Brand valuation is the process of putting a financial value on a brand, most often as the present value of the royalties its owner avoids by owning the brand rather than licensing it (the relief from royalty method). Valuers work to ISO 10668 and IVS 210 and choose between income, market and cost approaches; the result is used in acquisitions, licensing, transfer pricing, disputes and lending. In the UK, a brand reaches the balance sheet only when it is bought: one built in-house is never recognised under FRS 102 or IAS 38.
Last reviewed: October 2026. Written for UK businesses and their advisers; accounting references are FRS 102 with IFRS alongside. General information, not valuation, accounting or tax advice.
A brand is often the most valuable single intangible asset a consumer-facing company owns, and the one its accounts are least able to show. Under IAS 38 and FRS 102 Section 18, an internally generated brand cannot be recognised at all; it appears only when someone buys it. That leaves an owner with a gap. The asset that commands the price premium and keeps customers coming back is invisible in the statutory figures, so the first time it is valued is often in the buyer's purchase price allocation, on the buyer's assumptions. A brand valuation closes that gap with a number you can defend.
Brand valuation answers a financial question: what would a buyer or licensee pay for the right to use this brand? Brand equity, the strength of the brand in customers' minds, is what drives that answer, but it is not the answer itself. A defensible valuation shows how one feeds the other.
The two terms are used interchangeably in boardrooms and marketing plans, and the confusion costs money in negotiations. They measure different things, on different scales, for different audiences.
Brand equity is consumer-based, or marketing, equity: the effect the brand has on how customers think and behave. David Aaker's model (Managing Brand Equity, 1991) breaks it into brand loyalty, brand awareness, perceived quality and brand associations, plus other proprietary brand assets such as trade marks. Kevin Lane Keller's customer-based brand equity model (Journal of Marketing, 1993) defines it as the differential effect that knowledge of the brand has on a customer's response to its marketing, with awareness and brand image (the associations a customer holds) as the two components. Brand equity is measured with surveys, tracking studies, Net Promoter Score, retention and observed price premiums.
Brand value is the monetary value of the brand as an asset: what it is worth, in pounds, to an owner, a buyer or a licensee. It is set by valuation standards. ISO 10668 sets the requirements for monetary brand valuation, including the legal, behavioural and financial analysis a valuer must carry out. ISO 20671-1 sets the principles for brand evaluation, the structured assessment of brand strength that sits between the marketing measures and the money. IVS 210, the International Valuation Standards Council's standard for intangible assets, governs the valuation itself when the brand is valued for financial reporting, transactions or lending.
| Brand equity | Brand value | |
|---|---|---|
| What it measures | The brand's effect on customer awareness, associations, perceived quality and loyalty | The brand's worth as an asset, in money |
| Unit | Scores, indices, survey results, retention and premium data | Pounds (a point value or a range) |
| Main frameworks | Aaker (1991); Keller (1993) | ISO 10668; IVS 210; ISO 20671-1 for the strength assessment that feeds it |
| Who uses it | Marketing teams, brand managers, boards tracking brand health | Acquirers, auditors, licensors, tax authorities, lenders, courts |
| Typical question | Is the brand getting stronger with customers? | What would someone pay to own or license this brand? |
| Can it be negative? | Yes: associations can deter customers | The asset is not valued below nil, but damaged equity lowers it, sometimes to nil |
Brand equity is an input; brand value is the output. A valuer translates the evidence of equity into the assumptions that drive the number.
| Valuation input | Brand equity evidence | Effect on brand value |
|---|---|---|
| Royalty rate | Awareness and loyalty against competitors | A stronger brand supports a rate towards the top of the comparable licence range |
| Discount rate | Repeat purchase, retention, low churn | Less volatile branded cash flows support a lower brand-specific risk premium |
| Useful life and growth | Heritage, durable associations | Support a longer life and a terminal value; a recent or faddish brand does not |
| Price premium | Customers paying more than for a generic equivalent | Direct evidence for the premium profit method and a cross-check on the royalty rate |
ISO 10668 requires a behavioural analysis for exactly this reason: the valuer must explain how customers' perceptions of the brand translate into the cash flows being valued. A valuation that never mentions awareness, loyalty or price premium has skipped a step the standard expects.
