Skip to main content

Brands deserve the CFO's attention

Over the past twenty years, it has become increasingly evident that intangibles have monetary value just as other physical assets do. Often businesses such as consulting organisations, travel firms and internet based companies do not carry large amounts of fixed assets such as land, building, plant and machinery on their balance sheets. Apart from a few computers and office furniture, their main assets are people, knowledge and delivery mechanisms. These can frequently be replicated at prices far lower than their acquisition costs and yet their valuations are usually multiples of the total worth of fixed assets. The differential comprises the value of the organisation’s brand.

This raises the question, what really constitutes monetary value of something that is essentially intangible? A brand is a covenant with a customer, a promise that a product or service will offer or conform to a set of expectations that have been created over a period of time. Without such a commitment, it is no more than a name. One brand’s value differs from another in the manner in which customers perceive a differentiation in the product or service offering. For instance, a franchise of a global consulting firm may provide added confidence amongst customers of their ability to service their needs more appropriately, than perhaps a smaller local firm. This enables them to command higher fees and therefore much higher income streams. A hotel is essentially nothing more than brick and mortar, some furniture, equipment and people – essentially things that can quite easily be replicated. However, customers have preferences amongst hotel chains based on certain expectations being met – better standards of service, better food perhaps  which ensures a draw on customers, leading to future income. This again translates into monetary values that are much higher than those constituted by traditional components of fixed assets.

The concept of paying for something intangible came into reckoning over two decades ago when a series of acquisitions took place in Europe and America. Nestle acquired Rowntree for a large sum which vastly exceeded the value of its assets. Nestle was not paying so much for Rowntree’s manufacturing facilities nor indeed for its distribution capability. It had the wherewithal to reproduce Rowntree’s products and delivery mechanisms to reach consumers. It paid those sums because it believed that the Rowntree brand was popular and replicating this engagement with consumers would have, in the absence of an acquisition, taken a very long time. More recently Microsoft’s acquisition of Hotmail was based on a very similar set of considerations. Microsoft could quite easily have launched its own web-based email service and backed by its superior technological capability, may have offered something better. But Hotmail had customers that used its offering, trusted its service and this brought a value for which Microsoft was prepared to compensate.

Brands have a value because customers are prepared to pay a premium for their use. The challenge for CFOs is to determine how this value is measured and managed. This can be undertaken either at the corporate level (as in the case of value in the Tata brand) or at the product level. The inputs to assigning a value are usually the company’s financials; comparisons with industry norms (at the corporate level); and product profitability margins and customer surveys (for individual products). Product brand valuations are determined by the tangible value seen by customers whilst making a purchase decision (for instance consumers buy watches so they can read the time) and intangibles such as the intrinsic worth associated with a name due to things such as image, trust and reliability (for instance consumers by an Omega watch because it provides value much more than simply telling the time).

As custodians of a company’s assets, CFOs therefore have a responsibility for brands as much as they do for tangible assets and reputation. Increasingly, CFOs recognise their role as keeper’s of a firm’s conscience. They ensure that organisations operate within the framework of laws and obligations, so that their firm’s reputation and image remain unblemished. All of these affect the value of a company’s corporate brand and its stock price. Just as in corporate brands, a CFO’s involvement must remain in aspects of product brands too. They must participate in discussions that entail brand extension and leveraging strategies, even advertising and promotion because all of these may undermine or bolster the monetary value of this extremely important business asset. Currently, few CFOs concern themselves directly with matters that involve product brands and this amounts to a folly. Marketing professional are not the sole custodians of brand assets and their principal role is to leverage them to ensure higher income streams, often with an eye on the next quarter. CFOs on the other hand, whilst remaining concerned with short-term income streams, have a higher duty to protect and create value in brands as an asset class. This includes not only participating in discussions on brand strategy but also aligning incentives to maximise the value of the brand. Intangibles and brands are now worth much more than traditional asset classes and consequently deserve appropriate


Popular posts from this blog

Uday: a federalist success story

At our 21 st Annual CEO Roundtable in Thimphu last week, there was spirited debate over the performance of the current administration. A participant suggested that the Ujjwal Discom Assurance Yojana (Uday), a scheme to reform India’s downstream power sector, for all its fanfare was actually a failure of sorts and that India’s renewable energy programme, specifically on solar energy, was lacking on many counts. Whilst it was my intuitive belief that both claims were unsympathetic, I thought it would perhaps be in order to examine the facts in detail and subsequently provide an assessment. This paper, accordingly, presents an analysis of the first of the two issues – the Uday programme. The second will be addressed in a subsequent piece. The electricity distribution crisis: background Electricity distribution has been disastrously managed over the last three decades and in 2015 was on the verge of absolute collapse. Under-priced power, operational inefficiency, broken equip

Farm Loan Waivers

Farming damage In 2008, when the Government of India announced a Rs 60,000 crore farm loan waiver, the decision horrified economists and the financial markets. The waiver, amounting to 1.3% of GDP, would cripple national finances and damage the credit culture. The moral hazard of penalising prudent borrowers would be systemic and enduring. However, its proponents argued that it would free farmers ‘from the suffocating clutches of endemic debt’ and, in the process, also provide a quick consumption stimulus to the economy. Subsequent events proved both assumptions awry and the folly of the decision was absorbed in a hard and painful way. Nevertheless, a lesson was learnt and federal Governments have since avoided a repeat. However, it would seem that it is now the turn of state Governments to blunder. In the last few months, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Punjab announced waivers of agricultural loans in their states to the tune of Rs 80,000 crore. Fortunately, the

The Employment Conundrum

Over the last three months, I have had the opportunity of engaging with our clients across various forums and cities. What provided a platform for this interaction was my briefing on four critical initiatives that we believe will, if properly implemented, serve as game changers with a palpable impact on economic output. The question that consistently came up almost everywhere was on the perception of jobless growth and consequently, rising unemployment within India. This has possibly been based on recent press reports and television debates that consistently cite certain headline statistics. These suggest a fall in employment levels between 2011-12 and 2015-16 compared to vigorous growth in earlier years, since 2004-05. Even on the surface, this conclusion does not gel fittingly with other statistics. For instance, indirect tax collections and consumption expenditure, which are both proxies of aggregate spending and wellbeing, do not corroborate falling employment. Tax collections