Today (Sep. 30th 2013) the Top 100 brands were ranked by brand name value by Interbrand Corp. In 2011 Blackberry ranked 54th, today they were not on the list.

Lately Blackberry has received a lot of negative publicity for their lack of demand for their smartphones while their rival smartphone companies Apple and Google now rank respectively one and two in the world. Blackberry was forced to lay off 45% of their staff worldwide, and their losses are approaching one billion US dollars.

The ranking is based on three aspects that make up a brand’s overall value: financial performance of their branded products or service, the role the brand plays in influencing consumer choices, and the strength the brand has to command a price premium or secure earnings for the company, Interbrand says. So with this definition its not hard to see why Blackberry is falling on the list.

Looking at the potential opportunities that arise (considering a SWOT analysis approach to the problem) instead of the external weaknesses and the threats by continuously advancing competition, Blackberry’s market share has fallen so much the lately they have received a takeover bid. Being bought up by a larger private company could give them the time they need out of the media attention to rebrand them selves, and figure out first how to “fix” their lagging points of parity, and then define their points of differentiation to increase demand.

Source:  Ligaya, Armina. “BlackBerry Ltd Falls off Top 100 Global Brands List as Apple Takes Top spot.” Financial Post. N.p., 30 Sept. 2013. Web. 30 Sept. 2013. <http://business.financialpost.com/2013/09/30/blackberry-ltd-falls-off-top-100-global-brands-list-as-apple-takes-top-spot/?__lsa=a1a4-72af>.

After the reading the reading assignment before 1st class, I could relate the current article with something I had already written on the topic, about a proposed minimum price on alcohol in Ireland:

Feel free to give me feedback! www.tinyurl.com/lhprh76

“Teen retailer Abercrombie & Fitch doesn’t stock XL or XXL sizes in women’s clothing because they don’t want overweight women wearing their brand. They want the ‘cool kids,’ and they don’t consider plus-sized women as being a part of that group.”  http://www.businessinsider.com/abercrombie-wants-thin-customers-2013-5#ixzz2edy6UnwH

This is just one of the many controversial statements from A&F regarding beauty and objectification, of both men and women, which has received a lot of media attention. They publicly state that they only want attractive, popular and thin people to wear their clothes. Then one can ask if having such a specific consumer base is discriminatory and an example of poor business ethic (and if one first has one example, who knows what other poor ethics they hide?), or is it simply their way of marketing them selves?

In my opinion, the fact that the CEO (Mike Jeffries) of such a large and publicly known company states such things publicly shows lack of respect and humility, not necessarily a poor business ethic in it self. It is their way of marketing them selves, and they are completely open about it, however it gets worse:

According to this news article http://elitedaily.com/news/world/abercrombie-says-it-would-rather-burn-clothes-than-give-them-to-poor-people/ they burn damaged clothing instead of giving it away to the less fortunate (like other companies do to help their “social responsibility”) – this is directly poor business ethics in my opinion.

Welcome to UBC Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!