For the other kinds of IP and the methods that suit them, see IP valuation methods.
Brand valuations are required, or valuable, in several specific contexts. The purpose decides the basis of value (fair value, market value or a value to a specific owner), and the basis decides assumptions such as the tax amortisation benefit.
| Context | Purpose | Stakeholder |
|---|---|---|
| M&A / PPA | Recognise the brand as an identifiable intangible at fair value | Acquirer, auditor |
| Exit planning | Show the buyer what the brand is worth before its PPA decides | Seller, adviser |
| Licensing and franchising | Set arm's-length royalty rates | Licensor, licensee |
| Transfer pricing | Justify intercompany charges for brand use | HMRC and other tax authorities |
| Litigation and disputes | Quantify damages from infringement or passing off | Courts, experts |
| Lending and securitisation | Support the brand as collateral | Lender |
| Insolvency | Realise the brand in a distressed sale | Administrator |
| Strategic planning | Assess the return on brand investment | Board, marketing director |
IVS 210 recognises three approaches for intangible assets: income, market and cost. ISO 10668 uses the same three for brands. Within the income approach, both standards name several methods, and relief from royalty is the one used most often for brands, because licensing data gives it an observable anchor.
| Method | Approach | How it values the brand | Where it is named | When to use it |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Relief from royalty | Income | Present value of the after-tax royalties avoided by owning the brand | IVS 210; ISO 10668 ("royalty relief") | Default for brands with comparable licensing evidence |
| Premium profit / price premium | Income | Present value of the extra profit from a higher price (or greater volume) than an unbranded equivalent | IVS 210 (premium profit); ISO 10668 (price premium, volume premium) | Consumer goods with credible generic or own-label comparators |
| With-and-without | Income | Difference between business cash flows with the brand and without it | IVS 210 (grouped with premium profit) | Where the loss of the brand can be modelled across the whole business |
| Multi-period excess earnings (MPEEM) | Income | Residual cash flows after charges for every other contributing asset | IVS 210 (excess earnings); ISO 10668 | Only where the brand is the primary asset of the business |
| Cost approach | Cost | Cost to recreate or replace the brand, less obsolescence | IVS 210 (replacement and reproduction cost); ISO 10668 | Cross-check or floor; newly launched brands with no income history |
| Market approach | Market | Prices paid for comparable brands | IVS 210; ISO 10668 | Rarely: comparable, disclosed brand sales are scarce |
The relief from royalty method values the brand as the royalties its owner does not have to pay. If the business did not own the brand, it would have to license it from a third party; owning it relieves the business of that cost. The value is the present value of those avoided royalties, after tax.
Identify the revenue earned under the brand. For a single-brand company this may be total revenue; for a portfolio, segment by brand and exclude revenue the brand does not drive.
Benchmark the royalty rate against comparable brand licences, then position the brand within the range using the brand equity evidence.
A royalty would be tax-deductible to the licensee, so the saving is taxed: multiply by one minus the tax rate (25% UK main rate of corporation tax).
Discount the after-tax royalties at a brand-specific rate over the brand's useful life, with a terminal value where the life is indefinite.
In a fair-value valuation, add the TAB where a market participant buying the brand on its own could deduct its amortisation for tax.
A UK consumer brand has a board forecast of branded revenue of £20.0m in Year 1, rising to £26.0m in Year 5.
| Input | Assumption | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Royalty rate | 4% | Within the illustrative 3-8% range for consumer packaged goods brands (below), positioned on the brand's strength |
| Tax rate | 25% | UK main rate of corporation tax |
| Discount rate | 12% | Brand-specific rate, reconciled to the business's cost of capital |
| Discounting | Year end | Keeps the arithmetic easy to follow; mid-year discounting would give a higher value |
| Growth after Year 5 | 2% a year, indefinitely | Long-term growth for the terminal value |
| Year | Branded revenue | Royalty at 4% | After tax at 25% | Discount factor at 12% | Present value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 20,000 | 800 | 600 | 0.8929 | 536 |
| 2 | 22,000 | 880 | 660 | 0.7972 | 526 |
| 3 | 24,000 | 960 | 720 | 0.7118 | 512 |
| 4 | 25,000 | 1,000 | 750 | 0.6355 | 477 |
| 5 | 26,000 | 1,040 | 780 | 0.5674 | 443 |
| Years 1 to 5 | 2,494 |
The terminal value captures everything after Year 5. The Year 6 after-tax royalty is £780,000 × 1.02 = £795,600. Divided by the discount rate less growth (12% − 2% = 10%), that gives a terminal value of £7,956,000 at the end of Year 5, worth £7,956,000 × 0.5674 = £4,514,000 today.
