This document summarizes a research study that developed and validated a measurement instrument for consumer-based brand equity. The study proposed measuring brand equity across four dimensions: 1) functional utility associated with the product, 2) symbolic utility associated with the product, 3) functional utility associated with the brand name, and 4) symbolic utility associated with the brand name. A scale was developed and tested on sports shoes brands. The results indicated the scale had reasonable reliability and validity for measuring brand equity in the sports shoes sector.
(MBASkills.IN) Brand Resonance Pyramid and Sub-dimensionsSameer Mathur
This document outlines Sameer Mathur's Customer-Based Brand Equity (CBBE) Pyramid model. The CBBE Pyramid includes four levels: Salience, Performance, Imagery, and Resonance. Each level has sub-dimensions that contribute to building strong customer-brand relationships and brand equity over time. The CBBE Pyramid provides a framework for understanding how brands become meaningful to customers.
The document discusses the Customer-Based Brand Equity Pyramid model and applies it to analyze the brand equity of Kit Kat. It examines Kit Kat across the four levels of the pyramid: 1) Identity, which establishes Kit Kat's brand awareness and category membership. 2) Meaning, including its performance and imagery as a youthful yet universal brand. 3) Response, where consumers judge Kit Kat as affordable and relevant. 4) Relationships, as Kit Kat strongly resonates with consumers due to childhood memories and repeat purchases.
This document discusses customer-based brand equity (CBBE), which occurs when customers have a high level of brand awareness, familiarity, and strong brand associations, leading them to react favorably to the brand. It explains the sources and components of brand equity, including brand awareness, image, salience, performance, imagery, judgments, feelings, and resonance. Finally, it discusses how building brand equity can help create customer equity by driving customer retention, reducing acquisition costs, and allowing price premiums that generate cash flows.
The document discusses brand equity and customer-based brand equity (CBBE). It defines brand equity as the measurable financial value and brand assets/liabilities that accrue to a product/service. CBBE is the differential effect brand knowledge has on consumer response to marketing. The key elements of CBBE are the differential effect, brand knowledge, and consumer response. The document outlines the CBBE pyramid and sources/sub-dimensions of brand equity like brand awareness, image, associations, and relationships. It also discusses tools for building brand equity over time and across market segments.
Brand equity provides added value to products and services from a customer perspective. There are three key ingredients to customer-based brand equity: 1) Differences in consumer response arise from brand knowledge, thoughts, and feelings about the brand over time. 2) Consumer brand knowledge, thoughts, feelings, images and beliefs are responsible for differences in response. 3) Brand equity is reflected in perceptions, preferences, and behaviors related to marketing the brand. The document then discusses several models of measuring brand equity, including the BrandAsset Valuator, BrandZ, and Brand Resonance Model.
This document discusses customer-based brand equity. It defines customer-based brand equity as the differential effect that brand knowledge has on consumer response to marketing for that brand. It describes the components of brand knowledge as brand awareness and brand image. The document outlines Keller's customer-based brand equity pyramid model, which shows how brand identity, meaning, response, and relationships drive resonance. It discusses how building brand awareness, image, judgments, feelings, performance, and imagery can increase customer-based brand equity.
(MBASkills.IN) Brand Resonance Pyramid and Sub-dimensionsSameer Mathur
This document outlines Sameer Mathur's Customer-Based Brand Equity (CBBE) Pyramid model. The CBBE Pyramid includes four levels: Salience, Performance, Imagery, and Resonance. Each level has sub-dimensions that contribute to building strong customer-brand relationships and brand equity over time. The CBBE Pyramid provides a framework for understanding how brands become meaningful to customers.
The document discusses the Customer-Based Brand Equity Pyramid model and applies it to analyze the brand equity of Kit Kat. It examines Kit Kat across the four levels of the pyramid: 1) Identity, which establishes Kit Kat's brand awareness and category membership. 2) Meaning, including its performance and imagery as a youthful yet universal brand. 3) Response, where consumers judge Kit Kat as affordable and relevant. 4) Relationships, as Kit Kat strongly resonates with consumers due to childhood memories and repeat purchases.
This document discusses customer-based brand equity (CBBE), which occurs when customers have a high level of brand awareness, familiarity, and strong brand associations, leading them to react favorably to the brand. It explains the sources and components of brand equity, including brand awareness, image, salience, performance, imagery, judgments, feelings, and resonance. Finally, it discusses how building brand equity can help create customer equity by driving customer retention, reducing acquisition costs, and allowing price premiums that generate cash flows.
The document discusses brand equity and customer-based brand equity (CBBE). It defines brand equity as the measurable financial value and brand assets/liabilities that accrue to a product/service. CBBE is the differential effect brand knowledge has on consumer response to marketing. The key elements of CBBE are the differential effect, brand knowledge, and consumer response. The document outlines the CBBE pyramid and sources/sub-dimensions of brand equity like brand awareness, image, associations, and relationships. It also discusses tools for building brand equity over time and across market segments.
Brand equity provides added value to products and services from a customer perspective. There are three key ingredients to customer-based brand equity: 1) Differences in consumer response arise from brand knowledge, thoughts, and feelings about the brand over time. 2) Consumer brand knowledge, thoughts, feelings, images and beliefs are responsible for differences in response. 3) Brand equity is reflected in perceptions, preferences, and behaviors related to marketing the brand. The document then discusses several models of measuring brand equity, including the BrandAsset Valuator, BrandZ, and Brand Resonance Model.
This document discusses customer-based brand equity. It defines customer-based brand equity as the differential effect that brand knowledge has on consumer response to marketing for that brand. It describes the components of brand knowledge as brand awareness and brand image. The document outlines Keller's customer-based brand equity pyramid model, which shows how brand identity, meaning, response, and relationships drive resonance. It discusses how building brand awareness, image, judgments, feelings, performance, and imagery can increase customer-based brand equity.
This document outlines Keller's Customer-Based Brand Equity (CBBE) model for building brand equity. It discusses how brands convey meanings and benefits to influence consumer choice. Quality experiences and brand resonance can positively impact brand equity. Keller's CBBE model examines how consumer learning, feelings, perceptions and opinions become linked to a brand over time through consistent marketing. The strategic brand management process involves developing brand plans, implementing marketing programs, measuring performance, and sustaining equity.
This document discusses strategic brand management and building customer-based brand equity. It defines a brand and introduces the challenges of modern branding. Brand equity is defined as the marketing effects attributable to a brand's name compared to an unnamed product. Customer-based brand equity depends on customer brand knowledge and marketing response. The determinants of customer-based brand equity are brand awareness and unique, favorable brand associations. Strategic brand management involves identifying brand positioning, implementing marketing programs, measuring performance, and sustaining equity over time.
1) Brand equity is created in the minds of consumers based on their experiences and perceptions of a brand over time.
2) Both qualitative and quantitative research can be used to measure sources of brand equity like brand awareness, associations, personality and image.
3) Qualitative methods are more unstructured and explore what brands mean to consumers through techniques like free association, comparisons, and projective exercises. Quantitative methods provide a more measurable assessment of brand equity.
Customer Based Brand Equity PowerPoint Presentation SlidesSlideTeam
Enhance your audiences knowledge with this well researched complete deck. Showcase all the important features of the deck with perfect visuals. This deck comprises of total of thirty slides with each slide explained in detail. Each template comprises of professional diagrams and layouts. Our professional PowerPoint experts have also included icons, graphs and charts for your convenience. All you have to do is DOWNLOAD the deck. Make changes as per the requirement. Yes, these PPT slides are completely customizable. Edit the colour, text and font size. Add or delete the content from the slide. And leave your audience awestruck with the professionally designed Customer Based Brand Equity PowerPoint Presentation Slides complete deck. http://bit.ly/2SllQ2e
This document discusses branding and brand equity. It defines branding as endowing products with a brand to create differences between products. Brand equity is the added value provided to products and services by a brand. The Aaker model identifies five categories of brand assets and liabilities that contribute to brand equity: brand loyalty, brand awareness, perceived quality, brand associations, and other proprietary assets. The brand resonance model shows how brand identity, meaning, response, and relationships build brand resonance. Methods for measuring brand equity include brand audits, brand tracking, and brand valuation. Managing brand equity involves brand reinforcement, handling brand crises, brand extensions, and developing brand portfolios.
This document discusses customer-based brand equity (CBBE) of Amazon.com. It outlines Keller's CBBE model, which assesses brand equity based on customer mindset. The model examines brand salience, performance, imagery, judgment, feeling, and resonance. Developing CBBE for Amazon requires building positive customer experiences and associations with the brand. Benefits of strong CBBE include greater loyalty, price premiums, communication efficiency, and licensing opportunities.
The document discusses brand equity and its measurement. It defines brand equity as the incremental contribution ($) per year obtained by the brand compared to an unbranded product. Brand equity is driven by consumers' increased choice probability for the branded product. The approach measures three sources of brand equity - brand awareness, attribute perceptions, and non-attribute preferences - and how much each contributes to brand equity directly and indirectly through brand availability. Applying this method provides what-if analysis to predict strategies for enhancing brand equity.
Brand equity and Keller’s Brand Equity ModelNaheed Mir
In marketing, the brand equity refers to the value of the brand depending on the customer perception of the brand in the market. Brand equity can be positive or negative, as if the customer is happy from your brand and gives you higher rank then it will be positive equity while if the brand fails to reach the customer values then they give them negative rank.
Brand equity is the added value that endowed to products and services. This value may be reflected in how consumers think, feel, and act with respect to the brand, as well as the prices, market share and profitability that the brand commands for the firm. Brand equity is an important intangible asset that has psychological and financial value to the firm.
This document discusses the importance of branding for both consumers and organizations. It provides several key points:
1) Branding helps consumers differentiate products in overcrowded markets by creating associations with qualities like quality, consistency, and value.
2) Strong brands reduce risks for consumers and can increase a company's market share.
3) Branding is important for organizations as it can increase future profits, market share, and asset value over the brand name alone. Building brands requires long-term planning and investment.
