Share This

Monday, 9 May 2011

Apple bumps Google as most valuable brand

by Don Reisinger





Chalk another one up for Apple.

Apple is the world's most valuable brand with a value of $153.3 billion, according to Millard Brown Optimor's annual "BrandZ: Top 100 Most Valuable Global Brands" study released today. In just one year, Apple's brand value has increased by 84 percent, the study said.
Google, the leader in the study for four years running, was knocked down to second place this year, losing 2 percent of its brand value to end up at $111.5 billion.
 
(Credit: Millard Brown Optimor)

IBM, McDonald's, and Microsoft rounded out the top five with brand values of $100.8 billion, $81 billion, and $78.2 billion in brand value, respectively.

The marketing and advertising industry, not surprisingly, believes strongly in the importance of brand value. "Strong brands, while not immune to the vicissitudes of the market, are more protected, prepared, resourceful and resilient," David Roth of WPP, parent company of Millard Brown Optimor, said in a statement.

If that's the case, Apple's ability to insulate itself from market issues has exploded over the last several years. Millard Brown Optimor said Apple's brand value has increased 859 percent since 2006--the first year of the BrandZ study. Moreover, Apple's year-over-year growth has easily overshadowed the rest of the market. According to the study, the top 100 brands have seen their combined value increase by 17 percent to $2.4 trillion since last year.



Apple wasn't the only fast mover in the study. Facebook's brand value jumped to 35th place, increasing 246 percent year over year to $19.1 billion. China's biggest search engine, Baidu, saw its brand value increase by 141 percent year over year to $22.5 billion, which gave it 29th place.

Such companies have helped tech lead the way in brand value. The researchers said tech companies make up one-third of the top 100 brands worldwide. Amazon.com was also able to beat Wal-Mart to become the most valuable retail brand with a value of $37.6 billion.

Emerging markets are playing a bigger role in the top 100 list. Back in 2006, just two companies from emerging markets made the list. Last year, that tally reached 13. And this year, 19 of the top 100 brands came from emerging markets.

Millard Brown Optimor's BrandZ study is derived from both financial performance and "in-depth" interviews of consumers about their perceptions of brands and why they choose a specific product over another. The company's database includes 2 million such interviews from 30 countries.

Don Reisinger is a technology columnist who has written about everything from HDTVs to computers to Flowbee Haircut Systems. Don is a member of the CNET Blog Network, posting at The Digital Home. He is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.

Newscribe : get free news in real time

Sunday, 8 May 2011

Targeted killngs, a human rights concern?



Global Trends By MARTIN KHOR



The killing of Osama bin Laden, the bombing of Muammar Gaddafi’s house and the deaths of civilians by drone missile attacks are some incidents that highlight the many questions of the legality and human rights in the issue of targeted killings.




THE killing of Osama bin Laden was undoubtedly the biggest news last week. While the shooting of the al-Qaeda chief filled the headlines for days, the confusion over what happened and questions over legality of the killing had taken over the discussion soon after.

United States officials had originally announced that Osama was killed in a firefight in the house in Pakistan he was occupying, and that he used his wife as a human shield.

A few days later, it was admitted he had been unarmed, and there was no use of a human shield. Instead, there was no firing on the US forces, except for one person at the initial stage.

The death of Osama came a few days after the Nato bombing of the house of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, which the Libyan authorities said had killed his son and several grandchildren.

This raised the question of whether it is legal for one state or states to kill persons, including political leaders, in other states.

These two events, in Pakistan and Libya, highlight the issue of targeted killings carried out by a government agency in the territory of other countries.

For example, drones controlled by operators thousands of miles away are increasingly being used to fire missiles at buildings and vehicles in which the targeted persons are believed to be in, with high “collateral damage”.

Drone attacks killed 957 civilians in Pakistan last year, according to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan. This was almost as many as the 1,041 civilians killed by suicide bomb attacks in the same year.

The high civilian deaths and casualties by US drone attacks have caused great public resentment in Afghanistan and Pakistan, with the leaders in these countries warning the United States to control or curb the attacks.

As worldwide public clamour increased last week for more information on what really happened during the raid on Osama’s house, United Nations human rights officials also called on the United States to disclose the full facts, including whether there had been plans to capture him.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay called for light to be shed on the killing, stressing that all counter-terrorism operations must respect international law.

Last Friday, a joint statement was issued by Christof Heyns, UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, and Martin Scheinin, special rapporteur on protecting human rights while countering terrorism. Both report to the UN Human Rights Council.




They said that in certain exceptional cases, deadly force may be used in operations against terrorists.

“However, the norm should be that terrorists be dealt with as criminals, through legal processes of arrest, trial and judicially-decided punishment,” they added.

A Reuters report from New York on Thursday said: “The legality of the commando killing of the al-Qaeda leader is less clear under international law, some experts said. President Barack Obama got a boost in US opinion polls, but the killing raised concerns elsewhere that the United States may have gone too far in acting as policeman, judge and executioner of the world’s most wanted man.”

