Thesis

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BRAND RELATED UGC AND
CBBE: A YOUTUBE VIDEOS EXPERIMENT
Research Project Submitted
By
Muhammad Subhan Bidiwala 1611242
Syed Muhammad Farhan 1611253
Asad Ali 1611224
Arsalan Javed 1611223
Anoosha Dawira 1611221
To
Faculty of Business Administration
In partial fulfilment of the requirement for the Degree of
BACHELOR OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
In
MARKETING
_______________________________________
Dr. Waqar Akbar- advisor
Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Institute of Science and Technology
SZABIST, Karachi.
Dated: 6th
December 2019

i
ABSTRACT
After the introduction of web 2.0 there has been an increase in the circulation of messages
in different forms and consumers now just don’t have the control over what content they
want to view but also they can contribute in creation of the content. The problem is with
such power that consumers have there’s a rise in the issue of decreasing control of brand
equity and also there is a lack in research on how to manage its impact, leading to the
objective of this research conducted that is to determine the impact of brand related
YouTube videos on consumer based brand equity. The literature review presents the
concepts in the research which is Aakers (1991) frame work on the four components of
consumer based brand equity. This research assumed a deductive approach and this study
is quantitative where explanatory research approach is used as it best suits the experimental
design. Data collection was done through surveys which were designed as a self-
completion questionnaire. There were two groups for the purpose of this research which
are controlled and experimental group where both groups were given the same
questionnaire with only the independent variable being added for experimental group. For
the selection of the participants, convenience sampling was chosen. The validity and
reliability of the data collection instrument was checked through validity and reliability test
carried on SPSS version 22. SPSS version 22 was used to conduct all statistical analysis
for the research. Four hypothesis were developed to determine the impact of the
independent variable brand related YouTube videos on four components of consumer
based brand equity, where all four hypotheses (H1, H2, H3, H4) were accepted for both
the groups that is controlled and experimental.

ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
First and foremost, we would like to express our utmost gratitude to our research
supervisor, Dr. Waqar Akbar, Ph.D. for giving us an opportunity to do this research,
providing us invaluable guidance and support throughout this research. We couldn’t have
asked for a better advisor and mentor for our Ph.D. study.
Our mentor has always inspired us with his outmost sincerity and dynamism in this field.
It was a great honor and privilege to work and study under Dr. Waqar Akbar. We are
extremely thankful; for all the support and guidance he has offered to us. We would also
like to thank him for his empathy and friendship.
We are extremely grateful to our parents and fellow members for being a constant support
and being a constant help in many grateful ways.

iii
Contents
ABSTRACT...............................................................................................................i
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ...........................................................................................ii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 1
1.1. Background of Study.......................................................................................... 1
1.2. Problem Statement.............................................................................................. 3
1.2.1. Problem case ................................................................................................... 3
1.2.2. Problem statement: .......................................................................................... 5
1.3. Research Questions............................................................................................. 7
1.4. Research Objectives ........................................................................................... 7
1.5. Limitations ......................................................................................................... 7
1.6 Scope................................................................................................................... 8
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW.................................................................... 9
2.1. User Generated Content...................................................................................... 9
2.2. Customer Based Brand Equity.......................................................................... 12
2.3. Aaker's Brand Equity Model............................................................................. 17
2.4. Brand Awareness.............................................................................................. 17
2.5. Brand Association ............................................................................................ 18
2.6. Brand Loyalty................................................................................................... 19
2.7. Perceived Quality ............................................................................................. 21
2.8. Theoretical Framework..................................................................................... 23
2.9. Hypothesis........................................................................................................ 23
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ........................................................................... 24
3.1. Research Approach........................................................................................... 24
3.2. Research Design............................................................................................... 25
3.3 Population and Sampling Method ...................................................................... 26
3.4 Data Collection Method..................................................................................... 27
3.5. Data Collection Instrument ............................................................................... 28
3.6 Questionnaire Design ........................................................................................ 29
3.7 Analysis Method................................................................................................ 30

iv
3.8 Pilot Testing ...................................................................................................... 31
3.8.1 Experimental Group........................................................................................ 31
3.8.1.1 Brand awareness.......................................................................................... 31
3.8.1.2 Brand association......................................................................................... 31
3.8.1.3 Perceived quality ......................................................................................... 31
3.8.1.4 Brand loyalty ............................................................................................... 32
3.8.2 Control Group................................................................................................. 32
3.8.2.1 Brand awareness.......................................................................................... 32
3.8.2.2 Brand association......................................................................................... 32
3.8.2.3 Perceived quality ......................................................................................... 33
3.8.2.4 Brand loyalty ............................................................................................... 33
3.9 Ethical Considerations....................................................................................... 33
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND FINDINGS ............................................................ 35
4.1 Descriptive Profile of the Data........................................................................... 35
4.1.1 Gender............................................................................................................ 35
4.1.1.1 Control Group.............................................................................................. 35
4.1.1.2 Experimental Group..................................................................................... 36
4.1.2 Age................................................................................................................. 36
4.1.2.1 Control Group.............................................................................................. 36
4.1.3 Marital Status ................................................................................................. 39
4.1.3.1 Control Group.............................................................................................. 39
4.1.4 Occupation ..................................................................................................... 40
4.1.4.1 Control Group.............................................................................................. 40
4.2 Scale reliability.................................................................................................. 41
4.3 Descriptive ........................................................................................................ 42
4.3.1 Control Group................................................................................................. 42
4.3.2 Experimental group ........................................................................................ 43

