Screen shot 2013-03-07 at 3.08.10 PMI like advertising. I think it’s an important part of an integrated communication strategy.  But a little-noticed ad from Santander, the Spanish banking group, is a gem of absurdity.

I was enjoying my morning latte and a quick read of the Financial Times yesterday, when there on the page was an advertisement from Santander proclaiming its status as one of the top banking brands in the world.  It seemed an odd subject for an expensive advertisement.

According to a report by Brand Finance, a consulting group, Santander topped the pile as the number one retail-banking brand in the world, while placing third in Europe and fourth in Latin America.  Against all banks, retail and otherwise, Santander captured sixth place.

I don’t mean to sound cynical, but who cares?

Screen shot 2013-03-07 at 11.43.45 AMCustomers aren’t likely to be impressed. For them, it’s the quality of the bank’s services that matters most.  Investors won’t be moved by such measures either, unless they translate into stronger earnings, which is far from certain.

The brand rankings are no doubt comforting to the people who market the bank and to Santander’s 186,000 employees. But why do they deserve a big ad in a major newspaper, at a cost of about $100,000?

Maybe the bank felt it didn’t get enough attention when the survey results were released. There certainly wasn’t much press coverage of the news announcement, and what there was focused on the global brand leaders, not the industry sector champs.

It’s more likely Santander wanted to showcase an independent third party that had good things to say about the bank following a run of dismal news.  The bank recently reported a 59% drop in profits, while credit-rating agencies ponder a further downgrade and investors openly fret about a successor to longtime CEO Emilio Botin.

In any case, a company should never include a ranking lower than third.  This is the Olympics Rule – there are no medals after bronze. So for Santander to crow about ranking sixth is an admission of mediocrity. Oh, and its sixth place ranking was down from fourth a year ago.

Brand rankings and valuation estimates have their place, to be sure. They help quantify the value of intangible assets. They also help marketing folks plea for big budgets and bonuses.  But they aren’t good subjects for advertisements.

For one thing, measuring a brand’s value is an imperfect science. Brand Finance has a methodology, which ensures some consistency in its approach, but it relies on judgments about risk, longevity and competitive dynamics.

A brand’s ranking might be a proxy for customer satisfaction, but that’s not always a certainty.  Or the ranking could reflect a company’s ad spending, and many of the top-ranked brands are backed by big marketing budgets.

Santander surely spends a princely sum on advertising, for all the reasons a big brand should – to build awareness, promote its services and set the stage for engagement with its customers.  But this ad doesn’t fit any of these purposes.

Advertising is a sure way to get your message across, particularly if other means, like PR, are more difficult.  You simply pay for the space and say what you want.  But touting your own greatness isn’t nearly as credible as when someone else does it – provided they’re credible themselves.  Obscure rankings aren’t likely to do the job.