This document summarizes a study examining the relationship between consumer-based brand equity (CBBE) and sales-based brand equity (SBBE). The study analyzed data on 441 brands across 25 product categories over 10 years. It found a positive correlation overall between CBBE dimensions (relevance, esteem, knowledge) and SBBE. However, not all CBBE dimensions were equally correlated - relevance and esteem showed the strongest correlations with SBBE, while the energy/differentiation dimension did not. Additionally, brands with higher CBBE showed stronger response to marketing actions like features/displays and advertising, but a weaker response to distribution changes.

1. From:
Does consumer-based brand
equity align well with sales-
based brand equity?
Datta, Ailawadi, and van Heerde (2017)

2. From:From:
How can brand equity be measured?
Datta, Ailawadi, and van Heerde (2017)
Sales-Based Brand Equity
(SBBE):
In-Market Sales Data
Example of brand measures: Brand Equity
Ten, CBBE Pyramid, Brand Asset Valuator
Share of choice/market after removing
contribution of marketing mix and
product attributes
Consumer-Based Brand Equity
(CBBE):
Perceptual Measures

3. From:From:
 Important to understand the extent to which different
measures of brand equity are interchangeable.
 Positive consumer perceptions (CBBE) are only as useful to
managers as the extent to which they translate into equity in
the marketplace (SBBE).
 Do positive consumer perceptions (CBBE) result in stronger
marketing mix effects?
Need for research on association
between CBBE and SBBE
Datta, Ailawadi, and van Heerde (2017)

4. From:From:
 25 FMCG categories; 441 Brands, ten years 2002-2011
 290 brands with CBBE data (from BAV) ↔ SBBE based on a sales
response model for scanner data
Data
Datta, Ailawadi, and van Heerde (2017)
Source: Symphony/IRI data provided by Bronnenberg, Kruger and Mela (2008)
Category No. of Brands
Beer 59
Carbonated Soft Drinks 27
Cigarettes 25
Coffee 30
Cold (RTE) Cereal 23
Deodorants 19
Disposable Diapers 6
Household Cleaners 15
Ketchup 5
Laundry Detergents 20
Margarine & Spreads 13
Mayonnaise 7
Category (cont.) No. of Brands
Milk 19
Mustard 12
Peanut Butter 11
Frozen Pizza & Dinners 26
Razors & Blades 5
Salty Snacks 17
Shampoo 28
Soup 8
Pasta Sauce 15
Sugar Substitutes 10
Toilet Tissue 10
Toothpaste 15
Yogurt 16
TOTAL 441

5. From:From:
In general,
there is a positive relationship!
But, not all brand dimensions
are created equal!
CBBE and SBBE
Correlation With
Dimension of
CBBE
Es-
teem
Know-
ledge
En. Diff. SBBE
Relevance .85*** .64*** .02 .39***
Esteem .70*** .04** .35***
Knowledge -.20*** .53***
Energized
Differentiation -.14***
Datta, Ailawadi, and van Heerde (2017)

6. From:From:
Example:
CBBE and marketing mix effectiveness (I)
Datta, Ailawadi, and van Heerde (2017)
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
Low High
Feature/Display
Elasticity
Relevant Stature
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
Low High
AdvertisingElasticity
Relevant Stature
Relevant stature (combination of relevance, esteem, knowledge) leads
to stronger feature/display, advertising and promotional price elasticities...
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
Low High
PromotionalPrice
Relevant Stature
Note: The effect of the Energized Differentiation is different. For details, see paper.

7. From:From:
Example:
CBBE and marketing mix effectiveness (II)
Datta, Ailawadi, and van Heerde (2017)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Low High
Distribution
Relevant Stature
...but weaker distribution elasticities,
potentially because consumers are willing to search
for strong brands wherever they are available.
Note: The effect of the Energized Differentiation is different. For details, see paper.

8. From:From:
http://youtu.be/LP8codXiqAE
YouTube overview of how brand
equity works
Datta, Ailawadi, and van Heerde (2017)