v
4.4 Validation of model........................................................................................... 44
4.4.1 Correlation...................................................................................................... 44
4.4.1.1 Control Group.............................................................................................. 44
4.5 Hypothesis testing ............................................................................................. 46
4.5.1 Control Group................................................................................................. 46
4.5.2 Experimental group ........................................................................................ 47
4.6 Hypothesis assessment summary ....................................................................... 48
4.6.1 Control Group................................................................................................. 48
4.6.2 Experimental Group........................................................................................ 49
CHAPTER – 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION.............................................. 50
5.1 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 50
5.2 Discussion......................................................................................................... 51
5.3 Implications....................................................................................................... 52
5.4 Limitations ........................................................................................................ 52
5.5 Recommendations ............................................................................................. 53
REFERENCES........................................................................................................ 54
APPENDIX............................................................................................................. 60

1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background of Study
“The next wave of the web is going to be the user generated content.” (John doer)
The circulation of messages and its reach has been increased by the rise of
communication level through web 2.0 (Kozinets et al., 2010; Moran and Muzellec,
2014). Web 2.0 provides various channels to its users which benefits them to create a
content and share it which gives them greater reach to share their content. (Moran and
Muzellec, 2014; Plevriti, 2014). User generated content (UGC), as it is called, is content
that is created, spread and consumed by the general public on Web 2.0 (Kim and
Johnson 2016). The social media empowers the users within the general public to create
and consume UGC (Gangadharbatla, 2008). There are different types of UGC such as
blogs, videos, photos, reviews, vlogs and so forth. Furthermore, UGC can be related to
any topic such as brand related content, politics, music etc. (Östman, 2012; Smith et.al,
2012).
As evidence suggests, a considerable portion of UGC is brand related; “Only 30 percent
of searches are for marketer-created content whereas the rest 70 percent are of brand-
related searches on social-networking sites such as YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter
relate to UGC (Christodoulides et.al, 2012, p. 1), and more recently; “Brand-related
UGC on Twitter includes diverse topics, such as product, service, promotions,
competitors, news, and location. About half of the topics are product based and one
third of the topics are related to either service or promotion” (Liu et. al, 2017, p. 245).
Now the consumer’s perception of brand is not only influenced by the traditional
advertisement but also influenced by the content created and shared by users on internet

2
be it any social media platform. Gone are the days when conventional (paid) content
marketing was thought to be an effective and only medium to reach out to target
audience. There always seems to be a trust deficit between marketers and consumers
and this is where the user generated content has filled the gap. The rapid development
of social media enables people to share their purchasing and actual using experiences
(Henning-Thurau, Gwinner, Walsh, & Gremler, 2004). The consumers of UGC are
those who are involved in social networking sites. As a popularity of brand related
content on internet is growing, marketers have started looking into this matter about
how brand equity is influenced by UGC (Christodoulides et.al, 2012; Rachna and
Khajuria, 2017).
There are two main reasons that have triggered researches made on brand equity
(Keller, 1993). Firstly, the financial value of a brand can be known by calculating brand
equity (Simon and Sullivan, 1993). Secondly, the consumer’s perception towards brand
can be found by researching brand equity (Keller, 1993; Yoo and Donthu, 2001; Aaker,
1991). Despite the lack of consensus in regards of a singular definition for brand equity
(Pappu et al., 2005) the importance of it has been greatly stressed in the literature
(Christodoulides, 2010; Lassar et al., 1995). Keller (1993) had a great contribution to
the field of marketing, he defines consumer-based brand equity (CBBE) as a cognitive
response to marketing efforts. It means that Customer based brand equity (CBBE)
focuses on the consumer brand awareness and brand perception (Keller, 1993) and later
brand awareness and brand image (Keller, 1996).
Aaker (1991) has given the most well-known framework on CBBE, which is also
important for this thesis. Aaker defines brand equity as “a set of brand assets and

