’s when there were a series of merger and acquisition, a trend was observed
that the acquiring companies were paying over and above the book value of the acquired
companies. This created a ruffle in the accounting world and was resolved when experts
came up with the idea that brands have an inherent value of their own. During this period the
concept of Brand valuation was established. Brand valuation is the process in which the total
financial value of the brand is estimated. There are several models that are used for Brand
Valuation but Interbrand’s valuation model is the widely accepted one.
Interbrand’s method measures brand value under three pillars viz. financial
performance of the organization, role of the brand in the purchase decision and strength of the
brand to ensure expected future earnings. A variation of this model was used to calculate the
value of Brand Colgate and one of its competitors (Dabur).
The annual report of the two companies was analysed to create a model that will give
the estimated economic profits for the next five years as well as till perpetuity. The CAGR
that was used to forecast future cash flow was taken by taking industry reports (18%).
To calculate the role of branding index and brand strength score a survey was undertaken
with the help of questionnaire and with a sample size of 30. The above two parameters were
measured across ten dimensions: Clarity, Commitment, Protection, Responsiveness,
Authenticity, Relevance, Differentiation, Consistency, Presence and Understanding.
The brand value was calculated by multiplying the economic profit or the intangible
earnings with role of brand index and subsequently discounting it with the discounting rate
derived from the brand strength score. The value of Role of Branding Index for Colgate is
83.67 and that of Dabur is 68.27. Thus, for Colgate-Pamolive, 83.67% of its intangible
earnings are generated from the brand Colgate. From our valuation, we derived that Colgate
was valued at Rs 6088.29 Crores (For its Indian operation) while Dabur was valued at Rs
678.21 Crores (Oral Care business).
From this analysis we interpreted that Colgate should continue to follow its strategy
of redefining the oral care segment and bring in more innovative products for the different
identified segments. Dabur has been performing well but is not able to create a strong brand
connect and hence should try to reposition itself and make it relevant to a wider mass.
3|P ag e

4. Table of Contents
Executive Summary……....................................................................................... 3
Defining brand valuation.................................................................................... 5
Brand Value Measurement – Interbrand Model …………………………….6-9
Measurement of brand value………………………………………………………………10-15
Recommendation……………………………………………………………………………………..16
Annexure…………………………………………………………………………………………..17-20
References............................................................................................................... 21
4|P ag e

5. What is a brand?
A brand is a future generator of cash flows, known for its values and an intangible asset.
For a common man it is just a name or a symbol through which he remembers or recalls a
particular product or a set of products .A brand enables a consumer to differentiate amongst
the available product. A brand is built by the consumer’s perception about the products.
Why is a brand valuable?
A brand is associated with tangible and emotional attributes that is intended to associate a
good or a service of one seller in order to differentiate them from other competitors selling
the same kind of goods or services. This makes a brand very valuable to the company that it
belongs to.
Why value a brand?
The concept of brand valuation emerged in late 1970's when conglomerates were looking at
low profile but sound, business houses for acquisition .At the time of negotiation the balance
sheet of such target company needed to be spruced up by the intangible but yet very much
real worth of the brands marketed by these businesses. Valuing brands therefore necessitate
breaking up a company into its component brands and then valuing these brand by some
applicable methods. The main argument against valuing a brand and pegging a financial
figure to it is a subjectivity and resulting arbitrariness in and infrequency of transactions. The
following are just some scenarios that might require a brand valuation
Transactional
 Mergers and Acquisition
 Joint Ventures
 Licensing Negotiation
 Regulatory and Accounting compliance
Litigation
 Damage/loss calculation
 Licensing and royalty rate issues
Marketing/Internal
 Brand Management strategy
 ROI/marketing investment allocation
5|P ag e

6. Measuring Brand Value
Interbrand Model

7. Interbrand valuation methodology
Interbrand, one of the premier brand valuation firms, evaluated a number of different
approaches in developing its brand valuation methodology. Its goal was to identify an
approach that incorporated marketing, financial and legal aspects, followed by fundamental
accounting concepts. Finally it decided to approach the problem of brand valuation by
assuming that the value of a brand, like the value of any other economic asset, was the
present worth of the benefits of future ownership. In other words, brand valuation is based on
an assessment of what the value is today of the earnings or cash flow that the brand can be
expected to generate in the future.
According to Interbrand, to estimate brand value, it is necessary to identify projected future
earnings for the brand and the discount rate to adjust these earnings for inflation and risk.
Based on all these criteria, Interbrand developed two step method of calculating brand value:
I. Identifying the true earnings and cash flow
II. Capitalizing the earnings by applying a multiple to historic earnings as a discount rate
to future cash flow
The three key aspects that contribute to the assessment are: the financial performance of the
branded products or services, the role of brand in the purchase decision process, and the
strength of the brand.
FINANCIAL ROLE OF THE BRAND
PERFORMANCE BRAND STRENGTH
BRAND VALUATION
Operating Profit – Economic Profit Branded Earnings
Taxes = X X
Role of Brand = Brand Strength
NOPAT - WACC = Discount Rate = $
7|P ag e

8. FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE
Financial performance measures an organization’s raw financial return to the investors. For
this reason, it is analyzed as economic profit, a concept akin to Economic Value Added
(EVA).
To determine economic profit, we remove taxes from net operating profit to get to net
operating profit after tax (NOPAT). From NOPAT, a capital charge is subtracted to account
for the capital used to generate the brand’s revenues; this provides the economic profit for
each analyzed year.
For purposes of the rankings, the capital charge rate is set by the industry weighted average
cost of capital (WACC). The financial performance is analyzed for a five-year forecast and
for a terminal value.
ROLE OF BRAND
Role of brand measures the portion of the decision to purchase that is attributable to brand.
The role of brand determinations for this study derives, depending on the brand, from one of
three methods: primary research, a review of historical roles of brand for companies in that
industry, or expert panel assessment.
BRAND STRENGTH
Brand strength measures the ability of the brand to secure the delivery of expected future
earnings. Brand strength is reported on a 0 to 100 scale, where 100 is perfect, based on an
evaluation across 10 dimensions of brand activation.
The ten dimensions are divided into internal and external factors.
INTERNAL FACTORS
CLARITY
Clarity internally about what the brand stands for in terms of its values, positioning and
proposition
COMMITMENT
It deals with internal commitment to the brand, and a belief internally in the importance
of brand. It gives the extent to which the brand receives support in terms of time,
influence, and investment
PROTECTION
Protection deals with how secure the brand is across a number of dimensions: legal
protection, propriety ingredients or design, scale or geographical spread
RESPONSIVENESS
It measures the ability to respond to market changes, challenges and opportunities. The
brand should have a sense of leadership internally and a desire and ability to constantly
evolve and renew itself
8|P ag e

9. EXTERNAL FACTORS
AUTHENTICITY
It measures the brand’s internal truth and capability, well defined heritage, well
grounded value set and delivery of high expectations that customers have of it
RELEVANCE
Relevance measures how well does the brand fit with customer/consumer needs,
desires, and decision criteria across all relevant demographics and geographics
DIFFERENTIATION
This is the degree to which customers perceive the brand to have a positioning that is
distinct from the competition
CONSISTENCY
This measures the degree to which a brand is experienced without fail across all
touch-points or formats
PRESENCE
Presence is the degree to which a brand feels omnipresent and is talked about
positively by consumers, customers and opinion formers in both traditional and social
media
UNDERSTANDING
The brand is not only recognized by customers, but there is also an in-depth
knowledge and understanding of its distinctive qualities and characteristics
9|P ag e

10. Measurement of brand value
(for detailed workings please check the excel sheets attached)
• A variation of the Interbrand brand valuation model was used to calculate the brand value
of Colgate and its competitors Dabur.
• For the purpose of the research a questionnaire was designed and 30 respondents were
surveyed. This was done to find out the role of branding index and the brand strength score.
(See annexure for the questionnaire).
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The annual reports of the parent companies of the 2 brands were analyzed to develop
the Discounted Cash Flow model.
For the financial years ending 2009, 2010 and 2011 the figures were directly picked
up from the audited financial statements and for the year ending 2012, data was
extrapolated from the unaudited quarterly reports published.
The financial statement of Colgate is given a weightage of 96% and that of Dabur is
given 18%, since that is the contribution of Oral care in the overall respectively.
The overall growth of the industry was taken from a industry report and keeping that
as the base the assumed YoY growth rate for the next 5 years was arrived at. This
growth rate was kept same for the 2 brands for the ease of comparison.
All expenses have been treated as a percentage of revenue while revenue, assets and
current liabilities were treated as a function of the growth rate.
For extrapolating the expenses for the next 5 years the average value of the last 3
years have been taken into consideration.
One WACC and cost of equity is taken care of as Colgate is not having any debt.
The industry WACC was taken as the capital charge to arrive at the intangible
earnings.
Total assets – Current Liabilities = Net Plant Property and equipments
(Net Plant Property and Equipments * Capital Charge) – NOPAT = Intangible
earnings
10 | P a g e