Brand equity is defined as the marketing effects that are uniquely attributable to a brand, such as differences in consumer responses. Consumer-based brand equity arises from the differential effect that brand knowledge has on how consumers respond to the marketing of that brand. A brand must create strong, favorable, and unique associations with customers for brand equity to exist, which is reflected in customer perceptions, preferences, and behaviors related to the brand. Models for measuring brand equity include the BrandAsset Valuator, BrandZ, and Brand Resonance Model, which all analyze components such as brand differentiation, relevance, esteem, knowledge, presence, performance, advantage, bonding, salience, imagery, judgments, and feelings.
There are several methods discussed for measuring brand equity:
1. Outcome-based approaches that measure outcomes like customer recommendations or price premiums customers are willing to pay.
2. Utility-based approaches that measure the scale and nature of utility the brand delivers to customers.
3. Brand Dynamics measures presence, relevance, performance, advantage, and bond.
4. Keller's CBBE model measures brand salience, performance/imagery, judgments/feelings, and resonance.
5. Equity Builder measures healthy brands' resistance to competitors and responsiveness to own marketing.
Incorporating the latest industry thinking and developments, this exploration of brands, brand equity, and strategic brand management combines a comprehensive theoretical foundation with numerous techniques and practical insights for making better day-to-day and long-term brand decisions–and thus improving the long-term profitability of specific brand strategies.
This document discusses strategic brand management concepts and measuring brand equity. It defines brand equity as the differential effect that brand knowledge has on consumer responses. It identifies key elements of brand equity as brand loyalty, brand awareness, perceived quality, and brand associations. The document discusses how to build and measure each element, and the benefits they provide such as loyal customers and ability to charge a price premium. It emphasizes that managing brand equity requires understanding what drives brand equity according to consumers and how the brand performs on those drivers. Methods discussed for measuring equity include calculating a Brand Equity Index to evaluate brand strength over time and against competitors.
The document discusses brand management and customer-based brand equity. It defines what a brand is and discusses new challenges in branding. It introduces the concept of customer-based brand equity and how building strong customer brand knowledge and associations can provide benefits like greater loyalty and price premiums. The document outlines the strategic brand management process and emphasizes that for branding to be successful, customers must perceive meaningful differences between brands.
Chap 5, designing marketing programme to build brand equityRajesh Kumar
In current time making marketing strategy is as important to put it on branding platform. This slides will give details view about marketing strategy for branding
Regards
Rajesh
The document discusses key concepts for creating brand equity from chapter 9, including defining brand equity as the added value provided to products and services. It covers customer-based brand equity, the importance of quality over quantity in building brands, components of brand asset valuation, and models for brand identity, resonance, equity drivers, and audits. The summary also discusses managing brand equity through reinforcement and revitalization, and devising branding strategies including extensions and portfolios.
This document discusses strategies for enhancing brand equity through integrated marketing communications. It begins by defining key concepts like brands, brand equity, and brand loyalty. It then examines several models of brand equity, including the Brand Asset Valuator model and dimensions of brand knowledge. The document outlines relationships between brand concepts, equity, and loyalty. It explores strategies for leveraging brand associations and enhancing equity, such as brand messaging and sponsorship. Finally, it addresses measuring the effectiveness of marketing communications and the challenges in determining the impact of specific marketing elements.
This document provides an overview of brand positioning. It begins with definitions of branding, positioning, and brand positioning. It then discusses perceptual mapping and how positioning approaches can be based on attributes, benefits, use occasions, price-quality, product categories, competitors, and repositioning. Common positioning errors like under, over, and confused positioning are explained. The document also covers brand mantras, taglines, and provides case studies on the positioning of ENO antacid and Maggi noodles in India.
This document outlines Kevin Keller's Customer-Based Brand Equity (CBBE) model for building strong brands. The CBBE model involves four steps: 1) establishing brand identity, 2) creating brand meaning, 3) eliciting brand responses, and 4) forging brand relationships. Achieving these steps requires establishing six brand-building blocks - brand salience, brand performance, brand imagery, brand judgments, brand feelings, and brand resonance. The most valuable block is brand resonance, which occurs when customers are intensely loyal to the brand and actively engage with it. The CBBE model provides a framework for assessing brand strength and guiding marketing research and strategy.
This paper investigate the relationship between word of mouth dimensions volume,
valance and source type with customer based brand equity dimensions brand awareness,
brand image, perceived quality and brand loyalty. Study is conducted in Islamabad
Pakistan on Five GSM companies working in Pakistan. Structural questioning model was
used in methodology. Our study revealed that volume and valance has significant impact
on CBBE while source type relation is not significant.
This document outlines Keller's Customer-Based Brand Equity (CBBE) model for building brand equity. It discusses how brands convey meanings and benefits to influence consumer choice. Quality experiences and brand resonance can positively impact brand equity. Keller's CBBE model examines how consumer learning, feelings, perceptions and opinions become linked to a brand over time through consistent marketing. The strategic brand management process involves developing brand plans, implementing marketing programs, measuring performance, and sustaining equity.
This document discusses strategic brand management and building customer-based brand equity. It defines a brand and introduces the challenges of modern branding. Brand equity is defined as the marketing effects attributable to a brand's name compared to an unnamed product. Customer-based brand equity depends on customer brand knowledge and marketing response. The determinants of customer-based brand equity are brand awareness and unique, favorable brand associations. Strategic brand management involves identifying brand positioning, implementing marketing programs, measuring performance, and sustaining equity over time.
1) Brand equity is created in the minds of consumers based on their experiences and perceptions of a brand over time.
2) Both qualitative and quantitative research can be used to measure sources of brand equity like brand awareness, associations, personality and image.
3) Qualitative methods are more unstructured and explore what brands mean to consumers through techniques like free association, comparisons, and projective exercises. Quantitative methods provide a more measurable assessment of brand equity.
Customer Based Brand Equity PowerPoint Presentation SlidesSlideTeam
Enhance your audiences knowledge with this well researched complete deck. Showcase all the important features of the deck with perfect visuals. This deck comprises of total of thirty slides with each slide explained in detail. Each template comprises of professional diagrams and layouts. Our professional PowerPoint experts have also included icons, graphs and charts for your convenience. All you have to do is DOWNLOAD the deck. Make changes as per the requirement. Yes, these PPT slides are completely customizable. Edit the colour, text and font size. Add or delete the content from the slide. And leave your audience awestruck with the professionally designed Customer Based Brand Equity PowerPoint Presentation Slides complete deck. http://bit.ly/2SllQ2e
This document discusses branding and brand equity. It defines branding as endowing products with a brand to create differences between products. Brand equity is the added value provided to products and services by a brand. The Aaker model identifies five categories of brand assets and liabilities that contribute to brand equity: brand loyalty, brand awareness, perceived quality, brand associations, and other proprietary assets. The brand resonance model shows how brand identity, meaning, response, and relationships build brand resonance. Methods for measuring brand equity include brand audits, brand tracking, and brand valuation. Managing brand equity involves brand reinforcement, handling brand crises, brand extensions, and developing brand portfolios.
This document discusses customer-based brand equity (CBBE) of Amazon.com. It outlines Keller's CBBE model, which assesses brand equity based on customer mindset. The model examines brand salience, performance, imagery, judgment, feeling, and resonance. Developing CBBE for Amazon requires building positive customer experiences and associations with the brand. Benefits of strong CBBE include greater loyalty, price premiums, communication efficiency, and licensing opportunities.
The document discusses brand equity and its measurement. It defines brand equity as the incremental contribution ($) per year obtained by the brand compared to an unbranded product. Brand equity is driven by consumers' increased choice probability for the branded product. The approach measures three sources of brand equity - brand awareness, attribute perceptions, and non-attribute preferences - and how much each contributes to brand equity directly and indirectly through brand availability. Applying this method provides what-if analysis to predict strategies for enhancing brand equity.
Brand equity and Keller’s Brand Equity ModelNaheed Mir
In marketing, the brand equity refers to the value of the brand depending on the customer perception of the brand in the market. Brand equity can be positive or negative, as if the customer is happy from your brand and gives you higher rank then it will be positive equity while if the brand fails to reach the customer values then they give them negative rank.
Brand equity is the added value that endowed to products and services. This value may be reflected in how consumers think, feel, and act with respect to the brand, as well as the prices, market share and profitability that the brand commands for the firm. Brand equity is an important intangible asset that has psychological and financial value to the firm.
This document discusses the importance of branding for both consumers and organizations. It provides several key points:
1) Branding helps consumers differentiate products in overcrowded markets by creating associations with qualities like quality, consistency, and value.
2) Strong brands reduce risks for consumers and can increase a company's market share.
3) Branding is important for organizations as it can increase future profits, market share, and asset value over the brand name alone. Building brands requires long-term planning and investment.
Brand equity is defined as the marketing effects that are uniquely attributable to a brand, such as differences in consumer responses. Consumer-based brand equity arises from the differential effect that brand knowledge has on how consumers respond to the marketing of that brand. A brand must create strong, favorable, and unique associations with customers for brand equity to exist, which is reflected in customer perceptions, preferences, and behaviors related to the brand. Models for measuring brand equity include the BrandAsset Valuator, BrandZ, and Brand Resonance Model, which all analyze components such as brand differentiation, relevance, esteem, knowledge, presence, performance, advantage, bonding, salience, imagery, judgments, and feelings.
There are several methods discussed for measuring brand equity:
1. Outcome-based approaches that measure outcomes like customer recommendations or price premiums customers are willing to pay.
2. Utility-based approaches that measure the scale and nature of utility the brand delivers to customers.
3. Brand Dynamics measures presence, relevance, performance, advantage, and bond.
4. Keller's CBBE model measures brand salience, performance/imagery, judgments/feelings, and resonance.
5. Equity Builder measures healthy brands' resistance to competitors and responsiveness to own marketing.
Incorporating the latest industry thinking and developments, this exploration of brands, brand equity, and strategic brand management combines a comprehensive theoretical foundation with numerous techniques and practical insights for making better day-to-day and long-term brand decisions–and thus improving the long-term profitability of specific brand strategies.