3
liabilities linked to a brand, its name and symbol that add to or subtract from the value
provided by a product or service to a firm and / or to that firm’s customers” (Aaker,
1991, p. 31). As pointed out by Yoo and Donthu (2001), only four of Aaker’s five
dimensions apply to CBBE. These four dimensions are brand awareness, brand
association, perceived quality and brand loyalty. The companies work hard to build
these four components of brand equity, but now it has become difficult to control and
maintain these four components due to the growth of UGC (Morrison et al., 2013).
According to similarweb.com, YouTube has become the second most visited website
all over the world since its establishment in 2005. How relevant is YouTube with
respect to UGC can be observed from the fact that in the past two years the watch time
which is in the number of hours people spend watching videos on YouTube has
increased 60% year over year. Furthermore, the traffic that is generated on YouTube is
one of the highest on any social media platforms that is five billion people visit
YouTube on a regular basis.
1.2. Problem Statement
1.2.1. Problem case
YouTube was banned for 5 years in Pakistan which made us lag behind in the digital
world compared to other countries. YouTube has not matured in Pakistani context over
the years which limited our options on various levels. Other social media platforms
have been discussed a lot, but YouTube is one of the most emerging media and is left
untouched with regards to research that's why we directed our focus towards YouTube.

4
Since YouTube is prominent online video-sharing hub for billions of users, its
importance is still undermined by a lot of individuals. Millions of video clips on
YouTube are being shared on daily basis that represent a broad spectrum of user’s
interest including those of scholars, educators and researches. Moreover, millennials
presence on YouTube is increasing rapidly with passing time, one of the many possible
reason includes sharing of videotaped lectures and campus events. So, since YouTube
is an interesting area to go about and has become a topic of discussion within the
scholarly literature as researchers and educators grapple around with questions about
the prospects and problems associated with social media (Chenail, 2008; Snelson, 2009,
2010).
Having started in 2005, YouTube has developed into a prominent online video-sharing
destination. The millions of video clips on YouTube represent a broad spectrum of user
interests including those of educators, scholars and researchers. YouTube EDU
(http://www.youtube.com/edu) illustrates a portion of the growing academic presence
on YouTube as colleges and universities establish institutional channels through which
they share videotaped lectures and campus events. YouTube has become a topic of
discussion and inquiry within the scholarly literature as educators and researchers
grapple with questions about the possibilities and problems associated with social
media (Chenail, 2008; Snelson, 2009, 2010). Since then, YouTube has gained an
audience of billions of users including educators and scholars. While the academic
literature provides some evidence that YouTube has been studied and written about,
little is known about priorities for YouTube research. This study employed trend
analysis and content analysis method to obtain data on research topics, issues category,

5
research settings and sampling, research design, research method and data analysis on
articles published regarding YouTube in selected journals ( Cheung & Hew, 2009).
Being the second largest search engine, YouTube is accessed at an extensive amount
of times per day. So with the previous statement you can only guess how important it
is for a brand to have some sort of presence on YouTube.
Influencer marketing is an important asset for any brand. Product placement can be
done very well when you work with relatable influencers that pour trust by tour
audience. Hand picking the perfect influencers for your campaign, rather than using
automated methods is always the best option.
1.2.2. Problem statement:
“Is customer based brand equity affected by user generated content on YouTube?”
After the introduction of internet and the rise of web 2.0 consumers are connected in a
way like never before (Plevritis, 2014), hence it is critical to understand the impact of
user generated content has on brands (Christodoulides et.al, 2012). Furthermore,
Schivinski and Dabrowski (2014) believe that marketers and researchers do not fully
understand the impact different social media platforms are having on the perception of
consumers. Christodoulides et.al (2012) similarly claims that managers have an
insufficient understanding of the phenomenon. This can be seen through studies
conducted on the relationship between user generated content and customer based
brand equity, for example product reviews (Bambauer-Sachse and Mangold, 2011) or

6
the effects of UGC on CBBE with respect to Facebook (Rachna and Khajuria, 2017;
Bruhn et al., 2012).
Most recently, Rachna and Khajuria (2017) applied Aaker’s (1991) consumer based
brand equity model. These researches which are being referred above cover different
types of user generated content and its relationship with brand equity. However, in case
of YouTube very few or no researches has been made as per our best knowledge thus
here exist a contextual gap which needs to be addressed.
There has been an increase in the amount spent by brands on advertisements,
endorsements, promotion activities on YouTube, if the impact of these are unknown or
if the brands are uncertain about the results which they are getting then either they will
end up over spending or under spending on YouTube.
The consequences of not determining the impact UGC has on CBBE will be faced by
brands and by the advertising agencies. Brands are putting in financial resources into it
and have a particular target to achieve through YouTube whereas advertising agencies
are a medium through which the brands allocate their marketing budget on these
platforms and in return demand premium service thus they are indirectly affected.
The importance of understanding different aspects of user generated content and its
impact on consumer based brand equity is increasingly relevant for both marketers and
researchers (Christodoulides et al., 2012). They emphasize on the fact that with the rise
of user generated content companies have lost control of their brands and now it's
important for them to understand how this phenomenon works and how it affects brands
(Morrison et al., 2013). A large number of brand are introducing their channels on

