Samsung Becomes First Korean Brand to Enter ‘Global Top 10’

Global Brands

2012 has seemed to be the year of fervent technological debate, with court cases and consumers battling over the ‘smart phone championships’. With US courts favoring Apple’s claims that Samsung had copied some of their patented designs, the Korean giant finally has reason to celebrate; its entry into the esteemed ‘Global 100’ within the coveted ‘top ten’ global brands.

Samsung becomes a 'top 10 global company'

The list has been put together by one of the world’s largest consultancy firms, Interbrand, and includes not just Samsung, but Hyundai and Kia from the Land of the Morning Calm. Despite giving the nation reason to celebrate, some people feel there are obvious admissions from the list, such as LG, and are therefore calling into question the validity of the study.

From Naver:

Samsung becomes first Korean Brand to enter Global Top 10!

Hyundai up 8 places to spot 53 on the global list.

Kia enters the top 100 list for the first time securing 87th place on the global list.

Samsung’s brand value for the first time entered the Global Top 10 list.

Hyundai rose eight places on the global rankings list to 53rd place and this year saw Kia enter the race for the top one hundred companies the first time.

According to the world’s largest brand consultancy group ‘Interbrand’, which published the 100 Best Global Brands List, Samsung’s brand value increased to a value of $32,893 million taking it 8 rungs up the global ladder to ninth place on the list this year.

Samsung’s brand value increased by 40% in the past financial year, markedly more rapid than the growth rate of the top 100 global brands which grew on average by 10%, as well as the industry average growth rate which measured 16% in the past year.

This remarkable growth in brand value has been attributed to the success of the Samsung Galaxy series smart phones, the enterprise remaining the world’s No.1 TV division as it has for the last six years and consistent brand marketing strategies.

IT solutions and the electronics sector which have met with the latest consumer trends have also added to brand value and contributed to this rise.

In addition to Samsung, the other Korean brands to make it into the global 100 were Hyundai and Kia.

Making the global 100 list for the first time in 2005, Hyundai this year jumped eight places to spot number 53 growing by 24.4% with a total value of $7.5 billion.

Kia, with a total brand value of $4.89 billion was 87th on the list.

Kia’s brand value was just $1.1billion in 2007, and has grown by roughly 50% since last year.

According to Interbrand, Kia Motors market share across the United States and Europe has risen steadily over the last 17 years. It is now the fastest growing automobile brand in the U.S. Hyundai’s ‘Modern Premium’ tactic which aimed to reduce the cap between quality and consumers ideals was evaluated as a key strategy by Interbrand.

Interbrand selects the list of the top global 100 brands annually by evaluating both the financial and advertising strategy situation of each enterprise; the present value of the brand and the predicted profits for the coming year.

From Naver:


LG’s not on the list?! Weird! The world is just a huge conglomerate!


In such a small county to have our Samsung reach number 10- hey I’m so proud of Korea!


Yup- there are three Korean companies in the top 100. But, they are Samsung at number 6, Hyundai at 63 and LG at 87th place! Interbrand is the world’s largest consultancy firm? Surely this is all just matter of opinion! I think it’s time for you to study a bit more!


Wow Apple has really grown! Just three years ago Samsung was worth more than it was!


I’m proud! We MUST try and catch up with corporate America!


Samsung overtook Apple to become the leading smart phone brand and now the Galaxy series really can make Samsung the number one brand! Target in sight!


LG isn’t on the list? Why not?!


In the top 100 list, Japan has 9 companies and Korea only 3!


Yes, the best in Asia!


Its all thanks to Park Chung-hee!


Fighting! Samsung will help us in our fight with global companies!


1st place Coca-cola, 2nd is Apple, 3rd IBM, 4th Google, 5th Microsoft, 8th Intel, 9th Samsung, 10th Toyota, 11th Mercedes, 12th BMW, 13th Disney, 14th Cisco, etc- Samsung is really great with 40% growth, but what is even better is Apple with that 129% increase!


Samsung I’m sure will be celebrating, but I’m a bit scared of this total Samsung domination! I’m not really up for the Samsung agenda.

Share This Article
Help us maintain a vibrant and dynamic discussion section that is accessible and enjoyable to the majority of our readers. Please review our Comment Policy »
  • Matt

    Obviously not a fan of corporate nationalism (“We’re Americans, so we must support Coca Cola! GO COCA COLA!!! ‘MURICA!!!”), but of course this isn’t terribly surprising.

    I hope Samsung eclipses McDonald’s. Honestly, how does a cheap restaurant chain selling sub-par fast food compete with companies that are actually helping mankind progress with gradual and consistent technological innovation.