| Component | Calculation | Value |
|---|---|---|
| Present value of Years 1 to 5 | Sum of the table above | 2,494 |
| Present value of the terminal value | 7,956 × 0.5674 | 4,514 |
| Value before TAB | 2,494 + 4,514 | 7,008 |
| Tax amortisation benefit | 7,008 × (1.0851 − 1) | 596 |
| Fair value including TAB | 7,008 × 1.0851 | 7,604 |
The TAB factor of 1.0851 comes from three assumptions: a 25% tax rate, a 12% discount rate and a 25-year tax life (the 4% a year fixed-rate writing-down election in section 730 of the Corporation Tax Act 2009, the usual route to relief for a brand that is not amortised in the accounts). The present value of £1 a year for 25 years at 12% is 7.8431, so the factor is 1 ÷ (1 − 25% ÷ 25 × 7.8431) = 1 ÷ 0.92157 = 1.0851.
On these assumptions the brand is worth about £7.0m before the tax amortisation benefit and £7.6m at fair value including it. Move the royalty rate from 4% to 5% and every royalty, and so every present value and the TAB, rises by a quarter: the fair value becomes about £9.5m. The royalty rate and the terminal value carry most of the answer, which is why both need the most evidence.
The brand valuation formula guide walks through each relief from royalty input in more depth, and the royalty rate selection guide covers how to build the comparable licence set.
The TAB is the present value of the tax deductions a buyer would get by amortising the brand. It belongs in a fair-value measurement, such as the brand's value in a purchase price allocation under IFRS 3 or FRS 102 Section 19, because fair value assumes a hypothetical sale of the brand on its own to a market participant. Where that market participant could deduct the brand's amortisation for tax, the price it would pay includes the value of those deductions, whatever the structure of the actual deal.
The TAB does not mean the actual acquirer gets any tax relief. After a UK share purchase, the brand recognised in the consolidated PPA usually has no tax base and attracts no relief; the PPA records a deferred tax liability instead (see the purchase price allocation guide). For other purposes, such as a licensing negotiation, a dispute or an owner's planning figure, many valuers report the value before TAB. Whether to include it, and on what tax life, should be stated as an assumption; the TAB vs amortisation benefit comparison sets out the mechanics.
The fair value including TAB is not a measure of tax relief anyone will receive. A PPA does not create tax relief; the structure of the deal does. Take tax advice on structure before signing.
The ranges below are illustrative only, not benchmarks drawn from a named dataset. They are not a substitute for a comparable licence set: a defensible rate cites specific agreements and explains where the brand sits within the range.
| Industry | Indicative brand royalty rate |
|---|---|
| Luxury goods and fashion | 8-15% |
| Consumer packaged goods | 3-8% |
| Food and beverage | 3-6% |
| Pharmaceuticals (OTC) | 3-8% |
| Hospitality and hotels | 4-8% |
| Technology and software | 2-5% |
| E-commerce and retail | 2-5% |
| Automotive | 2-5% |
| Financial services | 1-3% |
| Professional services | 1-3% |
The premium profit method values a brand by the extra profit it earns over an equivalent unbranded product. ISO 10668 splits this into a price premium method (the branded product sells for more) and a volume premium method (it sells in greater quantity at the same price). The present value of that premium, after tax and after any extra costs of supporting the brand, is the brand's value.
It works well where a credible generic comparator exists: branded cereals against own-label, branded over-the-counter medicines against generics. It is hard to apply to B2B brands or sectors without unbranded equivalents, and the comparator must be genuinely equivalent apart from the brand, or the premium measures something else, such as distribution or product quality.