11. Branding Index
• The Branding index is the parameter which leads to purchase of a particular brand apart
from price and feature.
• A research was conducted where the respondents were asked to rate, on a scale of 1 to 5
where 1 is the lowest and 5 is the highest, Colgate, Dabur and Pepsodent on the 10
parameters on the Interbrand Valuation model mentioned above.
• The mean scores for each parameter and for each brand have been taken and multiplied with
weights.
• 10% weight age have been assigned to each attribute. The weighted average total and
subsequently the brand index have been prepared for each brand.
• The above picture shows the position of each brand in the branding index.
• The closer the value to 100 the more sales is coming due to the brand. The closer to 100 the
more sales coming due to the feature of parent company i.e. supply chain etc. Colgate had
highest score among all 3 brands i.e. of 83.67.
Brand earnings = Intangible Earnings * Role of Brand Index
11 | P a g e

12. Brand Strength
• For calculating the brand strength, the sum total of all the rates for the brands have been
taken.
• Since brand strength is a relative measure the total of each attribute have been taken and
accordingly, by calculating the average of the sum, weights have been assigned to each
attribute.
• The scores of each brand for each attribute have been calculated by multiplying the weights
with the average values.
• The sum total of all the attributes gives the brand strength score for the respective brands.
• The discount rate is used to calculate the risk associated with the cash flows of the brand.
• The industry WACC that has been calculated taking average of WACC and cost of equity
of 2 brands.
• Interbrand uses a proprietary algorithm which calculates the brand discounting factor from
the brand strength score.
• Here in our research, we have assumed that a brand strength score of 100 would entitle a
discounting rate which is equivalent to the industry WACC.
• The brand earnings were discounted with the brand discount rate (arrived from brand
strength score) to arrive at the present value of the future cash flows with year 0 being 2012.
12 | P a g e

13. Particulars Brand Strength Score WACC
Industry 100 10.81%
Pepsodent 77.79 13.90%
Colgate 83.71 12.92%
Dabur 68.34 15.82%
13 | P a g e

14. Brand Valuation
All the present values of the future cash flows including the terminal cash flows were
added to arrive at the value of the brand in the year 2011
Brands Value (as of 2012 )(in millions)
Colgate 6088.29
Dabur 678.21
Dabur
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total Net Revenues 778.1813 894.9085 1020.196 1163.023 1314.216
Cost of Sales 645.1618 741.9361 845.8071 964.2201 1089.569
Cost of Sales as a % of
Revenue 82.91%
Gross Margin 133.0195 152.9724 174.3886 198.803 224.6474
Depreciation 8.526573 9.805559 11.17834 12.7433 14.39993
Depreciation as a % of
Revenue 1.10%
Overheads 645.1618 741.9361 845.8071 964.2201 1089.569
Overheads as a % of revenue 82.91%
EBITA 124.4929 143.1669 163.2102 186.0597 210.2474
Applicable Taxes 26.14352 30.06505 34.27415 39.07253 44.15196
NOPAT 98.34942 113.1018 128.9361 146.9871 166.0955
Total Assets 462.2248 531.5585 605.9767 690.8134 780.6192
Current Liabilities 266.6367 306.6322 349.5607 398.4992 450.3041
NET PPE 195.5881 224.9263 256.416 292.3142 330.3151
Capital Charge 21.15285 24.32578 27.73139 31.61378 35.72358
Intangible Earnings 77.19657 88.77606 101.2047 115.3734 130.3719
Role of Branding Index
Brand Earnings 52.69953 60.60446 69.08908 78.76155 89.00055
Brand Strength Score
Brand Discount Rate
Discounted Brand Earnings 45.50123 45.17909 44.46914 43.77035 42.70462
Terminal Growth Rate 414.42
Brand value 678.21
14 | P a g e

15. Colgate
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total Net Revenues 3091.2 3554.88 4052.563 4619.922 5220.512
Cost of Sales 2444.402 2811.062 3204.611 3653.256 4128.179
Cost of Sales as a % of
Revenue 79.08%
Gross Margin 646.7983 743.818 847.9525 966.6659 1092.332
Depreciation 48.16897 55.39432 63.14952 71.99045 81.34921
Depreciation as a % of
Revenue 1.56%
Overheads 2431.957 2796.751 3188.296 3634.658 4107.163
Overheads as a % of
revenue 78.67%
EBITA 598.6293 688.4237 784.803 894.6754 1010.983
Applicable Taxes 144.2697 165.9101 189.1375 215.6168 243.647
NOPAT 454.3596 522.5136 595.6655 679.0587 767.3363
Total Assets 1165.077 1339.838 1527.415 1741.253 1967.616
Current Liabilities 798.3415 918.0927 1046.626 1193.153 1348.263
NET PPE 366.735 421.7453 480.7896 548.1001 619.3531
Capital Charge 39.66239 45.61175 51.99739 59.27703 66.98304
Intangible Earnings 414.6973 476.9018 543.6681 619.7816 700.3532
Role of Branding Index
Brand Earnings 346.9634 399.0079 454.869 518.5506 585.9622
Brand Strength Score
Brand Discount Rate
Discounted Brand
Earnings 307.2648 312.9246 315.9175 318.939 319.165
Terminal Growth Rate 4231.354
Brand value 6088.293
15 | P a g e

