Brand value

Could it be Interbrand is a reverse indicator and a sign that things are turning up [‘Organisational turmoil’ hits Thomson Reuters brand value]? Maybe it is a good thing that Reuters does not fit comfortably “sandwiched between Heineken and Master Card”? Just as motion is not action, brand perception is not brand relevance (which is far more important unless you are a watch or a perfume.)

As an iconic brand taking the cautious role of media and technology aggregator Reuters cannot grow, and as thought leader it can’t compete for mindshare with McKinsey or BCG or Blackrock, or HBS when it comes to high level strategic information. Reuters “knitting” is to engage with thought leaders, playing a critical role in idea discovery and validation in a networked technology and real-time news and analysis that enables risk takers in the global economy, giving them actionable content and adaptable data sets. Sounds like Bloomberg, doesn’t it?

Anyone know where they are on the Interbrand list? Completely unranked. (A reason that the data usage scandal will not harm them too much. They are a stealth brand that is not entirely distinct from the customer base they serve. They are more like Google than a self-serving Microsoft, Bloomberg is embedded in their industry and has succeeded on the sole brand attribute that they are considered indispensable. They’ll survive the scandal.)

Could the scandal create an opening for Reuters? Not if Reuters continues to identify itself as “not Bloomberg”. In its own official history, Bloomberg says unabashedly that their goal was to take down the No. 1, Reuters, out of respect, and it became its great motivation. It would be Reuters, but better. It did not worry about taking on a brand that was bigger and better and more powerful. In this, Round 2, Reuters could learn to do the same by being confident, not arrogant, by ignoring Interbrand and by being unrelenting in the goal. ■