First written on August 05, 2007 Revised and Updated on December 19, 2008 Mega Brands, Perceptions and Reality  Give me a lever long enough, a place to stand and a pivot, I will move the world - Archimedes - Ancient Greek Scientist who lived before Christ. He is also the propounder of 'Archimedes Principle' in Physics. If one has enough money, one can kill any opposition in business - Madhavan Gopalachary Business is all about branding. Brand building is an art. Brands are  intangible. Brand valuation must not be confused with Market capitalization. It can be only perceived, which may be different from reality. That does not mean brand building can be done away with. It may sound paradoxical but the evaluation of some brands is very much greater than the net asset value of the company owning it. That is the power of the brand. The top five brands in terms of brand valuation as at end 2005 and ranked by Businessweek/Interbrands were Coca Cola, Microsoft, IBM, GE and Intel. The estimated brand values were USD 67.5, 60, 53.4, 47, 35.6 billions respectively. The figures have been rounded off to the nearest decimal. They are all corporate as well as product or service brands. Unless some cataclysmic event occurs, which is highly unlikely, these brands will continue to dominate the top five. Amongst all the above companies, Intel is the most focused followed by Microsoft. When you have such an overwhelming brand power and pull, the normal tendency of companies is to leverage the brands, more commonly known as brand extensions. Unfortunately, the brand perception in the minds of people has a more important role to play because perception is the reality. Most of us try to change perceptions. It is an exercise in futility. Perceptions cannot be changed because it means trying to change the environment. People who have tried to do that have realized it at great costs. Instead of trying to change perceptions, we must deal with perceptions and try to change the product or service and try to meet the perception. As Al Ries & Jack Trout have said in their book 'Bottom up Marketing', if you are in a boat and it starts leaking, it is obvious you must plug the leak rather than trying to drain the lake. Brand extensions confuse the markets in terms of positioning. When you send out conflicting messages, your competitor gains. Even giant companies mentioned above can make such mistakes. Let us take Appliances. Who is the leader in Food Processors? Who is the leader in refrigerators? Who is the leader in Washing Machines? Who is the leader in Electric Irons? Who is the leader in Blenders? Who is the leader in Electric Ranges? What does Coca Cola stand for with so many variants? Who is the leader in Super Computers? Who is the leader in mini computers? Who is the leader in micro computers? Who is the leader in desk top publishing? Who is the leader in main frames? Who is the leader in laptops and tablet PCs? Now let us take the smaller brands. There was a time when one had a bright smile with sparkling teeth; it used to be known as a 'Colgate Smile'. What does Colgate-Palmolive mean today? It can be a tooth paste, tooth brush, tooth powder, a shaving cream, a shaving brush, a bathing soap or even a detergent cake. Xerox has become a generic name for photocopying. They have been trying to change the perception for years. They even threatened to sue people who used the term 'Xerox' for photocopying. In 1992, When I was the VP-Corporate Development and Marketing in a Calcutta based company, I with the creative help of an ad agency released one ad nationally. The brand name of the product we were dealing with had become a generic name. I referred to few brand names which had become generic in the ad which included Xerox. One brand belonged to Levers. Rank-Xerox sent us a legal notice and we pulled back the particular ad in the national campaign. They probably didn't know that our then Chairman and owner, now deceased, also owned the biggest newspaper chain in India. He was a billionaire and one of the richest men in India at that time. My immediate boss the MD & CEO, a professional manager, was a terror in management circles. I was his blue eyed boy because I was equally aggressive or more. I always have backups and the ad campaign continued without that particular ad. I wanted to take them on, but management didn't want to get into a legal fight with myopic people who failed to see reality and waste valuable time. Xerox don't like it but that is a reality. They will have to sue millions and will be only doing that at the cost of their business. They launched a full range of computers, printers and other office products 25 years ago trying to capitalize on their brand name and failed?  Why did Exxon try to get into office products? Why did Goodyear and DuPont acquire oil companies? Why did GE try to get into mainframes in the 1950s? Would it make sense if GE launches a cola? If you are looking for some consumer finance, would you look at GE Money or Citibank? Would GE Plastics have fetched a higher price if the brand name had been different? There can be many more such questions, case studies and examples of companies trying to encash their brands by leveraging them. Only a handful has succeeded but majority have failed. You may as well ask how these companies survived such decisions. The reason is not far off. They all have enormous resources. They all have an overwhelming core competence in some field. Coca Cola maintains its leadership by enlarging the market pie. Others in the industry also benefit when the pie is enlarged but that does not matter. IBM maintains its leadership by its excellent marketing and service. It has never been an innovator or early adaptor. IBM clobbers all opposition by its sheer financial muscle. It does not mean it adopts any predatory or unfair tactics in the market place. It is just a matter of attrition or starving the opposition to death. Just keep the opposition engaged on some front. If that doesn't work, open up a new front and keep at it. You will need a lot of money. This tactic is fair in business and war. Money is all powerful in this materialistic world. When money talks, all of us have to listen. If one has enough money, one can kill any opposition in business. GE maintains its leadership by its excellent management and overall efficiency but is slipping. It is very low on innovation. It is exiting out of many and consolidating its business, but I don't see any new products coming out into the market place out of its stable. Intel and Microsoft lead by innovation and superior technology. If I have to start my career all over again, I will opt for Intel first and then Microsoft because they are exciting places to work. I have no third choice out of the above five brands. My third choice will be Google, if there is an option. How I wish I can become younger and get back the lost 36 years of my life.  Written  by Madhavan T Gopalachary The views, opinions and interpretations are personal. Sponsorship does not mean that the sponsors endorse them. © Copyright, Dec-08 . www.madgopes.com . Without prejudice. All rights reserved