    But the biggest mindfuck is how a company selling caffeinated sugar drinks can be the world’s top brand. I know a lot of people think Apple is overrated, but seriously, at least an iPhone or MacBook is a slight step up from a mediocre-tasting drink that contributes to the premature deaths of its own consumers.

    • queenkat

      And Disney #13th?
      It is mediocre at its best. Their retelling of old folk tales so watered down that is disgusting.
      Surely Coca-Cola being number one has nothing to do with rising global fatness.
      Hooray for NY large soda ban!

      • Matt

        Eh…don’t knock Pixar. Not cool, bro.

        • queenkat

          Pixar is fine.
          It is the princess crap that is hair raising.
          I’m a sis.:-)

      • Patrick

        When you knock Disney, you’re also knocking on Marvel which they bought a few years ago.

    • Smith

      You should know in order to sell its product, CocaCola have done amazing feats nobody have ever completed before. Google for “Melinda Gates CocaCola talk”. Also, they are always the ultimate the master of marketing they don’t even resort to cheap deceiving tricks Apple used these days.

      • Markus

        Cocacola isnt only number one due to the coke drink, they own a ton of stuff…

        The thing is, when you have that much money you can just buy out lots of things… most of the time its ok but it can be quite a bad thing…

        I did skip read so i may have missed something but what about oil companies?

  • queenkat

    What I can take take away from these comments that mostly Koreans are very proud of their own brand. They should be. Good for them.
    In America it is different.We have the biggest brands globally,yet whenever an article comes out about any of them at any major news outlet,1000s of comments about how bad they are,taking jobs to China blah blah. Never a word about anyone being proud of Google or Microsoft.
    I think if Americans would adopt just a little positivity about their own brands ,it couldnt hurt anyone,mabye it would even help,who knows…
    Just my 2 cents.

    • Markus

      Its the same in the UK we slag off our own brands rather than back them…

      In the UK we just buy what we want and dont care too much about where it came from (apart from cars) where as in Asia i find that they care a lot more about buying thier own countries products.

      which is good as long as its not over the top and anti foreign

      Also i have to say, even though google is from the USA i must say im proud of what they have done over the past 10 years. google maps was the first map service i used and for a long time i didnt even know of any others…

  • 참을 수 없는 존재의 가벼움

    The news of Samsumg making it way into the list of global top ten brands may be a mix blessing for South Korea.

    Reliant heavily upon epxorts for most of its GDP, the nation has seen major conglomerates dominate the entire industries, crowding out medium- and small-sized enterprises with forced unfavorable subcontracts from the market.

    The export items, constituting the lion’s share, are manufactured by giant firms like cars, and electronic goods etc., meaning the bigger these corporations become, the more inevitable the govenrment is in injecting public funds when economic crisis hit the nation, as was often the case in the 1997 financial crisis, or as seen in the 2008 global financial turmoil when the US automotive giants received massive amount of money in rescue funds to stem a possible fallout when they were left to go bankrupt.

    Put simply, small number of firms can hold hostage the nation when chips arw down.

    Second, as domestic economy and exports flourishing become decoupled, the rise in exports less trickle down to an increase in payrolls and stimulation of consumption.

    This weakened connection means the poort working class, poorly educated and thus increasingly less preferred in the job market, are progressively sidelined in sharing the fruition of economic growth, driven by exports.

    Samsung’s rise among the top ten influential brands is compendable. But, concerns over over dependence upon exports and widening disparities of wealth which causes the consumption to declines to the detrimwntal of the entire economy, shoud equally merit attention.

    • Ruaraidh

      Good post, but you should also remember that when a monopoly, or only a couple of monopolistic firms, control an industry it can be very economically inefficient as well as politically dangerous.

      Artificially high prices, low wages and a stifling of innovation are all possible effects of poor competition.

      • 참을 수 없는 존재의 가벼움

        Your are right. A monopoy can abuse its power as a price setter to raise the prices of its products by producing less products, at the expense of consumers’s welfare.

        The best methods to bring back competition onto the market is to let other competitors to enter the market, with dismantling any barriers rs to entry into the market.

        And, this should serve as an warning to the US court, which found against Samsung in a patent infringement lawsuit with Apple. In what observers outside the United States view as setting up protection walls against formidable contestants from other nations, the Santa fe-based firm will enjoy a comfortable share of the US smartphone market, if the ruling is frustratingly upheld in coming months.

        Of course, the giant firms in Korea, often called Chaebel, a familiy-controlled big enterprises with the shrewd method of forming a circular tock ownership with its susidiaries, should be ready to compete competitors, small or large and local or foreign, on the leve playing field.

        Only if fair competition is guaranteed will the techonological innovation be possible. Without rules guaranteeing fairness, larger firms will use illicit means available to carve out a comfortable share of the market, resulting frequently in strifling small, and fledgling companies.