This document discusses strategic brand management concepts and measuring brand equity. It defines brand equity as the differential effect that brand knowledge has on consumer responses. It identifies key elements of brand equity as brand loyalty, brand awareness, perceived quality, and brand associations. The document discusses how to build and measure each element, and the benefits they provide such as loyal customers and ability to charge a price premium. It emphasizes that managing brand equity requires understanding what drives brand equity according to consumers and how the brand performs on those drivers. Methods discussed for measuring equity include calculating a Brand Equity Index to evaluate brand strength over time and against competitors.
The document discusses brand management and customer-based brand equity. It defines what a brand is and discusses new challenges in branding. It introduces the concept of customer-based brand equity and how building strong customer brand knowledge and associations can provide benefits like greater loyalty and price premiums. The document outlines the strategic brand management process and emphasizes that for branding to be successful, customers must perceive meaningful differences between brands.
Chap 5, designing marketing programme to build brand equityRajesh Kumar
In current time making marketing strategy is as important to put it on branding platform. This slides will give details view about marketing strategy for branding
Regards
Rajesh
The document discusses key concepts for creating brand equity from chapter 9, including defining brand equity as the added value provided to products and services. It covers customer-based brand equity, the importance of quality over quantity in building brands, components of brand asset valuation, and models for brand identity, resonance, equity drivers, and audits. The summary also discusses managing brand equity through reinforcement and revitalization, and devising branding strategies including extensions and portfolios.
This document discusses strategies for enhancing brand equity through integrated marketing communications. It begins by defining key concepts like brands, brand equity, and brand loyalty. It then examines several models of brand equity, including the Brand Asset Valuator model and dimensions of brand knowledge. The document outlines relationships between brand concepts, equity, and loyalty. It explores strategies for leveraging brand associations and enhancing equity, such as brand messaging and sponsorship. Finally, it addresses measuring the effectiveness of marketing communications and the challenges in determining the impact of specific marketing elements.
This document provides an overview of brand positioning. It begins with definitions of branding, positioning, and brand positioning. It then discusses perceptual mapping and how positioning approaches can be based on attributes, benefits, use occasions, price-quality, product categories, competitors, and repositioning. Common positioning errors like under, over, and confused positioning are explained. The document also covers brand mantras, taglines, and provides case studies on the positioning of ENO antacid and Maggi noodles in India.
This document outlines Kevin Keller's Customer-Based Brand Equity (CBBE) model for building strong brands. The CBBE model involves four steps: 1) establishing brand identity, 2) creating brand meaning, 3) eliciting brand responses, and 4) forging brand relationships. Achieving these steps requires establishing six brand-building blocks - brand salience, brand performance, brand imagery, brand judgments, brand feelings, and brand resonance. The most valuable block is brand resonance, which occurs when customers are intensely loyal to the brand and actively engage with it. The CBBE model provides a framework for assessing brand strength and guiding marketing research and strategy.
This paper investigate the relationship between word of mouth dimensions volume,
valance and source type with customer based brand equity dimensions brand awareness,
brand image, perceived quality and brand loyalty. Study is conducted in Islamabad
Pakistan on Five GSM companies working in Pakistan. Structural questioning model was
used in methodology. Our study revealed that volume and valance has significant impact
on CBBE while source type relation is not significant.
Negative electronic word of mouth & customer based brand equity a qualitative...Claudia Lapel
This master's thesis examines negative electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) on Facebook regarding the Apple iPhone and its potential impact on customer-based brand equity for the Apple brand.
The thesis has three authors - Claudia Lapel, Erbol Anarbekov, and Oylum Ellez. It is supervised by Annette Cerne and was completed as part of a Master's program in International Marketing and Brand Management at a university.
The thesis contains seven chapters: 1) Introduction; 2) Literature Review on topics like corporate brand equity, customer-based brand equity, eWOM, social media, and consumer culture theory; 3) Research Methodology using a qualitative case study approach
Measuring customer based brand equity in the iranian lubricants market case s...Alexander Decker
The document discusses measuring customer-based brand equity in the Iranian lubricants market for Sepahan oil company. It analyzes brand equity dimensions of brand loyalty, brand associations/awareness, and perceived quality based on a sample of 300 Sepahan oil company consumers. The findings conclude that brand loyalty and perceived quality are influential dimensions of brand equity, while weak support was found for the brand associations/awareness dimension.
Master Thesis. Brand Architecture. Customer Based Brand Equity on Social Medi...Claudia Lapel
This document provides an introduction and background to a master's thesis that aims to analyze negative electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) about the Apple iPhone on Facebook. Specifically, it will examine a Facebook page called "We Hate Iphone!!" to understand how negative eWOM may impact customer-based brand equity for Apple and its iPhone brand. The introduction discusses the importance of understanding negative consumer content in social media and its potential effects on brand image and corporate reputation. It proposes that the study will use a case study research design and grounded theory analysis methods to qualitatively analyze posts on the Facebook page in order to understand motivations for consumer dissatisfaction and rejection of the brand. The results are expected to provide practical
Effect of country of origin on brand equity finalSamik Sarkar
This document is a project report submitted by Samik Sarkar to fulfill requirements for a Masters in International Business. The report explores the effect of country of origin on brand equity. It begins with a declaration by the author and acknowledgments. The report then reviews relevant literature on brand equity, dimensions of brand equity, country of origin, and how country of origin image can impact brand equity. The objectives of the study are to investigate the effects of a brand's country of origin image on brand equity formation in India. The methodology section outlines the research objectives, design, data collection and analysis approaches. Key findings are that country of origin has a varied effect on consumer behavior depending on the brand and product category. The conclusion discusses the implications
This study examines the Consumer Based Brand Equity (CBBE) and its drivers in
Pakistani Super Markets. It is quantitative study and uses correlational approach to
determine the relationship between variables. In this study two tests are executed in SPSS
to find out results; first factor analysis and then regression is applied to determine which
variable (equity drivers) has significant impact in building consumer based brand equity.
In order to collect primary information data is collected from sample size of 250 people
by using close ended questionnaire based on likert scale from different universities, super
markets and, who have readily access to a supermarket located in their vicinity in
Karachi. The results of factor analysis make factors of all 6 variables of which 5 were
independent Service Level, Product quality, Keeping Customers, Price, Layout) whereas
other one is dependent variable (consumer based brand equity), then regression analysis
results show that 4 of the independent variables have significant impact in building
consumer based brand equity (CBBE), whereas keeping customers has positive but
insignificant impact on CBBE. Furthermore, Consumer based brand equity and its drivers
should be studied in different sectors as well like service industry; research in those
sector will enable the researcher to determine how consumer based brand equity can be
built and maintained.
Pemerintah mengumumkan paket stimulus ekonomi baru untuk menyelamatkan bisnis dan pekerjaan. Stimulus ini meliputi insentif pajak, bantuan langsung untuk UMKM, serta subsidi upah bagi perusahaan yang menahan PHK. Langkah ini diharapkan dapat mendorong pertumbuhan kembali dan menekan angka pengangguran.
1. Pelanggaran wilayah udara dan koridor udara di Indonesia Timur melalui cakupan radar Ngurah Rai masih terjadi, dan TNI-AU terus mewaspadainya sesuai perintah komando.
2. Sistem radar terpadu antara instansi pemerintah sipil dan militer membantu mendeteksi pelanggaran wilayah udara oleh pesawat asing.
3. Wilayah udara Bali yang diawasi ATC Ngurah Rai mencakup aktivitas ratusan penerbangan internas
Pemerintah mengumumkan paket stimulus ekonomi baru untuk menyelamatkan bisnis dan pekerjaan. Stimulus ini meliputi insentif pajak, bantuan langsung untuk UMKM, serta subsidi upah bagi perusahaan yang menahan PHK. Langkah ini diharapkan dapat mendorong pertumbuhan kembali dan menekan angka pengangguran.
Pemerintah mengumumkan paket stimulus ekonomi baru untuk menyelamatkan bisnis dan pekerjaan. Stimulus ini meliputi insentif pajak, bantuan tunai langsung, dan subsidi upah untuk mendorong pertumbuhan. Langkah ini diharapkan dapat mempercepat pemulihan ekonomi dari resesi akibat pandemi.
Ketua MPR mengatakan bahwa pihaknya tidak dapat melakukan apa-apa terhadap wacana impeachment Presiden yang semakin kuat dan akan menunggu keputusan dari DPR. Sementara itu, Pansus Angket Bank Century akan memanggil BPK terkait laporan auditnya mengenai kasus tersebut. Pansus juga sedang mempertimbangkan untuk memanggil Presiden terkait perannya dalam bailout Bank Century.
Tiga kalimat ringkasan dokumen tersebut adalah:
Kapoltabes Banda Aceh menangkap sepuluh pengendara motor yang terlibat balap liar di jalan raya ibukota setelah mendapat pengaduan masyarakat, sementara itu seorang wanita dilarikan ke rumah sakit karena dipukuli suaminya di Aceh Timur.
Tiga orang tewas dalam serangan bunuh diri di Pakistan. Presiden Venezuela memerintahkan militer bersiap untuk perang guna mempertahankan perdamaian di kawasan, menanggapi perjanjian militer antara Kolombia dan AS. Parlemen Irak menyetujui undang-undang pemilu 2010 yang akan diadakan awal tahun depan.
La pandemia de COVID-19 ha tenido un impacto significativo en la economía mundial. Muchos países experimentaron fuertes caídas en el PIB y aumentos en el desempleo debido a los cierres generalizados y las restricciones a los viajes. Aunque las vacunas han permitido la reapertura de muchas economías, los efectos a largo plazo de la pandemia en sectores como el turismo y los viajes aún no están claros.
Brand is defined as the image consumers have of a product/service that differentiates it from competitors. Brand equity refers to the added value a brand name provides and is influenced by brand awareness, perceived quality, and loyalty. Brand perception is a consumer's ability to identify a brand based on recognition or recall and is influenced by awareness, associations, quality, and loyalty. Marketing activities aim to improve brand equity by positively impacting consumer perception.
This document discusses various approaches to valuing brands, including cost-based, market-based, income-based, and formulaic methods. It notes that while brand valuation is important, there are obstacles to accurate valuation due to a lack of consensus on methods and difficulty separating brand equity from other intangible assets. The document evaluates reasons for and against including brands on company balance sheets. Overall, the document aims to identify and review different valuation approaches and issues for managers to consider when selecting methods.