The with-and-without method values the brand by modelling the whole business twice: once as it is, and once as if the brand did not exist, with lower prices, lower volumes or higher marketing spend while a replacement is built. The difference in present value is the brand's value. IVS 210 treats it alongside the premium profit method, since both compare a business with the asset against one without.
It is more often used for non-compete agreements and for assets whose loss can be modelled directly. For a brand, the hard part is building a credible "without" scenario: how far prices would fall, how many customers would leave and how long recovery would take are all judgements.
The cost approach estimates what it would cost to recreate the brand (reproduction cost) or to build one of equivalent utility (replacement cost): design, trade mark registration, launch advertising and the time to build awareness, adjusted for obsolescence.
It usually understates an established brand's value, because spending does not equal brand equity: two campaigns of the same cost can build very different brands. Both IVS 210 and ISO 10668 treat it as a method for when the income and market approaches cannot be applied reliably, such as a recently launched brand with no income history, or as a cross-check.
The market approach values the brand by reference to prices paid for comparable brands. In principle it is the most direct evidence; in practice it is rare, because brand sales are seldom disclosed in enough detail, and no two brands are alike. It is most useful as a cross-check, for example by comparing the implied royalty rate or a value-to-revenue multiple against disclosed brand transactions.
Use relief from royalty as the primary method where licensing evidence exists, and cross-check it with a second method: the price premium where generic comparators exist, the cost approach for a young brand, or a disclosed transaction where one is available. A brand valuation that rests on one method and one royalty rate is the easiest to challenge.
Whatever method is used, the valuer must assess the brand's strength, which is where brand equity evidence enters the valuation. Strength affects the royalty rate (stronger brands support higher rates within the range) and the discount rate (stronger brands carry less risk).
| Factor | Strong brand | Weak brand |
|---|---|---|
| Awareness | High unaided recall | Prompted recognition only |
| Loyalty | High repeat purchase rate, low churn | Significant switching behaviour |
| Pricing power | Commands a premium against competitors | Price-competitive, no premium |
| Geographic reach | Multi-market presence | Single market |
| Legal protection | Registered trade marks, active enforcement | Unregistered or weak protection |
| Consistency | Unified identity and messaging | Fragmented or inconsistent |
| Heritage | Established history and reputation | Recent entrant |
| Digital presence | Strong search, social and content authority | Limited digital footprint |
Brand strength is not purely subjective. It can be evidenced through customer surveys (awareness tracking, Net Promoter Score), market data (price premium analysis, market share trends) and financial metrics (revenue stability, customer retention). ISO 20671-1 gives a structure for that assessment; what matters to a buyer is that each claim about strength has a record behind it.
Brand value and the balance sheet are different questions. A brand can be worth millions and carried at nil, and the rules turn on how the brand came into the business, not on what it is worth.
IAS 38.63 prohibits recognising internally generated brands, mastheads, publishing titles, customer lists and items similar in substance; paragraph 64 gives the reason: the spending on them cannot be distinguished from the cost of developing the business as a whole. Under UK GAAP, FRS 102 Section 18 reaches the same result: paragraph 18.8C(a) lists internally generated brands, logos, publishing titles, customer lists and similar items among the things an entity may not recognise as intangible assets. The marketing spend that built the brand is expensed as incurred.
When a business is acquired, the buyer allocates the price across the identifiable assets acquired, and a brand is usually one of them. The tests differ between frameworks.
| IFRS (IFRS 3 and IAS 38) | UK GAAP (FRS 102 Sections 18 and 19) | |
|---|---|---|
| Recognition test for an acquired intangible | Separable or arising from contractual or legal rights (either is enough) | Separable and arising from contractual or other legal rights (both required) |
| Policy option | None | An entity may choose to recognise intangibles that meet only one of the two criteria, applied to every intangible in the same class |
| Useful life | Finite or indefinite | Always finite; no more than 10 years where no reliable estimate can be made |
| Subsequent measurement | Amortised if finite; annual impairment test under IAS 36 if indefinite | Amortised over the useful life; tested for impairment where there is an indication |
| Where the test is not met | Value stays in goodwill | Value stays in goodwill |
A registered trade mark usually satisfies both FRS 102 criteria: it arises from a legal right and can be sold or licensed separately from the business. An unregistered brand, relying on goodwill and the law of passing off, is harder to separate, and without the policy choice its value may stay in goodwill.
