Or so I am told. That never happens to my clients. Because I have never had a reliable way to value brands. In fact, I have always doubted and derided models that tell you how much a brand is worth. Remember the old line about McDonald's? Burn down every store around the world and the brand name alone would be worth billions. That's a pretty rough way to treat a client in order to get at brand value.
My beef against purported means to value brands is that brands themselves are fragile and evanescent. A name like Enron or Arthur Andersen might seem to be worth billions one day and then, poof, with one damaging revelation, be worth less than an empty Dr. Pepper bottle. What kind of "value" is that?
Or take Tiger (and you can, now). A month ago his biggest branding problem was that Nike owned the TW logomark and his brand portfolio was a mess. Just the kind of problems that highly paid brand consultants love to tackle. Then a couple of weeks ago, he has a little spat with his wife, and poof. Suddenly Tiger's brand inhabits empty-Dr.Pepper-bottle-dom.
Oh, we can define a brand as an "intangible asset," sure. As such it should yield to a method of numerical valuation. But how lasting or useful is such a number? For me, a brand is a fragile little flower petal in the meaty hands of a tow-truck driver. One slip and poof, down goes your value.
Our Chase CEO Bill Butcher used to say, "Today's peacock is tomorrow's feather duster." A perfect scenario for a highly valued brand heading for trouble. Cock-a-doodle-do... then poof.