Customer-based brand equity has many dimensions, however a general acceptance as to which dimensions to use when measuring customer-based brand equity has not being decided. This study reviews empirical results of literatures that utilized Aaker’s and Keller’s model in measuring brand equity and sum up the main or significant customer-based brand equity. The findings indicate that it is empirical difficult differentiating between brand awareness and brand association.
International Journal of Business and Management Invention (IJBMI) is an international journal intended for professionals and researchers in all fields of Business and Management. IJBMI publishes research articles and reviews within the whole field Business and Management, new teaching methods, assessment, validation and the impact of new technologies and it will continue to provide information on the latest trends and developments in this ever-expanding subject. The publications of papers are selected through double peer reviewed to ensure originality, relevance, and readability. The articles published in our journal can be accessed online.
This document discusses umbrella branding and cross-category brand loyalty. It begins by defining umbrella branding as using an established brand name to launch new products in different categories. The document then reviews literature on factors that influence brand extension success, noting that the ability of a brand to transfer loyal customers between categories has been underexplored. The authors aim to provide empirical evidence that brand loyalty can transfer between categories for the same brand. They develop a new metric called the "loyalty leverage index" to quantify cross-category brand loyalty relationships. An empirical study is then described that uses household panel data to examine cross-category loyalty for a major brand operating in multiple non-food categories.
The document discusses various aspects of branding, including brand positioning, personality, relationship, and extension. It summarizes research on how brands are defined and perceived, the psychological constructs that influence consumer brand relationships, and factors that impact brand equity and extension success such as brand familiarity, fit between the parent and extended categories, and the quality of the original brand. The document also presents models for segmenting markets and positioning brands globally, and discusses the relationship between corporate branding, credibility, and price premiums.
This document discusses the shift from traditional marketing focused on features and benefits to experiential marketing focused on customer experiences that occurred around 1999. It outlines four key characteristics of experiential marketing: 1) Focusing on customer experiences rather than just functional features and benefits. 2) Viewing consumption as a holistic experience rather than isolated products. 3) Recognizing customers are both rational and emotional. 4) Using a broader set of qualitative and analytical tools to design experiences. The core of experiential marketing is delivering products, communications, and campaigns that create memorable sensory, emotional and cognitive experiences for customers.
This document provides an executive summary and introduction for a brand audit of the Nivea skin care brand. The purpose is to identify any challenges in achieving alignment between what customers believe about the brand, what they value, what the company communicates, and where they want to take the brand. The brand audit will examine Nivea's current brand health and positioning. It will gather information from customers to help determine if repositioning is needed and inform a sustainable brand strategy. The introduction provides background on Nivea as a global skin care brand known for trust, reliability and gentle care. It compares marketing and branding, defines brands, and discusses the importance of the brand experience over products.
International Journal of Business and Management Invention (IJBMI)inventionjournals
International Journal of Business and Management Invention (IJBMI) is an international journal intended for professionals and researchers in all fields of Business and Management. IJBMI publishes research articles and reviews within the whole field Business and Management, new teaching methods, assessment, validation and the impact of new technologies and it will continue to provide information on the latest trends and developments in this ever-expanding subject. The publications of papers are selected through double peer reviewed to ensure originality, relevance, and readability. The articles published in our journal can be accessed online.
This document discusses a research study that examines the impact of brand image and corporate branding on consumer choice through the mediating role of brand equity.
The study develops an integrated conceptual framework to examine how brand image and corporate branding influence brand equity, and how brand equity then impacts consumer choice. It reviews literature on these variables and proposes relationships between them. Specifically, it hypothesizes that corporate branding has a positive impact on brand equity, while the impact of brand image on brand equity is unclear. It also hypothesizes that brand equity positively influences consumer choice.
The study was conducted in Saudi Arabia with 105 smartphone consumers. Path analysis found that corporate branding positively impacts brand equity, while brand image did not influence brand equity.
This document summarizes research on branding and brand equity. It identifies five topics that are important for brand management: 1) developing brand positioning; 2) integrating brand marketing; 3) assessing brand performance; 4) growing brands; and 5) strategically managing brands. It outlines what has been learned from academic research on these topics and identifies gaps in the research. It proposes several research questions on each topic to advance understanding of how to build, measure, and manage brand equity.
11.what is a brand a perspective on brand meaningAlexander Decker
This document provides an overview and analysis of over three dozen existing definitions of the term "brand" from academic literature. It categorizes the definitions into 12 themes: brand as a logo, legal instrument, company, shorthand, risk reducer, identity system, image in consumers' minds, value system, personality, relationship, value-adder, and evolving entity. For each theme, it discusses how the definitions fit into that perspective, limitations, and areas needing further clarity or research. The goal is to synthesize the various definitions and perspectives on brand meaning in order to help future researchers understand this complex topic.
This document provides an overview and analysis of over three dozen existing definitions of the term "brand" from academic literature. It categorizes the definitions into 12 themes: brand as a logo, legal instrument, company, shorthand, risk reducer, identity system, image in consumers' minds, value system, personality, relationship, value-adder, and evolving entity. For each theme, it discusses how the definitions fit into that perspective, limitations, and areas needing further clarity or research. The goal is to synthesize the varying definitions and perspectives on brand meaning in order to help future researchers understand this complex topic.
Brand extension allows established brands to leverage existing brand equity by applying the brand name to new product offerings. This essay evaluates the factors affecting brand extension for fast-moving consumer goods companies in India using Hindustan Unilever and ITC as examples. Successful brand extension depends on choosing extensions that are closely related to the core brand and maintaining consistency in brand attributes to transfer the positive brand image and associations to new products.
Developing Relationships; consumers as a source for sustainable competitive a...Kevin Rommen
The world is changing thus business units should also be changing. The influences of social media and internet can no longer be neglected, case in point “Nestlé’s epic social media #fail”1. These changes are giving consumers more and more power in their relationship with business units. Furthermore the enormous amount of products available give consumers more and more possibilities to choose from. For example, at supermarkets in the USA you’ll find in the average week about 110 cereal brands in stock (Shum, 2004). The availability of that amount of different products/product-ranges within an industry raises the question to how business units can create competitive advantage within this enormous amount of competition, especially when the consumer is gaining power?
This document summarizes a literature review on how brand personality affects products with different involvement levels. It discusses six key points:
1. Brand personality is defined as the human characteristics associated with a brand, and it can improve consumer preference and purchase intention for both low- and high-involvement products.
2. The effect of brand personality is likely stronger for high-involvement products than low-involvement products due to greater elaboration by consumers.
3. For low-involvement products, brand personality can be strengthened through the use of famous endorsers.
4. For high-involvement products, brand personality is better improved with strong positive arguments about the brand's
This document discusses understanding retail branding, providing conceptual insights and highlighting areas for further research. It summarizes that retailers are building their own brand equity to differentiate themselves from competitors and influence customer perceptions and loyalty. A retailer's brand image is determined by factors like location, in-store atmosphere, price and promotions, product assortment breadth and depth. While many branding principles apply to retailers, their brands depend more on the consumer experience. Further research is needed on how manufacturer brands and private labels influence and are influenced by the retailer brand image.
Las Vegas and Atlantic City Destination Brand Positioning (Assignment 1)Andrew Axelrad
This document discusses key debates around destination positioning and branding. It outlines theories on positioning, defining it as differentiating messages that stand out over substitutes. Positioning aims to amend differences between intended and perceived brand images. The document also analyzes aspects that enhance positioning effectiveness, including understanding desired benefits relative to competition, trade-offs for focus, and research to stay connected to target markets. It then provides audits of current positioning for Las Vegas and Atlantic City, and proposes future positioning strategies for each destination by 2020.
2. 28 Rodolfo Vázquez, A. Belén del Río and Víctor Iglesias
emerged as to how brand equity should be conceptualised and measured.
Nevertheless, there seems to exist a certain consensus in that the study of
brand equity can be approached from different perspectives, which should
be viewed as complementary rather than competing (Irmscher 1993; Ambler
and Styles 1995; Czellar 1997; Erdem and Swait 1998). Thus, brand equity has
been interpreted by paying attention to four inter-related viewpoints: the
customer, the firm owning the brand, the channel distribution and the
financial markets.
In the field of business management, in order to identify the potential
sources of brand equity, the consumer-based analysis of brand equity proves
to be critical. The consumer conditions the value of the brand for the firm in
three ways: directly and also indirectly through the value for the distributors
and for the financial markets (Keller 1993, 1998; Park and Srinivasan 1994).
For this reason, based on the works of Kamakura and Russell (1991) and
Cobb-Walgren et al. (1995), in this study we propose developing a
measurement instrument for the utilities obtained by the consumer from the
brand following its purchase (ex-post utilities). In this way, we will focus on
the concept of consumer-based brand equity defined as follows:
Consumer-based brand equity: the overall utility that the consumer
associates to the use and consumption of the brand; including associations
expressing both functional and symbolic utilities.
The generic aim is to make a more in-depth study of the nature of the brand
dimensions capable of generating long-term sustainable commercial
advantages for the firm. Although this study focuses on the ex-post utilities,
it must be borne in mind that the brand can also contribute ex-ante utilities to
the consumer (utilities obtained prior to the purchase, e.g. simplifying the
choice, lowering the perceived risk and the costs of the information search).
Ex-ante utilities constitute a complementary research line that has been
undertaken in other studies (Erdem and Swait 1998).
With this aim in mind, this article is organised into four parts. The next
section reviews the main contributions regarding brand concept and the
utilities the brand provides to the consumer. We go on to propose a number
of dimensions for measuring the value of the brand for the consumer. Then,
we describe the process followed in order to develop the measurement scale
and analyse its psychometric properties applying the structural equation
models methodology. Finally, the managerial implications are discussed.
Consumer-based Brand Equity
The Traditional Approach versus the Holistic View
Before analysing the different ways in which the brand can contribute
3. Consumer-based Brand Equity 29
value to the consumer, it must be considered whether the consumer, in his
perception of the brand characteristics, makes a distinction between the
characteristics related to the product and those associated to the brand.