Registration with the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) is the strongest single piece of evidence behind a UK brand valuation. A registration lasts ten years and can be renewed indefinitely, and the register records the owner, the mark, the classes of goods and services and the dates. That record does several jobs at once.
| Question | What the registration shows |
|---|---|
| Ownership | The company, not a founder or an agency, owns the mark: buyers check this in due diligence |
| Scope | The classes define what the brand protects, and so which revenue the valuation can attribute to it |
| Recognition | The legal right that supports the contractual-legal criterion under FRS 102 and IFRS 3 |
| Royalty logic | A registered mark is a licensable right, which is what the relief from royalty method assumes |
| Useful life | Indefinite renewal supports a long or indefinite life, subject to the brand's commercial durability |
There is also a tax pointer, as general information only. In a UK trade and assets purchase, a registered trade mark is generally within the corporate intangibles rules in Part 8 of the Corporation Tax Act 2009, while an unregistered trade mark or sign is one of the "relevant assets", alongside goodwill, whose relief is restricted (section 879A, which replaced section 816A from April 2019). Registration therefore matters to a buyer's tax position in an asset deal as well as to the valuation.
An owner preparing for a sale finds that the company's main brand was registered by the founder personally in 2014, and that two newer product names were never registered. Before the sale, the founder assigns the registration to the company and the company files the two new marks. Each is now a separable, contractually protected asset the buyer can identify and value, rather than an argument about goodwill.
In a business combination, the acquired brand is measured at fair value in the purchase price allocation, usually by relief from royalty, and often with a TAB as described above. Under IFRS, the classification of its useful life then drives the post-acquisition accounting.
| Classification | Treatment | When to use |
|---|---|---|
| Finite life | Amortised over the useful life | Brand tied to a specific contract, product or market window, or planned for retirement |
| Indefinite life | Not amortised; annual impairment test under IAS 36 | Established brands with no foreseeable limit on the period of economic benefit |
Classifying a brand as having an indefinite life avoids amortisation under IFRS but requires an annual impairment test. If the brand's performance deteriorates, the charge can be large. Indefinite life is not available under FRS 102, where every intangible is amortised, so a UK GAAP group and its IFRS parent may account for the same brand differently.
When a brand is used across jurisdictions, typically through intercompany licences, transfer pricing rules require the royalty rate to be set at arm's length. HMRC and other tax authorities scrutinise brand royalty charges, particularly where royalties flow from higher-tax to lower-tax jurisdictions.
The OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines require the royalty to reflect the functions performed, assets used and risks assumed by each entity. A relief from royalty valuation provides a foundation for that analysis, but the transfer pricing rate must also consider the factors below.
| Factor | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| The brand owner's ongoing investment | Maintaining and developing the brand supports the owner's share of the return |
| Local marketing contributions by the licensee | May justify a lower royalty in that market |
| The DEMPE functions | Development, enhancement, maintenance, protection and exploitation must be mapped to the entities that perform them |
| Requirement | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Comparability analysis | Benchmarking the royalty rate against comparable arm's-length transactions |
| Functional analysis | Documenting which entity performs which DEMPE functions |
| Economic analysis | Supporting the royalty rate with a brand valuation model |
| Consistency | Applying the rate consistently across jurisdictions |
A UK consumer goods company licenses its brand to subsidiaries in 12 countries. A tax authority challenges the 5% royalty rate as excessive for lower-income markets. The company's defence rests on a relief from royalty valuation, a comparability analysis of third-party licensing agreements and a functional analysis showing that the UK parent performs the brand development and protection functions.
