The document summarizes a study conducted to measure the brand equity of Colgate toothpaste using a modified version of the Winning Brands model of brand equity measurement. The study measured consumer loyalty, ability to charge a price premium, and brand leveragability. It found that Colgate has the highest Brand Equity Index of 6.415 out of 10, compared to indexes of 3.703 for Pepsodent and 2.421 for Dabur. Colgate's strong brand equity is attributed to its high consumer loyalty and ability to charge a price premium, though it is not considered a highly leveragable brand.

1. “Brand Equity is the sum of all the hearts and
minds of every single person that comes into
contact with your company”
-Christopher Betzter

2. Brand Tracker
Phase II – Brand Equity
Measurement
A report submitted to
Prof. Srinivas Govindrajan
In partial fulfilment of the requirement of the
course
Product and Brand Management
On 9th September 2012
By
Abinas Mishra (B11002)
Anubhuti Anup (B11008)
Piyush Das (B11031)
Sumedha Dutta (B110047)
2|P ag e

3. Executive Summary
Brand Equity measures the ability of the brand to manage the changed market condition. It
is the added value endowed on products and services, which may be reflected in the way
consumers, think, feel, and act with respect to the brand. Thus, Brand Equity is an important
intangible asset to the firm that has psychological and financial value. But being an intangible
asset it is not easy to measure. There are various models emerged to measure the Brand
Equity, but no model is a perfect model in itself. These models define their own method to
measure the Brand Equity by measuring the three Brand Equity metrics: Loyalty, Price
Premia and Leveragability.
In this phase of the brand tracker project we have undertaken a study to effectively measure
the equity of the brand “COLGATE”. The study has been conducted with the help of
“Winning Brands methods of ACNielsen” and our own interpretation of Brand Equity
measurement. The model was named as ASAP model. Winning brands takes care of two
aspects: Brand Loyalty and Price premium. So, we have developed a model which deals with
the above two criteria along with the Brand leveragability. The study was conducted on a
sample size of 32. The instrument of data collection was face-to-face structured interview.
In our model we measured Brand Equity as what consumers’ hold in their head about a
brand, and how that affects their behaviour. A comparative study was done with four other
competitors of COLGATE (Pepsodent, Close Up, Dabur and Anchor) across the three
metrics. At first comparative study was done for all the five brands of toothpaste for
Consumer loyalty and Price Premium i.e what consumers do or feel. With these two metrics
(having equal weightage) we calculated the Brand Equity Index, which gives the Index as per
Winning Brands Model. Further we calculated the Brand Equity Index as per our model with
0.3 weightage to the Brand Elasticity of the five brands and 0.7 weightage to the Brand
Equity Index of Winning Brand.
The ASAP model developed by the group then conducted regression analysis of “Awareness”
which includes Top of the Mind, Spontaneous and Aided and “Association” which includes
Healthy tooth & gums, Long lasting freshness, Prevention of tooth decay, whiteness and use
of natural herbs to check how much these two metrics explains the variations in Brand Equity
Index. This model analysed how these factors affect consumers decision while buying a
toothpaste and what is the position of these factors in the consumers mind when it comes to
the brand Colgate. Thus, by this we are measuring what consumers know aspect to know the
Brand Equity Index.
From this model we found that Colgate has a Brand Equity Index of 6.415 whereas that of
Pepsodent and Dabur has Brand Equity Index of 3.703 and 2.421 respectively on a scale of
10. Thus, Colgate can withstand changed market condition. Its Brand Equity is higher mainly
due to high loyalty and ability to charge price premium. But it is not a highly leveragable
brand. It can only extend its product range in similar category of products like Tongue
Cleaner, Chewing gums and to some extend Colgate can extend its product range to
associated categories like Shaving gels and Deodorants.
3|P ag e