This distinction between the product and the brand is supported by those
authors who defend the classic definition of the brand as they conceive this
as an addition to the product, which enables its identification (Gardner and
Levy 1955; Aaker 1991; McCarthy and Perreault 1991). This is therefore a
restrictive definition of the brand that highlights three aspects. First, the
manager’s choice between selling his products with or without a brand.
Second, the essential function of the brand to incorporate a set of intangible
attributes to the product. Third, the academic and business interest of
separating the product’s own attributes from the attributes inherent in the
brand.
Alternatively, there exist three reasons justifying why some authors have
defined the brand in holistic terms. First, consumers tend to perceive the
products from an overall perspective, associating with the brand all the
attributes and satisfactions experienced by the purchase and use of the
product. Consequently, separating the product’s attributes from those of the
brand entails a great difficulty due to the strong inter-relation between the
two (Ambler and Styles 1995, 1997; Styles and Ambler 1995; Ambler 1996;
Crainer 1997). In this sense, Murphy (1990) indicates that the individual
consideration of the brand attributes and their later aggregation represents a
lower perception than that resulting from the overall evaluation of the brand.
Second, it must be understood that the creation of a brand is more than
developing communication strategies. In this way, it is interesting to adopt a
wider view of the brand embracing the set of attributes characteristic of the
firm’s offer (Achenbaum and Bodga 1996). Third, it is convenient to orient
brand extension decisions according to the degree in which the new product
contributes to strengthening the brand, instead of taking such decisions
based on the degree to which the brand favours the commercialisation of the
new product (Ambler and Styles 1997).
In conclusion, it is coherent to establish a conceptual distinction between
brand and product (Kim 1990; Young and Rubicam 1995). Nevertheless, just
as the followers of the holistic view uphold, since these notions are closely
related, it is feasible that the consumer perceives the product attributes as
integrally associated to the brand attributes. This argument, however
theoretically compelling, has not been tested in empirical research to date.
The Utilities of the Brand for the Consumer: Definition
The theoretical and empirical literature on customer-perceived brand
utilities suggests classifying the utilities according to two basic dimensions:
the functional value and the symbolic value. This dichotomic classification of
4. 30 Rodolfo Vázquez, A. Belén del Río and Víctor Iglesias
the utility provided by the brand has also been revealed in other research
areas, including those related to the needs and motivations for consumption
behaviour, the individual’s attitudes and social psychology (de Chernatony
and McDonald 1996).
In general, the delimitation of what is understood as a functional and a
symbolic utility has been based on the nature of the needs satisfied by the
brand. Just as pointed out by Mittal et al.(1990), the functional value relates
to a person’s need to favourably manage one’s physical environment,
enabling the utilitarian motives to be satisfied. In turn, the symbolic value
relates to a person’s need to favourably manage one’s social and
psychological environment - esteem, social and self-fulfilment needs of
Maslow (1970) - allowing the consumer to experience positive emotions and
to help communicate to others his link to certain social groups, values and
personal features.
In addition, the distinguishing character of these two utilities has been
explained in terms of the aspects of the brand they are derived from. Thus,
the rational approach or the economic model suggests that the functional
value corresponds to a cognitive evaluation - reflexive, rational - of the
utilitarian contributions of the brand, based on its objective characteristics
and the performance of its physical attributes. On the other hand, the
hedonic school holds that the symbolic value has its origin in the emotional
or experiential appraisal of the brand, which is based on more subjective and
expressive aspects, such as the convictions and sensations associated to the
brand, the usage situation, the personality and the life-styles associated with
the typical user of the brand.
Some research works have jointly used these two criteria - needs satisfied
and aspects considered in the evaluation of the brand - in order to define the
functional and the symbolic utility (de Chernatony and McWilliam 1989,
1990; Mittal et al. 1990). Nevertheless, from the work by Ambler (1997) it is
deduced that these criteria are not completely equivalent. This author
upholds that the brand simplifies the purchasing decision for the consumer
in the extent that the associations linked to the brand ‘demystify’ and
synthesise its functional characteristics. This means that such a utility is
derived from the brand image and satisfies the cognitive needs (physical or
not related to the individual’s psychological or social environment).
Following on from the above ideas, and in line with the approaches of
Keller (1993, 1998) and of Park and Srinivasan (1994), it can be said that the
product as well as the brand name are capable of contributing both types of
utilities to the consumer. However, it is reasonable that the functional utility
(satisfying the needs of the physical environment) basically proceeds from
the product whereas the symbolic utility (satisfying the needs of the
psychological and social environment) emanates essentially from the brand
5. Consumer-based Brand Equity 31
name. To date, these issues have not been examined in empirical research.
Dimensions of Brand Utilities for the Consumer
Despite the fact that from a theoretical viewpoint brand utilities have
received considerable attention, at the empirical level there exist very few
studies analysing their dimensionality. To this lack of attention in the
literature, it must be added that some authors describe the functions or
benefits that the brand gives the consumer without distinguishing what type
of utility - functional or symbolic - is provided.
In summary, the main contributions regarding the dimensions of brand
utilities are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Dimensions of Brand Utility
Construct Source
Product Sheth et al. (1991); de Chernatony (1993); Múgica and
functional utility Yagüe (1993); Bhat and Reddy (1998); Long and
Schiffman (2000)
Choice utility Kapferer and Laurent (1991); Lambin (1991); de
Chernatony (1993); Múgica and Yagüe (1993); Ambler
(1997); Keller (1998)
Innovation utility de Chernatony (1993); Ambler (1997)
Trustworthiness Kapferer and Laurent (1991); Lambin (1991); de
utility Chernatony (1993); Ambler (1997); Keller (1998)
Emotional utility Sheth et al. (1991); de Chernatony (1993); Dubois and
Duquesne (1995); Ambler (1997). Bhat and Reddy (1998);
Long and Schiffman (2000)
Aesthetic utility Wind (1982); Schmitt and Simonson (1997)
Novelty utility Kapferer and Laurent (1991); Lambin (1991); Sheth et al.
(1991); Long and Schiffman (2000)
Social Kapferer and Laurent (1991); Lambin (1991); Sheth et al.
identification (1991); de Chernatony (1993); Dubois and Duquesne
utility (1995); Ambler (1997); Keller (1998); Bhat and Reddy
(1998); Long and Schiffman (2000)
Personal Kapferer and Laurent (1991); Lambin (1991); de
identification Chernatony (1993); Múgica and Yagüe (1993); Dubois
utility and Duquesne (1995); Ambler (1997); Keller (1998)
Proposal of a Measurement Scale of the Brand Utilities for the
Consumer
Faced with the multiplicity of variables revealing the value of the brand for
6. 32 Rodolfo Vázquez, A. Belén del Río and Víctor Iglesias
the consumer, when researching this subject, it is essential to distinguish
between various levels of analysis. Following this approach, several authors
have emphasised the need to define the concept of brand equity specifying
the perspective and the area of study considered (Friedrich and Marion 1991;
Martin and Brown 1991; Srivastava and Shocker 1991; Irmscher 1993;
Feldwick 1996; Czellar 1997; Erdem and Swait 1998; Keller 1998). With this
consideration, the present research work focuses on analysing the value of
the brand for the consumer in accordance with the utilities perceived by the
consumer once the purchase has taken place (ex-post utilities of the brand).
In particular, the basic aim of this research is to construct a reliable and valid
measurement instrument for consumer-based brand equity that includes the
brand name utilities and the product utilities, and that also compiles the
functional and symbolic content of each of these utilities. An additional aim,
based on this scale, is to answer two questions. Are the brand name and the
product concepts adequately distinguished in consumers’ minds? Does the
consumer perceive from both components - brand name and product - the
functional and symbolic utilities?
Given the strong inter-relation between the different elements making up
the firm’s offer, we follow on from the idea that in order to measure
consumer-based brand equity it is necessary to gather information not only
on the attributes of the brand name but also of the product. We understand
by attributes of the product the tangible aspects of the offer, whereas we
consider that the attributes of the brand name represent the associations made
by the consumer with the product due to the fact of being marketed with a
certain brand name. According to this approach, and based on the literature
review, the following dimensions are proposed to create a measure of the ex-
post utilities of the brand:
1. Functional utility associated with the product. This refers to the
utilities directly linked to the tangible attributes of the offer that
satisfy the needs of the consumer’s physical environment, e.g.,
comfort, resistance and performance.
2. Symbolic utility associated with the product. We refer here to the
utilities obtained. These are also attained from the tangible
characteristics of the offer but respond to the needs of the
psychological and social environment, e.g., style, colour and artistic
design.
3. Functional utility associated with the brand name. These utilities meet
the functional or practical needs of the individual, e.g., guarantee.
Although some of them could be linked to certain tangible attributes
(e.g. duration) the consumer appreciates such utilities thanks to the
identification of the product with a certain brand name.
7. Consumer-based Brand Equity 33
4. Symbolic utility associated with the brand name. Unlike the above,
these utilities meet the needs related to the psychological and social
environment, e.g. communicating to others desirable impressions
about oneself and helping the individual to live out his self-concept.
Methodology
Selected Product Class and Brands
For the measurement of the brand utilities, non-specialised sports shoes
(suitable for sport and casual wear) were taken as a reference. This market
was chosen as it presents the following characteristics that enable us to
research brand utilities without overcomplicating the data collection:
1. This is a product that is usually used in public (conspicuous or visible
consumer product) and in which fashion together with the technical
aspects - for example, the materials used, the design of the soles or air
chambers - have considerable importance in the purchasing decision.
In line with the arguments of Jacoby and Olson (1985) and Hogg et al.
(1998), these characteristics facilitate the analysis of the brand utilities
related with the consumer’s social environment and with the
guarantee of making the right choice.
2. The consumer has, in general, sufficient knowledge of the main
brands of sports shoes, given the high figures of advertising and
sponsorship investment. Similarly, the existence of a high number of
consumers also facilitates the information collection.
3. The concentration of almost half the sales of sports goods in only
three brands (Adidas, Nike and Reebok).
Regarding the selection of the commercial brands studied, we followed the
recommendation of Leuthesser et al. (1995) of analysing brands that are
sufficiently well-known by the consumer in order to avoid halo effects (the
evaluations of individual product attributes are influenced by a person’s
overall attitude towards the product being rated) that are artificially induced.