Having worked with brands across consumer goods, technology, financial services and professional services, I see these errors consistently.
| Mistake | What goes wrong |
|---|---|
| Using generic royalty rates | A luxury fashion brand and an industrial B2B brand cannot share a rate, yet sector averages are often applied without positioning the brand within the range |
| Ignoring brand-specific risk | The discount rate for a century-old brand should differ from that for a five-year-old digital brand; one cost of capital for both ignores the difference |
| Double-counting with customer relationships | If the brand drives acquisition and retention and customer relationships are valued separately, the two must be calibrated so the same cash flows are not counted twice |
| Conflating brand value with goodwill | Where asset identification is superficial, brand value is left in the goodwill residual, understating identified intangibles and overstating goodwill in the acquirer's accounts |
| Treating the TAB as tax relief | Including a TAB in a fair value is a market-participant assumption; it does not mean the actual buyer will receive any deduction |
| Ignoring negative brand equity | Brands involved in scandal, recall or regulatory action can carry associations that reduce, rather than add to, enterprise value |
Brand valuation is not only for multinationals. Owner-managed businesses with strong brands in their niche, whether local, sector-specific or digital, often hold brand value well above anything on their balance sheet.
The most common reason is a sale. A buyer will value the brand in its PPA; valuing it first, with the evidence in order, lets you argue the price from the same numbers. The how to value a business guide shows where the brand fits in the whole-company valuation.
| Context | Why a brand value helps |
|---|---|
| Fundraising | Evidence of brand value supports the equity story |
| Licensing and partnerships | Co-branding and licence negotiations need a defensible royalty and value |
| Lending | Some lenders will take a registered brand as part of the security package, against a valuation prepared to a recognised standard |
Opagio Intangibles identifies and evidences your intangible assets across Opagio 12, including Brand & Reputation, and records them in the Opagio Value Drivers Register. Its Asset Valuator runs relief from royalty on your own revenue forecast, with a TAB toggle, mid-year discounting and sensitivity analysis, alongside the with-and-without, cost and market approaches. See how Opagio helps owners prepare for a sale, or see the product in detail.
Brand equity is the brand's effect on customers: awareness, associations, perceived quality and loyalty, measured with surveys, retention and price premium data (the Aaker and Keller models). Brand value is the brand's worth as an asset in money, measured under ISO 10668 and IVS 210. Equity is an input to the valuation; value is the output.
Relief from royalty. It values the brand as the present value of the after-tax royalties the owner avoids by owning rather than licensing it. It is preferred because royalty rates can be benchmarked against real licence agreements, which gives auditors and tax authorities observable evidence.
Not if you built it. IAS 38.63 and FRS 102 paragraph 18.8C(a) prohibit recognising internally generated brands. A brand is recognised only when acquired, separately or in a business combination; under FRS 102 an acquired brand is recognised separately from goodwill when it is both separable and arises from legal rights, unless the entity has chosen the policy option to recognise those meeting only one criterion.
No. The TAB is an assumption in a fair-value measurement: it reflects the deductions a market participant buying the brand on its own could claim. It does not depend on how the actual deal is structured. After a UK share purchase, the acquired brand usually carries no tax relief, and a deferred tax liability is recognised instead.
A UKIPO registration proves the company owns the mark, defines which goods and services it covers, and gives a licensable legal right. That supports the royalty logic of relief from royalty, the recognition criteria in a purchase price allocation, and a long useful life, since registrations can be renewed every ten years indefinitely.
Ivan Gowan is the Founder and CEO of Opagio. With 25 years of experience in financial technology, including senior roles at IG Group where brand was central to competitive positioning, he brings a practitioner's lens to intangible asset measurement and strategy. Meet the team.
Estimate the value of your intangible assets using industry-standard methods like Relief from Royalty, MPEEM, and With & Without.
Royalty rate benchmarking turns comparable licences into a defensible rate. The steps, the sources, the interquartile range, the cross-checks that replaced the 25% rule, and a worked example from eight comparables to a relief from royalty value.
Read more →
A practical guide to valuing trademarks and service marks as intangible assets under IFRS 3. Covers the Relief-from-Royalty method, key inputs, common pitfalls, and how trademarks create enterprise value.
Read more →
A practical decision framework for choosing between the Relief from Royalty (RFR) and Multi-Period Excess Earnings Method (MPEEM) when valuing intangible assets in purchase price allocations and standalone valuations.
Read more →Get the latest insights on intangible asset growth and productivity delivered to your inbox.
Take the free intangible asset assessment to see where your business stands across Opagio 12.