4. Table of Contents
Executive Summary……....................................................................................... 3
Defining Brand Equity....................................................................................5-11
Measuring Brand Equity – Modified Winning Brand Equity .........13-19
Recommendation……………………………………………………………………………19
Annexure………………………………………… ………………………………….. …. 20-25
References............................................................................................................... 26
4|P ag e

5. HOW BRAND EQUITY GENERATES VALUE
Reduced Marketing
Costs
Trade Leverage
Attracting New Provides Value to
Brand loyalty
Customers
Customer by
Create Awareness
Enhancing
Reassurance
Time to Respond to Customer’s:
Competitive Threats
• Interpretation/
Processing of
Information
• Confidence in the
Anchor to which other Purchase
Associations could be Decision
Brand Awareness attached • Use Satisfaction
Liking
Signal of Commitment
Brand to be Considered
BRAND EQUITY
Reason-To-Buy
Differentiate/Position
Brand Quality Price
Channel Member
Interest Provides Value to
Extensions Firm by Enhancing:
• Efficiency and
Effectiveness of
Marketing
Programs
Help Process/Retrieve
• Brand Loyalty
Information
Reason-to-Buy • Prices/Margins
Brand Association
Create positive • Brand Extensions
attitude/feeling
Extensions
• Trade Leverage
• Competitive
Advantage
Other Proprietary Brand Competitive
Asset Advantage
5|P ag e

6. BRAND ASSOCIATION
PRODUCT RELATED
ATTRIBUTES NON-PRODUCT-RELATED
FUNCTIONAL
TYPES OF BRAND
ASSOCIATION BENEFITS
EXPERIENTIAL
SYMBOLIC
ATTITUDES
6|P ag e

7. CONCEPTUALIZING BRAND EQUITY
Drive Toward
or Against
Brand
Perception/ Customer
Worth of the
Product Knowledge behaviour
structure Brand
Discrimination
and value
Brand
Communication
and Contacts
Brand Equity
(Surplus ±)
7|P ag e

8. Brand Equity
Brand Equity as defined in Kotler is the added value endowed on products and services. It
may be reflected in the way consumers think, feel and act with respect to the brand as well as
in the prices, market share and the profitability the brand commands for the firm.
It can also be defined as the “ability of the brand to manage the changed market
conditions”.
The purpose of brand equity metrics is to measure the value of the brand. A brand
encompasses the name, logo, and perceptions that identify a product, a service or a provider
in the minds of the consumers. This takes the form of advertising, packaging and other forms
of marketing communication and becomes the focus of the relationship with the consumers.
The 3 primary metrics that is used to measure or quantify brand equity are i) Loyalty towards
the brand, ii) Ability of the brand to charge a premium and iii) Ability of the brand to
leverage its brand name through brand extensions.
Brand equity is observed through its impact on choice. Measures of brand equity should
reflect both attitudinal and behavioural components.
Brand Equity Components
•Share of wallet
•Purchase frequency
•Vendor consolidation
•Relative overall quality
•Perceived cost
•Preference
•Willingness to recommend
•Understands my needs
•Future purchase intent
•Self-perceived trend (more or less of my business)
8|P ag e

9. After conception and popularization of brand equity model, in a bestselling book called
“Managing brand equity” in 1980’s, promoted by some advertising agencies; Several
agencies started developing new models for brand equity measurements.
These models were developed and some are still in their developing phase with a motive to
quantify the values of intangible assets.
Some widely used brand equity measurement models are:-
Equity Engine: Equity Engine, developed by Research International, is one of the
most elegantly parsimonious models of brand equity. Essentially, it expresses brand
equity as a combination of the functional benefits delivered by the brand
(performance) and the emotional benefits (affinity). Equity Engine incorporates a
form of conjoint methodology that establishes the price premium that a brand's equity
will support while still maintaining a "good value for money" rating from customers.
Equity Builder: This method developed by the Ipsos Group is unique amongst all
the models created to measure brand equity focuses on establishing the emotional
component of brand equity.
9|P ag e