        • Ruaraidh

          You’re spot on with your comment about barriers to entry. Both Apple and Samsung’s claims and counter claims with spurious patents seems to be a case of two massive firms trying to stifle competition. Not through more competitive prices and superior innovation, but with barriers to entry for each others products. If it’s a big problem for these two giants, it must be impossible for smaller phone manufacturers.

          It’s a problem when national monopolies compete internationally, the only solution is to lower barriers to trade and promote fair competition. With economic nationalism seeming to rise in the current economic climate, it seems unlikely that this will happen.

          Unfortunately if this is the case and states are unwilling to cooperate and facilitate trade, the next best option for dealing with foreign monopolies is a tax to extract abnormal profits. More taxes on trade is a slippery slope however, and a mercantilist world is an ugly world.

          • 참을 수 없는 존재의 가벼움

            When it comes to promotion of free trade, I have some disagreement. As you know well, the free trade increase social welfare by churning out an wide array of cheaper, quality products only when those who are damaged from market-opening win adequate compensation for economic losses.

            (Without compensation, a social indifference curve cannot be derived)

            Does adequate compensation really happens based on social consensus aimed to prevent social discord? At least in South Korean society, this is not the case. The declining industry, whose employees are not surprisingly the underprivileged, is hardest hit by free trade.

            In addition, market advocates often argue that welfare benefits should be scaled back because economic hardship results from the laziness and incompetence from welfare recipients. Their principal rhetoric is that overblown state welfare hamper spontaneous market order that would otherwise achieve the maxium efficiency.

            Is it really case? I dont’ think so. In today’s capitalist world, equal opportunites for all of social standings is a myth. So many potentially competent people dont get opportunities to demonstrate their abilities because unfair competition is noticeable particularly in Korean society.

            Plus, I want to rephrase “It’s a problem when national monopolies compete internationally” as “global oligarchy” in the smartphone markets because no potential competitiors will enter the martket owing to high entry costs thought there is no entry barriers. And considering the absence of central authority in the international community which have regulatory powers, the compeitition policy will be inevitably enforceable within jurisdiction of individual states–a exact description for today’s lawsuit battle between two smartphone giant makers.

      • YellowMagic

        In terms of R&D it is actually more efficient to have one large corporation vs a few small ones researching the same exact technology. Japanese companies have wasted a lot of money doing that.

  • Ruaraidh

    The picture at the top of the article with Cadbury’s as a part of Kraft Foods got me wound up a bit. I’m not really in favour of economic protectionism, but if I were the head of the UK government I would not have allowed Kraft to purchase Cadbury’s.

    That lying cunt Irene Rosenfeld has some nerve, saying they wouldn’t outsource the Cadbury factory to Poland in order to get the shareholders to agree to a takeover, and then literally immediately outsourcing to Poland. She should be invited to UK and then when she arrived at the airport, she should be given a savage beating, then be stripped naked and paraded twice around the city before being branded with the word ‘liar’, finally being sprayed with molten chocolate and thrown over the walls of the US embassy.

    I don’t feel I’m overreacting with this.

    • Matt

      Chocolate is serious business.

    • Justin_C

      Cam’ron and the coalition aint much interested in cadbury so long as Barclays and co are doing alright :p

      • Ruaraidh

        I don’t even like chocolate that much, I just find it shocking that a corporation can lie like that and not get hammered for it. Perhaps if it wasn’t a cycopean American corporation, but a more modest one from a less economically powerful country the government might have done something.

    • Brett Sanbon

      Met a lot of guys in China who got canned from the Cadbury factory. Seems like they all had the same idea after their jobs were outsourced.

      They didn’t like Ms. Rosenfeld much either. They sure did, however, love chocolate.

  • Cleo

    As a Chinese, I am indifferent to Samsung’s success. It doesn’t make me want to go out and kick some Korean schoolchildren or sink any boats.

    As a Chinese, I am also indifferent to Lenovo or Haier’s success. I just want to be sure that I have alternatives to German and Japanese goods. I don’t want to pay for the bullet that is going to be used on me.

    • Danny

      What is your point?

    • YellowMagic

      No offense, but I doubt any German or Japanese person in the world is interested in killing you,hurting you or much less care about your existence Cleo.
      I am dumbfounded by the logic that makes people make these comments.

  • chris

    Samsung makes nice displays (monitors+TVs) but their 복사품 line leaves much to be desired and cheapens the Android experience.

  • expatrick

    Samsung sucks. They’ve stolen everything from western technology like Apple (which won the lawsuit). They even stole BB cream from Germany!

    • Danny

      Apple only won in the US; they’ve lost in most other places, e.g. England, the EU, Australia… And Samsung didn’t ‘steal’ BB cream lol.

Personals @ chinaSMACK - Meet people, make friends, find lovers? Don't be so serious!»