16. Inferences and recommendation
Colgate
Colgate with a wide range of products is the strongest brand in the country with a
brand strength of 83.72
Colgate leads with the brand value of almost $1.08 billion which shows that Colgate's
evolution from dental hygiene to oral care has been successful
In the course of evolution ,Colgate has been successful in creating needs for the
consumers
Colgate must continue introducing new variants in its products for satisfying the
evolving need-set of the consumers
Dabur
Dabur has a brand strength of 68.35
Dabur toothpastes are known for its herbal composition, hence a major portion of its
revenue comes from Babool , Meswak & Red
Dabur must introduce new variants other than herbal toothpaste to compete with
major brands like Colgate, Pepsodent which have a wide range of products.
Dabur must transform from toothpaste/toothpowder to a complete oral care brand to
increase its share in the oral care division of personal care
16 | P a g e

17. Annexure

18. Questionnaire
Please select "only" one option per brand
* Required
1. Rate the following companies on a score of 1-5 (1 being the lowest and 5 being the
highest) for "commitment" *Commitment - the extent to which the brand receives
support in terms of time, influence and investment *
1 2 3 4 5
Pepsodent
Colgate
Dabur
2. Rate the following companies on a score of 1-5 (1 being the lowest and 5 being the
highest) for "protection" *Protection - examines how secure a brand is across a
number of dimensions (legal protection, proprietary ingredient, design, scale or
geographic spread) *
1 2 3 4 5
Pepsodent
Colgate
Dabur
3. Rate the following companies on a score of 1-5 (1 being the lowest and 5 being the
highest) for "clarity" *Clarity - measures the degree to which the brand is truly
dedicated to understanding and defining their customer *
1 2 3 4 5
Pepsodent
Colgate
Dabur
18 | P a g e

19. 4. Rate the following companies on a score of 1-5 (1 being the lowest and 5 being the
highest) for "responsiveness" *Responsiveness - the brand's ability to adapt to market
changes, challenges and opportunity *
1 2 3 4 5
Pepsodent
Colgate
Dabur
5. Rate the following companies on a score of 1-5 (1 being the lowest and 5 being the
highest) for "authenticity" *Authenticity - if a brand has a defined heritage and a well
grounded value set as well as if it can deliver against customer's expectations *
1 2 3 4 5
Pepsodent
Colgate
Dabur
6. Rate the following companies on a score of 1-5 (1 being the lowest and 5 being the
highest) for "relevance" *Relevance - how well a brand fits with the customer's needs,
decision and decision criteria across all appreciate demographics and geographies *
1 2 3 4 5
Pepsodent
Colgate
Dabur
7. Rate the following companies on a score of 1-10 (1 being the lowest and 10 being the
highest) for "presence" *Presence - the degree of how positively consumers,
customers and opinion formers discuss it in both traditional and social media *
1 2 3 4 5
Pepsodent
19 | P a g e

20. 1 2 3 4 5
Colgate
Dabur
8. Rate the following companies on a score of 1-5 (1 being the lowest and 5 being the
highest) for "understanding"*Understanding - in-depth understanding of the brand
distinctive quality and characteristics *
1 2 3 4 5
Pepsodent
Colgate
Dabur
9.Rate the following companies on a score of 1-5 (1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest)
for "consistency" *Consistency - the degree to which a brand is experienced without fail
across all touch-points and formats *
1 2 3 4 5
Pepsodent
Colgate
Dabur
10.Rate the following companies on a score of 1-5 (1 being the lowest and 5 being the
highest) for "differentiation"*Differentiation - the degree to which customers perceive the
brand to a positioning that is distinct to its competition *
1 2 3 4 5
Pepsodent
Colgate
Dabur
Submit
20 | P a g e

21. References
 Prof. Srinivas Govindrajan’s PPTs
 Strategic Brand Management by Kevin Lane Keller
 http://www.interbrand.com
 Marketing Management : Philip Kotler- 13th Edition
 Wikipedia.org
 http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2012/snapshots/101.html
 http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/display.asp?id=7644
 http://lta.hse.fi/1999/1/lta_1999_01_a4.pdf