10. Kevin Lane Keller's Model: This is a proprietary tool which is used to measure
brand equity by looking at the brand as a blend of the rational and emotional which
are measured in terms of brand performance and imagery. Customer’s relationship to
a brand is then plotted in terms of their altitude on the pyramid of engagement and
their relative bias towards a rationally dominant or emotionally dominant relationship
is established.
Brand Dynamics: This model is developed by Millward Brown with the notion of an
engagement pyramid as its foundation. This approach classifies the relationship that a
customer has with a brand into one of the five stages: presence, relevance,
performance, advantage, and bonding.
10 | P a g e

11. Winning Brands: This methodology has been developed by ACNielsen. Winning
Brands begins from a behavioural observation of brand equity. Brand equity is then
measured in terms of a customer's frequency of purchase and the price premium paid.
11 | P a g e

12. Measuring Brand Equity
ASAP model
(Modification of “WINNING B®ANDS™” Model)

13. We have tried to develop a model of Brand equity i.e. named “ASAP” on the basis of
“Winning brands model of brand equity measurement”.
Winning brands takes care of two aspects. These are:
 Brand Loyalty and,
 Price premium.
So we have developed a model which deals with the above two criteria along with the
 Brand leveragability.
WINNING B®ANDS™
WINNING B®ANDS™ is the brand management service from ACNielsen that measures
the effect that ALL your marketing activity has on brand equity.
The issues that WINNING B®ANDS™ covers are comprehensive - from understanding
the category that brand competes in from the consumers perspective, through detailed
brand measurement, to an understanding of how the whole range of marketing activity
has influenced consumer perception of the brand.
Nielsen Winning Brands tracks the underlying strength of the relationship between the
customer and the brand, and uses this to create effective strategies to enhance that
relationship. At the same time, it provides monitoring to protect and improve the brand’s
health as often as is required.
It is used to:-
• Build deeper relationships with consumers
• Monitor and understand changes in brand performance over time
• Assess the impact of marketing activity on brand equity
• Identify opportunities and threats to brands- not just from competitors but frm the
category as a whole.
• Determine the long-term potential of your brand and its competitor
Customer
Brand
Awareness Loyalty
Brand Equity
Index
Brand Price
Association Premium
“Brand Equity is simply what consumers’ hold in their head about a brand, and how that
affects their behavior.” ~AC Nielsen
13 | P a g e

14. Research Methodology
The ASAP model (modified Winning Brands model) was used to measure the brand
equity of the brand vis-a-vis its competitors.
As questions of Winning Brands are not available and we have modified the model
also, hence an independent questionnaire was designed to gauge the consumer’s
perception across the 3 pillars of the model.
Weightage of 100% was assigned to all 3 pillar of the brand equity measurement
model.
 This weightage was split amongst the questions related to them.
 Weights were assigned to these questions on the basis of how direct and how
comprehensive was the information that could be derived from the question.
Research Design: A descriptive research was conducted.
Research Instrument: Questionnaire
Sampling Unit : Users of Toothpaste
Sample size :32
Calculation
Brand equity was measured by giving equal weightage to the two factors of winning
brand-
 Brand Loyalty
 Price Premia
The two loyalty parameters favourite and next favourite brand were taken into
consideration and weights were assigned .They were given weights according there ranks.
Favourite brand was given 0.666 weightage and next favourite brand was given .333
weightage.
In the modified version we took Brand leveragability into consideration and a weightage
of 0.30 was assigned while for the previous two we took a overall weightage of 0.70.The
overall loyalty index of colgate was calculated to be 0.483.
14 | P a g e

15. Loyalty Index
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25 fav&next fav
0.2 recommended brand
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
colgate pepsodent closeup dabur
Ability to Charge Price Premia:
The users were asked how much are they willing to pay for a particular brand. Some
statements were made and they were asked to choose the most appropriate statement in
accordance with their willingness to pay.
Weights were assigned to the different statements and the overall willingness to pay premium
was calculated. The Price Premia index for colgate was found out to be 0.751
colgate pepsodent closeup dabur anchor
ability to charge
price premia 0.75174 0.46181 0.359 0.29861 0.205
15 | P a g e