For this reason, as a preliminary step to the study, four hundred individuals
were personally interviewed, being requested to indicate on a list of twenty-
eight brands of sports shoes those they had used and of which they had
sufficient knowledge of their different features. In line with the percentages
attained for the different brands, we decided to focus our research on six
brands: Adidas (64%), Fila (17%), Kelme (27%), J’hayber (16%), Nike (57%)
and Reebok (65%) .
Data Collection
The information necessary to carry out the empirical study was collected
8. 34 Rodolfo Vázquez, A. Belén del Río and Víctor Iglesias
through face-to face interviews accompanied by survey questionnaire
administration. The study subjects were confined to individuals who had
bought sports shoes in the last two years and who, in addition, were users of
the brands being studied.
In order to avoid differences with respect to the population we carried out
a proportionate stratification in terms of age and sex. The subjects were
selected from three cities in North of Spain. A total of 1,054 personal
interviews were conducted, which resulted in 1,000 valid surveys and 1,726
brand assessments (each individual was requested to evaluate a maximum of
two brands).
Scale Development: Research Process
The basic steps employed in constructing the scale closely parallel
procedures recommended in Churchill (1979) and Deng and Dart (1994).
Figure 1 provides an overview of the steps. This methodology consists of
three basic tasks. First, the ratification of content validity. Second, the
collection of information by means of a sample. Third, the testing of the
psychometric properties concerning reliability, concept validity (convergent
and discriminant) and nomological validity.
STEP 1: Literature review and
specifying domain of customer-
based brand equity construct STEP 5: Refine the Sample
questionnaire and data data
collection
STEP 2: Identification of 4 critical
factors making up the construct STEP 6: Assess reliability
domain
Content validity
STEP 3: Generation of items STEP 7: Assess content
representing the 4 factors: validity: Psychometric
− Convergent validity assessment
− Revision of proposed scales
− Focus groups with users − Discriminant validity
− Interviews with distributors
− Specialized journals and STEP 8: Assess nomological
studies on the sector validity
STEP 4: Scale refinement through
expert opinions and a pretest
Figure 1. Steps Employed in Developing the Consumer-Based Brand
Equity Scale
Firstly, following the literature review, we proceeded to specify the domain
and the key factors associated to brand utilities (steps 1 and 2 of the process).
9. Consumer-based Brand Equity 35
Using these factors as a starting point, a pool of items was generated to tap
the utilities that the brand provides the consumer with following the
purchase. Then, we went on to list a series of items that, as a whole, compile
all the basic aspects that the proposed dimensions refer to. For this, we
resorted to four information sources: 1) examination and adaptation of the
main scales published for the measurement of brand utilities; 2) two focus
group with sports shoes users; 3) in-depth interviews with various
distributors in the sector; 4) consulting specialised journals and studies
available on the market analysed.
Table 2. Measurement Scale of the Brand Utilities for the Consumer
Dimensions Items
(P1.1) Flexibility (P1.1.1)
(P1) Comfort Weight (P1.1.2)
Product Size (P1.1.3)
Product functional Foot Protection-Care (P1.2.1)
Utility utility (P1.2) Sensation when walking (P1.2.2)
Safety Sole Absorption /perspiration (P1.2.3)
Grip (P1.2.4)
(P1.3) Duration (P1.3.1)
Duration
(P2) Product (P2.1) Design/aesthetic line (P2.1.1)
symbolic Aesthetics Colours (P2.1.2)
utility
(B1) Brand that continuously (B1.1.1)
Brand name (B1.1) improves features
functional Guarantee Brand that is trustworthy (B1.1.2)
utility Brand that offers good value-for- (B1.1.3)
Brand money*
Name Brand of excellent quality (B1.1.4)
Utility Brand in fashion (B2.1.1)
(B2) (B2.1) Brand used by friends (B2.1.2)
Brand name Social Reputed brand (B2.1.3)
symbolic identification Leading brand (B2.1.4)
utility (B2.2) The use of the brand is a prestige (B2.2.1)
Status symbol
Brand recommended by famous (B2.2.2)
people
(B2.3) Brand you particularly like/find (B2.3.1)
Personal attractive
identification Brand in keeping with your life- (B2.3.2)
style
Note: * The result obtained in the confirmatory factor analysis recommended
dropping this variable from the scale.
10. 36 Rodolfo Vázquez, A. Belén del Río and Víctor Iglesias
This list of items was submitted to the opinion of a group of experts in
subjects related to the performance qualities of sports shoes and/or to the
design of measurement scales studying the consumer. Similarly, a pre-test
was carried out in order to detect any necessary changes in the wording of
the items and the range to be used in order to evaluate these. As a result of
this process, aimed at attaining content validity for the scale, a total of 22
items were obtained and can be seen in Table 2. The items were measured on
an eleven-point Likert scale (ranging from 0 to 10).
In short, the proposed scale assumes that:
1. The utilities that the brand can contribute to the consumer following
its purchase are composed of four basic dimensions (product
functional utility, product symbolic utility, brand name functional
utility, brand name symbolic utility);
2. In the sports shoes market, the functional utility of the product is
measured through eight variables structured into three factors
(comfort, safety and duration) and the product symbolic utility is
compiled by two variables;
3. The functional utility of the brand name can be evaluated in terms of
four indicators and the brand name symbolic utility by eight items
with three underlying dimensions (personal identification, social
identification and status).
Table 3. Analysis of Competing Measurement Models
Model χ
S-Bχ2 (d.f) (p) NFI NNFI GFI AGFI CFI RMSEA AIC
One- 3249.38 0.699 0.675 0.730 0.669 0.716 0.116 3333.385
Factor (189) (p<0.01)
Eight- 847.91 0.923 0.913 0.939 0.912 0.933 0.060 985.914
Factor (162) (p<0.01)
Results
Confirmatory factor analysis was used to test the validity and reliability of
the scale items (Anderson and Gerbing 1988). The EQS program was
employed. First, a one-factor model was performed with all the measurement
variables. The results achieved with this model were compared with those
obtained for the eight-factor model (comfort, safety, duration, aesthetics,
guarantee, personal identification, social identification and status). As shown
in Table 3, the one-factor model presents clearly unsatisfactory goodness of
fit indexes: the indicators NNFI, NFI, GFI, AGFI, CFI are far below the
minimum required level of 0.9 and the RMSEA is over 0.1. On the other
hand, the eight-factor model presents values for all these indexes reflecting a
good fit. Furthermore, in the eight-factor model the AIC indicator reaches a
much lower value than the one-factor model.
11. Consumer-based Brand Equity 37
Table 4. Reliability and Validity of the Eight-Factor Measurement
Model
Std. Composite Discriminant validity
t-
Factor reliability
Dimensions Items values Confidence
loadings coefficient Items Correlation
interval
λ ρ
(ρ)
(P1.1.1) 0.685 24.679 0.714 P11-P12 0.897 0.861 0.933
(P1.1) (P1.1.2) 0.639 24.631 P11-P13 0.351 0.281 0.421
Comfort (P1.1.3) 0.694 24.731 P11-P21 0.519 0.449 0.589
(P1.2.1) 0.756 32.031 0.777 P11-B11 0.674 0.618 0.730
(P1.2) (P1.2.2) 0.677 25.939 P11-B21 0.583 0.578 0.710
Safety (P1.2.3) 0.657 24.783 P11-B22 0.313 0.527 0.639
(P1.2.4) 0.641 23.914 P11-B23 0.644 0.243 0.383
(P1.3) (P1.3.1) 0.952 - 0.906 P12-P13 0.477 0.416 0.537
Duration
(P2.1) (P2.1.1) 0.954 26.328 P12-P21 0.399 0.333 0.465
Aesthetics 0.771
(P2.1.2) 0.605 22.015 P12-B11 0.653 0.601 0.705
(B1.1.1) 0.650 24.793 P12-B21 0.466 0.490 0.618
(B1.1) (B1.1.2) 0.795 33.478 0.793 P12-B22 0.279 0.412 0.520
Guarantee (B1.1.4) 0.797 30.832 P12-B23 0.554 0.211 0.347
(B2.1.1) 0.771 33.046 0.837 P13-P21 0.189 0.125 0.253
(B2.1) (B2.1.2) 0.600 28.212 P13-B11 0.463 0.398 0.529
Social (B2.1.3) 0.797 30.740 P13-B21 0.184 0.261 0.399
Identification (B2.1.4) 0.821 35.659 P13-B22 0.057 0.127 0.241
(B2.2.1) 0.717 28.519 0.633 P13-B23 0.330 - 0.119
(B2.2) Status 0.005
(B2.2.2) 0.643 26.332 P21-B11 0.481 0.417 0.545
(B2.3) (B2.3.1) 0.711 28.247 P21-B21 0.519 0.465 0.601
Personal (B2.3.2) 0.652 27.608 0.635 P21-B22 0.296 0.463 0.575
Identification
P21-B23 0.533 0.232 0.360
B11-B21 0.800 0.858 0.954
B11-B22 0.517 0.764 0.836
B11-B23 0.906 0.459 0.575
B21-B22 0.675 0.030 0.770
B21-B23 0.718 0.652 0.784
B22-B23 0.675 0.625 0.725
After testing for a reasonable fit between the proposed eight-factor model
and the data, we went on to estimate the reliability and validity of the scales
used. Following the recommendations of Anderson and Gerbing (1988), in
order to determine the reliability in the measurement of latent variables, for
each of these factors the composite reliability coefficients (ρ) were calculated.
These results appear in column 5 of Table 4. Taking into account that values
12. 38 Rodolfo Vázquez, A. Belén del Río and Víctor Iglesias
over 0.6 are considered acceptable (Bagozzi and Yi 1988), the reliability of the
scale is verified. That is to say, it can be said that the items proposed to
evaluate the brand utilities provide consistent measurements.
For the validity of the scales, for each measurement variable the lambda
standardised parameter that relates this variable to the corresponding
specified factor was measured. In columns 3 and 4 of Table 4, it can be
observed that all the parameters are substantial - that is to say, they are
significant and reach values over 0.5 - thus guaranteeing the convergent
validity (Steenkamp and Trijp 1991).
