Well, knock me down with a feather! I never thought I would see the day when the FM would mention the word “brand”, let alone use it in a headline.
Perhaps as the magazine had a near-death experience, it finally dawned on some that the FM is a brand in its own right with significant influence and therefore emotional and financial value. In addition, over the years the editors and journalists have been celebrated and have added considerably to that equity.
With the media landscape undergoing considerable change, media brands have to adapt or die while maintaining relevance and financial viability. A half-century of heritage is no guarantee of a successful tomorrow.
Some would prefer to call the FM a title or masthead, but it is a brand and should be treated and respected as such: a financial asset to its owners, something that adds value and engenders loyalty.
In a world in which we continually ask, “Who can we trust?”, the FM is a beacon of integrity, offering objective, authoritative, quality journalism. A print platform that can be matched with supplements, events and other media, along with its sub-brands of Investors Monthly, AdFocus and so on.
But I am getting ahead of myself. Let’s take a step back. Intangible assets, of which brands are one part alongside copyrights, patents and so on, have long been a discussion item in the financial world. For many companies today their most valuable assets are the brands they own, but how many actually know the value?
Until the 1980s or so, the tangible assets of most companies would make up about 80% of all assets, with the balance intangible. Today, in many cases, that figure has swapped around.
Looking at the percentage today of intangibles as part of the global market capitalisation of top companies, that percentage continues to climb and is now approaching 30%. Brand Finance has just published its 2025 GIFT (Global Intangible Finance Tracker) report.
In 1984 the owner of the Australian News Group had the mastheads valued, put them on his balance sheet and then mortgaged them, so providing the springboard to move to the UK and acquire The Times and News of the World
In 1984 the owner of the Australian News Group had the mastheads valued, put them on his balance sheet and then mortgaged them, so providing the springboard to move to the UK and acquire The Times and News of the World (since closed down), set up the Sun and establish the Sky TV channel (since sold). The next foray was to the US and acquiring the Wall Street Journal, 20th Century Fox (since sold), the highly influential Fox News TV channel and much more. If you haven’t already guessed, we are talking about Rupert Murdoch and his empire, valued at about R416bn. Interestingly, Murdoch is the only US media mogul refusing to bend the knee to US President Donald Trump’s bullying tactics. He understands the power in his hands.
Back in 2000 I was a contributor to the book Brand Valuation, published in London. I wrote: “With the increasing awareness of brands and their values, many companies that until now have remained faithful to (unbranded) products and services are coming to realise that the future for commodities is strictly limited and with this will come a surge in branding activity.” In many emerging countries, including South Africa, commodities still rule, and the share price of companies is often at a discount to NAV.
Including brands on the balance sheet is a sensitive subject. In mergers & acquisitions a value has to be put on all acquired brands and this can be put on the balance sheet, but only acquired brands, not home-grown ones, are recognised. Take the case of Diageo, the largest drinks company in the world: Smirnoff was acquired, while Johnnie Walker is home-grown. It’s a complex situation.
Sampson is chair of Brand Finance Africa
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.