16. Ability to charge Price Premia
colgate pepsodent closeup dabur
Whatever it costs
20 16
Don’t know/ Can’t 15 Even if it costs more
say than any other brand
10 6
4 7
6 5 1
31 13
0 1 45
6 3 I would buy even if it
I wouldn’t buy it at all 14 1 costs lot more than
3 the cheapest brand
6 6
8 8
Only if it costs the Even if it costs a bit
same as the cheapest more than the
brand cheapest brand
Brand Leveragability:
This was calculated by finding the ability of the brand to successfully extend its product into
new categories. This was done by identifying nine different products where Colgate and the
other competitor brands are not present. The products were selected across three categories.
The three categories were:
 Similar – cases where there is a clear functional similarity between the brand’s existing
offering and the offerings in the new category. The products taken in this category were
chewing gum, mouth freshener sprays and tongue cleaners. This category represents the
Oral care products.
 Associated - cases where there is at least some existing association between the brand and
the new category, even if the products offered are functionally quite separate. The
products taken in this category were fairness cream, Shaving gel and Deodorants. This
category represents the FMCG products.
 No relationship – cases where there is no similarity or association between the brand and
new category. The products taken in this category were washing machine, Mobile phones
and Laptops.
Here the comparisons of brands were done with a highly elastic brand I.e. TATA, to find out
the relative elasticity of the brands across categories.
The calculation was done by taking a base of 1 for each brand and making a net addition and
subtraction according to the degree of leveragability shown by the brand.
16 | P a g e

17. 2 1.5-2
1.5 1-1.5
1
0.5-1
0.5
Category with no relationship 0-0.5
0
associated category
-0.5 -0.5-0
-1 similar category
-1--0.5
-1.5
-1.5--1
-2
-2.5 -2--1.5
-2.5--2
Brand Elasticity
2.5
2
MFS TC
1.5
CG
1
0.5 DABUR
0 CG MFS TC FC
FC SG Deo WM Mob Lap PEPSODENT
SG
0 2 4 6 8 10
-0.5 Deo TATA
-1 COLGATE
-1.5
-2
-2.5 WM Lap
-3
The above scatter plots shows that the brand Colgate has a higher elasticity (1.704545) within
the simlar category compared to pepsodent(.613636) and dabur(.727273) ,While in associated
category it is almost neutral and in category with no relationship it cannot be leveraged at all
as it had a low score of -2.273.
For calculation of Brand equity index (according to Winning brands model), we have taken
two metrics into consideration. These metrics are:
17 | P a g e

18.  Brand loyalty
 Price premia
Both these were given the same weightage while calculation i.e. of 50% each.
The Brand equity index for Colgate through this method was found out to be 6.1 out of 10
After the calculation of Brand Equity index from the above said model, the modified brand
equity index was calculated. The two metrics which were taken into consideration were:
 Brand equity index (Winning brands)
 Brand leveragability
These two were given the weightage of 70% and 30% respectively.
Thus by assigning these weightage, modified Brand Equity Index was calculated.
Modified COLGATE PEPSODENT DABUR
BEI 6.41518132 3.7033697 2.421136152
Through the brand equity index of winning brand we calculated the attributes and the degree
to which they affect brand equity by doing a linear regression:
Weighted Adj
Adj R2 R2 percentage
Awareness 0.8489 0.8489 0.317179794 31.72%
Healthy tooth & gums 0.6739 0.6739 0.251793454 25.18%
Long lasting freshness -0.4971 0.00%
Prevention of tooth decay 0.2451 0.2451 0.091578239 9.16%
Whiteness 0.9085 0.9085 0.339448513 33.94%
Use of natural herb -0.1106 0.00%
sum 2.6764 1
weightage 0.373636228
18 | P a g e