The German newspaper Sued­deutsche Zeitung expressed misgivings about the legality of the killing.
“Which law covers the execution of bin Laden?” wrote its senior editor Heribert Prantl.

“US law requires trials before death penalties are carried out. Executions are forbidden in countries based on rule of law. Martial law doesn’t cover the US operation either. The decision to kill the godfather of terror was political.”

In May last year, the issue of targeted killings was addressed in a landmark report to the Human Rights Council by Philip Alston, who was then UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.

Alston, who is a law professor in New York University, criticised the CIA-directed drone attacks, which he said had resulted in the deaths of many hundreds of civilians.

“Intelligence agencies, which by definition are determined to remain unaccountable except to their own paymasters, have no place in running programmes that kill people in other countries,” the report said.

Alston suggested that the drone killings carry a significant risk of becoming war crimes because intelligence agencies “do not generally operate within a framework which places appropriate emphasis upon ensuring compliance with international humanitarian law”.

More generally, the report said that in targeted killings, there has been a highly problematic blurring and expansion of boundaries of the relevant legal frameworks – human rights laws, laws of war and use of inter-state force.

“The result is the displacement of legal standards with a vaguely defined “licence to kill” and the creation of a major accountability vacuum,” said the report, concluding that many of the practices violate legal rules.

It warned that whatever rules the United States attempt to invoke or apply to al-Qaeda could be invoked by other states to apply to other non-state armed groups.

The failure of states to comply with their human rights law and international human rights obligations to provide transparency and accountability for targeted killings is a matter of deep concern.

In light of the increasing use of targeted killings in recent weeks and years, the issues and proposals raised in the May 2010 report should be seriously followed up.

Britain's super-rich get even richer!





Britain's richest people got collectively wealthier by 18 percent as the rest of the country weathered harsh government cuts, according to an annual list published Sunday.

Indian-born steel tycoon Lakshmi Mittal retained the top spot in The Sunday Times Rich List for a seventh straight year, despite seeing about £5 billion ($8 billion, 5.7 billion euros) wiped off his fortune.

The 1,000 richest people in Britain saw their wealth continue to bounce back from the recession and increase to a collective fortune of £395.8 billion.



The number of billionaires in Britain now stands at 73 -- up from 53 last year and almost matching the record of 75 set in the list of 2008 before the financial crisis. Forty are British-born.

Russian businessman Alisher Usmanov moved from sixth position to second spot in the list after adding £7.7 billion to his fortune, which is now worth £12.4 billion.

Usmanov owns a large stake in Russian iron and steel firm Metalloinvest and recently courted controversy in Britain by trying to build up a controlling stake in English football giants Arsenal.

His bid was thwarted last month when US sports tycoon Stan Kroenke took control of the Premier League side.
Meanwhile the fortune of Mittal, the London-based head of ArcelorMittal, the world's largest steel maker, fell by around 22 percent to £17.5 billion in the past 12 months, the biggest drop on this year's list.

The huge fall in the 60-year-old's wealth was driven by a plunge in the share price of ArcelorMittal as the global steel industry struggled to cope with costly raw materials and slow demand.

The highest new female entry is Chinese businesswoman Xiuli Hawken, 48, who made her fortune converting underground military shelters in China into underground shopping malls. She was ranked 61st, with a fortune of £1.06 billion. She lives in London.

Another new female entry is Mary Perkins, who founded the chain of glasses shops, Specsavers, with her husband Douglas. Their wealth has increased 42 percent since last year and stands at £1.15 billion.

The increased wealth comes as most of the country faces harsh austerity measures introduced by the coalition government to cut Britain's record deficit.

The list, which is for those who have Britain as their home or main base of operations, is based on identifiable wealth such as land, property or significant shares in publicly quoted companies, and excludes bank accounts.

- Britain's top 10 billionaires in The Sunday Times Rich List 2011 (last year's rank in brackets):

1. Lakshmi Mittal -- steel -- £17.514 billion (1st)

2. Alisher Usmanov -- steel -- £12.4 billion (6th)
3. Roman Abramovich -- oil, industry -- £10.3 billion (2nd)
4. The Duke of Westminster -- property -- £7 billion (3rd)
5. Ernesto and Kirsty Bertarelli -- pharmaceuticals -- £6.87 billion (4th)
6. Leonard Blavatnik -- industry -- £6.237 billion (15th)
7. John Fredriksen and family -- shipping -- £6.2 billion (16th)
8. David and Simon Reuben -- property, Internet -- £6.176 billion (5th)
9. Gopi and Sri Hinduja -- industry, finance -- £6 billion (new)
9. Galen and George Weston -- retailing -- £6 billion (7th)

© 2011 AFP
This story is sourced direct from an overseas news agency as an additional service to readers. Spelling follows North American usage, along with foreign currency and measurement units.
 
Newscribe : get free news in real time