As for the discriminant validity, the confidence interval of all the possible
correlations between the eight factors was analysed. Just as can be seen in the
last column of Table 4, in no case did the estimated confidence interval
contain the value 1. This demonstrates that the correlations between the
latent variables significantly diverge from the unit and, consequently, the
discriminant validity is confirmed.
In conclusion, it can be affirmed that the proposed scale of brand utilities
is reliable and valid. In the following step, individual item scores were
subsequently averaged under each of the eight first-order latent constructs.
Then, scores were used as indicators to derive the four second-order
dimensions previously proposed: product functional utility, product
symbolic utility, brand name functional utility and brand name symbolic
utility (see Figure 2).
0.631
Comfort 0.80
FUNPROD 1
Safety 0.82 FUNBRAND Guarantee
(P1) 0.543
0.43 (B1)
Duration
0.438 0.711 Social
0.89 Identification
0.395
1 0.95 Personal
Aesthetics SYMPROD SYMBRAND
(P2) (B2) Identification
0.461 0.53
Status
Notes: The standard parameters are presented.
All the parameters are significant at a confidence level of 95% (t-Robust > 1.96)
Overall Fit Indices
S-Bχ2 (d.f) (p) NFI NNFI GFI AGFI CFI RMSEA
136.62 (p < 0. 01) 0.961 0.921 0.971 0.919 0.968 0.093
Composite reliability coefficient for multi-item factors (ρ):
FUNPROD: 0.737 SYMBRAND: 0.846
Figure 2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Four-Factor Model.
13. Consumer-based Brand Equity 39
The initial results obtained with this model recommended, in the light of the
information provided by the Lagrange Multiplier Test, the release of the
error covariances among the variables ‘personal identification’ and ‘social
identification’. The results obtained, following this change appear in Figure
2. First, it was observed that all indexes indicated a satisfactory global fit
except the S-Bχ2 (due to the large sample size): a value lower than 0.1 for the
RMSEA and values over 0.9 in the remaining indexes.
The composite reliability coefficients can be observed at the bottom of
Figure 2. These coefficients are clearly over the recommended minimum limit
of 0.6, thus suggesting the reliability of the dimensions. We have also been
able to confirm the convergent validity, since all the items associated to the
dimensions are shown to be significant. The discriminant validity was also
confirmed, upon checking that the correlations between the factors proposed
significantly diverge from the unit, as the confidence intervals of these
correlations do not include the value 1 (see Table 5).
Table 5. Discriminant Validity of the Factors
Dimensions Correlation Confidence interval
FUNPROD- SYMPROD 0.438 0.375 0.500
FUNPROD- FUNBRAND 0.631 0.580 0.683
FUNPROD- SYMBRAND 0.543 0.499 0.587
SYMPROD- FUNBRAND 0.395 0.336 0.454
SYMPROD- SYMBRAND 0.461 0.412 0.511
FUNBRAND-SYMBRAND 0.711 0.658 0.763
Once the reliability and validity of these four dimensions had been checked,
we went on to analyse the causal relationship existing between these
dimensions and two observable variables: price premium (the amount a
customer will pay more for the brand in comparison with another apparently
similar product of an unknown brand) and the consumer’s tendency to
recommend the brand to others. The aim is to study the nomological validity
and thus contribute additional data that demonstrate the construct validity of
the scale (Peter and Churchill 1986).
In this way, we then estimated the causal model that considers
‘recommendation of the brand’ as a dependent variable of the four
dimensions, and ‘price premium’ as the dependent variable of the brand
functional and symbolic utilities. The question on the price premium
measures the amount that the consumer would be willing to pay more for
the brand, compared to another unknown brand name but with apparently
similar physical characteristics (product). For this reason, the relation
between the price premium and the product utilities is not considered. On
14. 40 Rodolfo Vázquez, A. Belén del Río and Víctor Iglesias
the other hand, in the brand equity literature, it is widely recognised that in
the extent that the consumer associates value to a brand he will be more
willing to pay a higher price for the brand and to recommend it to others
(Aaker 1991; Huttom 1997; Keller 1998; Yoo et al. 2000). As for the product
utilities, since we are not aware of studies that specifically research these
relations in the sports shoes market, we propose estimating the effect of both
types of utilities on the willingness to recommend the brand to others,
assuming that both utilities have a significant and positive effect.
The results of the causal model are presented in Figure 3. It has been
observed that the brand name functional and symbolic utilities have a
positive influence on the variable ‘price premium’. The variable
‘recommendation of the brand’ is significantly and positively related to the
product functional utility and the brand name functional and symbolic
utilities. However, the significant incidence of the product symbolic utility
has not been corroborated. This could be explained by the fact that the
product symbolic utility is measured by items (design and colour) whose
evaluation is totally subjective and directly observable by the consumer. In
this way, it is feasible that the individuals do not take into account such
aspects when recommending the brand.
P1.1
FUNPROD 0.10* Price premium
P1.2
(V1)
P1.3 0.16*
P2.1 SYMPROD
0.11*
0.01
B1.1 FUNBRAND Recommendation
0.28*
(V2)
0.31*
B2.1
B2.2
SYMBRAND
B2.3
Notes: (*) the parameter is significant at a confidence level of 95 % (t-Robust > 1.96).
Although for purposes of clarity, we have not included in the graph the covariances
between the independent latent variables, these are released in the model (and are all
statistically significant).
Figure 3. Nomological Validity: Relation of the Scale with Other
Variables
Discussion
We have developed and empirically examined a measurement instrument of
brand equity based on the utilities perceived by the consumer once the brand
15. Consumer-based Brand Equity 41
has been purchased. The results suggest that the proposed scale exhibits
strong internal consistency and a reasonable degree of validity.
In accordance with these results, it can be concluded that in the study of
brand utilities, the separation of the product utilities from those utilities
associated to the brand name is reliable and valid. At the same time, it is
found that the consumer perceives functional and symbolic utilities of both
the product and the brand name. This implies that the associations held by
the consumer of the brand can be structured into four main dimensions:
product functional utility, product symbolic utility, brand name functional
utility and brand name symbolic utility.
The reliability and validity analyses also reveal that for the category of
product analysed - sports shoes - the product functional utility is a
multidimensional concept. In particular, this may comprise three
subdimensions labelled ‘comfort’, ‘safety’ and ‘duration’. Similarly, the
symbolic utility of the brand name is a multidimensional concept embracing
the subdimensions of ‘social identification’, ‘status’ and ‘personal
identification’. This result is consistent with the study of Bhat and Reddy
(1998). On the other hand, the product symbolic utility and the brand name
functional utility are uni-dimensional concepts.
In this way, customer-perceived value of the brand represents a
multidimensional concept. Nevertheless, this affirmation does not invalidate
the holistic conception of the brand, since it has been confirmed that the
different dimensions show a strong inter-relation. The correlations between
the dimensions are highly significant, although they maintain discriminant
validity. In short, the consumer’s perceptions about the different attributes of
a brand are highly related, but can be ordered in independent dimensions.
These observations suggest to the firms that measure consumer-based
brand equity, that they should adopt an intermediate posture between the
holistic and classic conceptions of the brand. The consumer does not see the
product as a reality identical to that of the brand name (holistic conception in
its strictest sense). However, nor should the brand managers consider the
product and brand name as two totally independent realities (classic
conception in its strictest sense).
In line with these results, firms should simultaneously strengthen the
associations related to the product as well as those linked to the brand name.
Due to the inter-relation of these associations, important synergies can be
generated and a clearer, more credible and consistent image can be
communicated to the consumer. In these cases, it is possible that the
consumer perceives greater utilities of the brand, compared to the situations
in which only product associations or brand name associations are
strengthened.
A further implication to be partially derived from the above one is that the
16. 42 Rodolfo Vázquez, A. Belén del Río and Víctor Iglesias
consideration of each of the dimensions and sub-dimensions of the brand
utilities enables firms to better orient their differentiation strategy in terms of
consumer needs. For example, for consumers who place greater emphasis on
social needs, an effective strategy is a marketing mix that shows how the
brand can be used to express the consumer’s personality or the affinity
between certain social groups and the consumer.
On the other hand, it has been observed that the price premium that the
consumer is willing to pay for the brand depends positively on the functional
and symbolic utilities of the brand name. Similarly, it has been observed that
these utilities, together with the product functional utility have a positive
effect on the consumer’s willingness to recommend the brand to others. In
addition, it is noted that the utilities that have a greater incidence on these
variables are the symbolic utilities of the brand name. Therefore, all these
results indicate that the use of commercial brands is a vital strategy for firms
to improve the competitiveness of their products. In this way, it is revealed
that the value of the brand for the consumer has a significant impact on
brand equity for the firm.
The advantage of the developed scale is its the ability to identify the
sources of brand equity for the firm using four basic dimensions. The
application of this scale enables us to ascertain the strengths and weaknesses
of a brand compared to its main competitors. In this way, firms can orient
their marketing programs in terms of the brand utilities they wish to
improve. In particular, for the sports shoes market, it is noted that the
development of brand name symbolic utilities are particularly important.
Regarding the research limitations, it is fitting to question to what extent
the above results will be similar in other sectors. It is foreseeable that the
functional and symbolic utilities have a strong impact on all products related
to sport: the purchase of these products can be determined not only by their
physical attributes but also by the attributes that enable the consumer to
enrich his self-image and communicate certain values to the people in his
environment (these are products usually used in public). On the other hand,
it seems reasonable that symbolic utilities take on great importance in
products for which the purchasing decision mainly depends on fashion
trends (for example, clothes, watches, bags, and other accessories). Similarly,
a strong presence of functional utilities should be expected in cleaning and
hygiene products (for example, detergents) as these are products that are
basically used in private.
As for future research, the scale developed here can be used to measure
consumer-based brand equity in other sectors, introducing the necessary
adaptations, in line with the specific characteristics of the products, the usage
situations or the type of customer. Finally, it must be said that this work has
focused on the ex-post utilities of the brand. However, it would also be
17. Consumer-based Brand Equity 43
interesting to evaluate the ex-ante utilities and test the relation that they
could maintain with the ex-post utilities. Similarly, a further possible
research line consists in assessing the relationship between consumer-based
brand equity and dependent variables that express firm-based brand equity,
such as for example, the consumer’s brand loyalty and the firm’s subsequent
bargaining power in the distribution channel.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments
and suggestions.