19. Healthy tooth &
gums
30
25
20
15
Use of natural Long lasting
10 colgate
herb freshness
5 pepsodent
0 closeup
dabur
Prevention of
Whiteness
tooth decay
RECCOMENDATION:
In Brand loyalty Colgate has got the highest score that is of 0.483 which is high as
compared to its competitors. Hence, Colgate is well positioned.
In, the calculation of price premia again colgate came out as the leading brand thus is
able to charge premium over other brands which will help it to sustain during adverse
market condition.
Since, Colgate had a neutral score in associated brand category it should try to cater
this market as people will be neutral to its product.
19 | P a g e

20. Annexure

21. Questionnaire
Q.1 Which brands come to your mind when you think of tooth paste?
1. ________________ (This would have the first brand recalled ie. Top of Mind)
2. ________________
3. ________________ (Other Brands recalled)
4. ________________
5. _________________
6. _________________ (Aided Recall)
Q.2. Which brands do you associate with the following attributes?
1. Healthy tooth & gums ______________________
2. Long lasting freshness ______________________
3. Prevention of tooth decay ______________________
4. Whiteness _______________________
5. Use of natural herb _______________________
Q.3 Which of these toothpaste is your favourite brand?
1. Colgate
2. Pepsodent
3. Close-up
4. Anchor
5. Dabur
6. Other(Specify) __________
Q.4 Which of these toothpaste will you say is your next favourite brand?
1. Colgate
2. Pepsodent
3. Close-up
4. Anchor
21 | P a g e

22. 5. Dabur
6. Other(Specify) __________
Q.5 If you were to recommend a brand of toothpaste to somebody, which brand would it
be?
1. Colgate
2. Pepsodent
3. Close-up
4. Anchor
5. Dabur
6. Other(Specify) __________
Q.6 Out of last 5 purchases of toothpaste, which of these did you buy and how many
times?
No. of Times Purchased
Brand 1 2 3 4 5
Colgate
Pepsodent
Close up
Anchor
Dabur
Other
Q.7 Now I would like you to think about the price of different brands of toothpaste.
Kindly tell us which of the following statements best describes how likely you would be
to one pack of toothpaste (BRAND name)
o I would buy Whatever it costs
o I would buy even if it costs lot more than the cheapest brand
o Even if it costs more than any other brand
o Even if it costs a bit more than the cheapest brand
22 | P a g e

23. o I wouldn’t buy it at all
o Only if it costs the same as the cheapest brand
o Don’t know/ Can’t say
Q8. If the following brands come up with the following categories, Rate these categories
from 1 to 5 according to their acceptance by you (5 being the highest and 1 being the
lowest)
DABUR 5 4 3 2 1
chewing gum
mouth freshener
tongue cleaner
fairness cream
shaving gel
deodorants
washing machine
mobile phones
laptop
PEPSODENT 5 4 3 2 1
chewing gum
mouth freshener
tongue cleaner
fairness cream
shaving gel
deodorants
washing machine
mobile phones
laptop
TATA 5 4 3 2 1
chewing gum
mouth freshener
tongue cleaner
fairness cream
shaving gel
deodorants
washing machine
mobile phones
laptop
23 | P a g e

24. COLGATE 5 4 3 2 1
chewing gum
mouth freshener
tongue cleaner
fairness cream
shaving gel
deodorants
washing machine
mobile phones
laptop
24 | P a g e

25. References
 Prof. Srinivas Govindrajan’s PPTs
 Marketing Management : Philip Kotler- 13th Edition
 www.slideshare.net/sharathghosh
 www.acnielsen.com
 The Economic times: Brand Equity:28 sept 2011
 Wikipedia.org
 http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2012/snapshots/101.html
 http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/display.asp?id=7644
 http://lta.hse.fi/1999/1/lta_1999_01_a4.pdf