References
Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand
Name, New York, Free Press.
Achenbaum, A. and Bogda, P. (1996), “Brand equity is only a piece of the
puzzle”, Brandweek, Vol. 37, No. 34, pp. 14-17.
Agarwal, M.K. and Rao, V.R. (1996), “An empirical comparison of consumer-
based measures of brand equity”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 237-
247.
Ambler, T. (1996), “Measuring marketing performance”, PAN’AGRA Working
Paper, No. 96-904, London Business School.
Ambler, T. (1997), “How much of brand equity is explained by trust?”,
Management Decision, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 283-292.
Ambler, T. and Styles, C. (1997), “Brand development versus new product
development: toward a process model of extension decisions”, Journal of
Product and Brand Management, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 222-234.
Ambler, T. and Styles, C. (1995), “Brand equity: towards measures that
matter”, PAN’AGRA Working Paper, No. 95-902, London Business School.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in
practice: a review and recommended two-step approach”, Psychological
Bulletin, Vol. 103, No. 3, pp. 411-423.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation
models”, Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Barwise, P. (1993), “Brand equity: snark or boojum?”, International Journal of
Research in Marketing, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 93-104.
Bhat, S. and Reddy, S.K. (1998); “Symbolic and functional positioning of
brands’; Journal of Consumer Marketing; Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 32-43.
Bollen, K. and Lenox, R. (1991), “Conventional wisdom on measurement: a
structural equation perspective”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 110, No. 2, pp.
305-314.
18. 44 Rodolfo Vázquez, A. Belén del Río and Víctor Iglesias
Chaudhuri, A. (1995), “Brand equity or double jeopardy?”, Journal of
Product and Brand Management, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 26-32.
Churchill, J.R, (1979), “A paradigm for developing better measures of
marketing constructs”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16, February, pp.
64-73.
Cobb-Walgren, C.J, Ruble, C.A. and Donthu, N. (1995), “Brand equity, brand
preference, and purchase intent”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp.
25-40.
Crainer, S. (1997), El Verdadero Poder de las Marcas, Madrid, Eresma and
Celeste.
Czellar, S. (1997),’Capital de marque: concepts, construits et mesures”, Section
des Hautes Études Commerciale, Cahier de recherche No. 97/16, Université
de Genève.
de Chernatony, L. (1993), “Categorizing brands: evolutionary processes
underpinned by two key dimensions”, Journal of Marketing Management,
Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 173-188.
de Chernatony, L. and McDonald, M.H.B. (1996), Creating Powerful Brands,
Oxford, Butterworth Heinemann.
de Chernatony, L. and McWilliam, G. (1989), “The strategic implications of
clarifying how marketers interpret brands”, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 153-171.
de Chernatony, L. and McWilliam, G. (1990), “Appreciating brands as assets
through using a two-dimensional model”, International Journal of
Advertising, Vol. 9, pp. 111-119.
Deng, S. and Dart, J. (1994), “Measuring market orientation: a multi-factor,
multi-item approach”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 10, pp. 725-
742.
Dubois, B. and Duquesne, P. (1995), “Un concept essentiel pour comprendre
la valeur des marques: la force de conviction”, Revue Française du
Marketing, No. 152, (2) pp. 23-34.
Erdem, T. and Swait, J. (1998), “Brand equity as a signaling phenomenon”,
Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 131-157.
Feldwick, P.(1996), “What is brand equity anyway, and how do you measure
it?”, Journal of the Market Research Society, Vol, 38, No. 2, pp. 85-105.
Friedrich, J. and Marion, A. (1991), “La marque, un actif strategique a
valoriser”, Communication aux Journées des I.A.E. de Clermont-Ferrand,
Papier de recherche, no. 16.
Gardner, B. and Levy, S. (1955), “The product and the brand”, Harvard
Business Review, March-April, pp. 33-39.
Hogg, M.K., Bruce, M. and Hill, A.J. (1998), “Fashion brand preferences
among young consumers”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution
Management, Vol. 26, No. 8, pp. 293-300.
19. Consumer-based Brand Equity 45
Hutton, J.G. (1997), “A study of brand equity in an organizational-buying
context”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 6, No. 6, pp. 428-
439.
Irmscher, M. (1993), “Modellling the brand equity concept”, Marketing and
Research Today, May, pp. 102-110.
Jacoby, J. and Olsom, J.C. (1985), Perceived Quality: How Consumers View Stores
and Merchandise, Lexington Books.
Kamakura, W.A. and Russell, G.J. (1991), “Measuring consumer perceptions
of brand quality with scanner data: implications for brand equity”,
Marketing Science Institute, Report, No. 91-122, October.
Kapferer, J.N. and Laurent, J.C. (1991), “La sensibilidad a las marcas”, in
Kapferer J. and Thoening, J. (ed.): La Marca: Motor de la Competitividad de
las Empresas y del Crecimiento de la Economía, Madrid, Mcgraw-Hill, , pp.
39-68.
Keller, K.L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-
based brand equity”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, pp. 1-22.
Keller, K.L. (1998), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring and
Managing Brand Equity, New Jersey, Prentice Hall.
Kim, P. (1990),’A perspective on brands”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol.
7, No. 4, pp. 62-67.
Lambin, J.J. (1991), “La marca y el comportamiento de elección del
comprador”, in Kapferer J. and Thoening J. (ed.): La marca: Motor de la
Competividad de las Empresas y del Crecimiento de la Economía, Madrid,
Mcgraw-Hill”, pp. 69-100.
Leuthesser, L, Kohli, CH. and Harich, K. (1995), “Brand equity: the halo effect
measure”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 29, November, pp. 57-66.
Long, M.M. y Schiffman, L.G. (2000); “Consumption values and
relationships: segmenting the market for frequency programs’; Journal of
Consumer Marketing; Vol. 17, No. 3; pp. 214-232.
Martin, G.S. and Brown, T.J. (1990), “In search of brand equity: the
conceptualization and measurement of the brand impression construct”,
Marketing Theory and Applications, Vol. 2, pp. 431-438.
Maslow, A.H. (1974), Motivation and Personality, Harper and Row, New York.
McCarthy, J.E. and Perreault, W.D. (1991), Basic Marketing: a Managerial
Approach, Homewood ILL, Irwin.
Mittal, B., Ratchford, B. and Prabhakar, P.(1990), “Functional and expressive
attributes as determinants of brand-attitude”, Research in Marketing, Vol.
10, pp. 135-155.
Múgica, J.M. and Yagüe, M.J. (1993), “Impacto del capital comercial en la
competitividad empresarial”, Papeles de Economia Española, Vol. 56, pp.
242-256.
Murphy, J. (1990), Brand Strategy, Cambridge, Director Books.
20. 46 Rodolfo Vázquez, A. Belén del Río and Víctor Iglesias
Park, C.S. and Srinivasan, V.(1994), “A survey-based method for measuring
and understanding brand equity and its extendibility”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 31, May, pp. 271-288.
Peter, J.P. and Churchill, G.A.(1986), “Relationships among research design
choices and psychometric properties of rating scales: a meta-analysis”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 23, February, pp. 1-10.
Schmitt, B. and Simonson, A. (1997), Marketing Aesthetics: the Strategic
Management of Brands, Identity, and Image, New York, The Free Press.
Sheth, J.N., Newman, B.I. and Gross, B.L. (1991), “Why we buy what we buy:
a theory of consumption values”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 22, pp.
159-170.
Sommer, R. (1996), “Mind mapping: a new way to understanding brands”, in
ESOMAR (ed.): The Big Brand Challenge, are we jumping on the brand wagon?,
pp. 97-107, Berlín.
Srivastava, R.K. and Shocker, A.D.A (1991), “Brand equity: a perspective on
its meaning and measurement”, Marketing Science Institute, Report No. 91-
124, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Steenkamp, J.E.M. and Trijp, H.C.M. (1991), “The use of LISREL in validating
marketing constructs”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 8,
pp. 283-299.
Styles, C. y ambler, T.; (1995), “Brand management’ en Crainer S. (ed.);
Financial Times Handbook of Management; pp. 581-93; Pitman, London.
Wind, Y. J. (1982), “Product policy: concepts, methods, and strategy”,
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, Ma.
Yoo, B., Donthu, N. and Lee, S. (2000), “An examination of selected
marketing mix elements and Brand equity”, Journal of Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 195-211.
Young and Rubican, (1995), Brand Asset Valuator, Madrid.
22. 48 Rodolfo Vázquez, A. Belén del Río and Víctor Iglesias
P1.1 P1.2 P1.3 P2.1 B1.1 B2.1 B2.2 B2.3 V1 V2
P1.1 1.000
P1.2 .669 1.000
P1.3 .273 .397 1.000
P2.1 .392 .327 .181 1.000
B1.1 .504 .502 .374 .395 1.000
B2.1 .442 .370 .149 .443 .670 1.000
B2.2 .218 .199 .042 .231 .386 .509 1.000
B2.3 .437 .388 .251 .400 .636 .521 .461 1.000
V1 .158 .119 .054 .183 .220 .240 .175 .191 1.000
V2 .400 .359 .246 .321 .586 .445 .328 .616 .138 1.000
STD 1.38 1.28 1.77 1.66 1.64 1.96 2.64 2.86 2688 2.68
N 1726 1726 1726 1726 1726 1726 1726 1726 1726 1726
Note: Variables are defined in Table 2 and Figure 3.
About the Authors
Rodolfo Vázquez (Ph.D., University of Oviedo, Spain) is a Professor of
Marketing at Oviedo University (Spain). His areas of research interest
include brand management, relationship marketing and distribution
channels.
A. Belén del Río (Ph. D., University of Oviedo, Spain) is an Assistant
Professor of Marketing at Oviedo University (Spain). Her areas of research
interest include brand equity and brand evaluation processes.
Víctor Iglesias (Ph.D., University of Oviedo, Spain) is an Assistant Professor
of Marketing at Oviedo University (Spain). His areas of research interest
include consumer behaviour, restraints and contractual agreements in
distribution channels.