7
YouTube, statistic shows the most popular YouTube brand channels, ranked by number
of uploaded video views, In October 2019, Coca-Cola had 2.88 billion uploaded video
views. Toy maker LEGO had 9.79 billion views. As a popular form of user generated
content, it is important to understand the impact brand related YouTube videos has, on
Consumer based brand equity, hence the need for the research becomes clear.
1.3. Research Questions
1. What impact does brand related content created by users on YouTube have on
the consumers’ attitude towards a brand?
2. What is the impact of brand related user generated content on YouTube has on
brand knowledge and ability to differentiate?
1.4. Research Objectives
1. To determine the impact of UGC on YouTube has on brand awareness.
2. To identify the impact of UGC on YouTube has on brand association
3. To analyze the impact of UGC on YouTube has on brand perceived quality.
4. To measure the impact of UGC on YouTube has on brand loyalty.
1.5. Limitations
While conducting this research certain external constraints and limitations were
considered. First and foremost was the obvious underdeveloped research behind

8
YouTube videos. There are limited studies that have been conducted so far with regards
to the YouTube videos. And also there was limited time to conduct this study as report
had to be submitted in 16 weeks. Due to this issue the study had to be finite to conduct
proper research, however there are multiple questions that have yet to be answered.
Another limitation that came across while conducting this study was that researchers
were also bounded by their sample, reason being that sample came from finite
geographic region which was Karachi.
1.6 Scope
The scope of this research is finite in terms of age group, SEC Class and geography.
Particularly in consideration of the geographic location, only residents of Karachi have
been selected primarily belonging to areas of Defense, Gulshan, Johar and Clifton. In
continuation of this, universities that are specifically targeted to carry out this research
include SZABIST, CBM and IQRA University. To add more people from SEC Class
A and B will be targeted. Moreover, this research is based on people who are
Generation Z and Millennials in terms of age group.

9
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
The following chapter includes references of researches conducted in relevant to our
research. The hypothesis developed in this research is based on Aaker’s model. This
model will further be used to understand the relationship between user generated
content and customer based brand equity.
2.1. User Generated Content
User generated content is the content that is created by internet users on different social
media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat etc. The content can be
in the form of pictures, video, reviews, product unboxing and EWOM. Social media
empowers the internet users to transmit information regarding their experience and
what is happening around in their surrounding with their family, friends and colleagues
(Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). Since the way internet and social media have evolved and
emerged, in the last decade, as a tool where internet users can be exposed to different
products and services, marketers now consider these social networking sites (SNSs) an
important tool to market their product, to increase the visibility of their offerings to
their existing and potential customers (Rachna and Iesha, 2017). Applications like
Facebook, Instagram and other social networking sites expose the products to the
people who might not be aware of the company’s offering (Rachna and Iesha, 2017).
In the last decade, the way people used to communicate and socialize has changed, now
people use internet for the same purpose (Carlsson, 2011). It has been found in the
various researches that the information available on social networking sites is
considered to be more trustworthy by the internet users rather than conventional
marketing (Hennig-Thurau et al. 2004; Karakaya & Barnes 2010; Kietzmann et al.

10
2011). Consumers tend to get more involved with the brand through these social
networking sites and applications rather than conventional methods of marketing and
consumer engagement tools (Rachna and Iesha, 2017). However, there are two types
of interaction on these social networking sites. (i) The content that is initiated or created
by the organizations themselves to increase brand awareness and consumer
involvement and communication with consumers. This particular content from the
organizations’ side may come in the form of advertisements on social networking sites
or in the form of consumer involvement campaign. (ii) The other type of content is
something which is genuinely created by the internet users or social networking
application users on their behalf. The content that is created by such internet users can
be in the form of pictures, video, product review etc. The organic feedback or content
that is created by internet users tends to be more reliable to other people that are present
on internet and social media applications. It is suggested by Godes and Mayzlin (2009)
that it is important to differentiate between content that is generated by organizations
and content that is created by internet users to evaluate the true impact of online
communication that takes place on social networking sites on consumer based brand
equity.
Firm Generated Content (FGC) can be described as types of social media
communications like Tweets, Facebook posts or YouTube videos that are posted by
these brand owners on their brand accounts or pages of social media. FCC represents a
marketing strategy for creating brand awareness in the form of recognition, recall and
brand image on social media platforms by brand owners themselves (Sonnenburg,
2012). Furthermore, FCCs are the sort of social media communications that provide
brand managers of these big firms the opportunity of expanding their brand awareness

11
with the help of these messages disseminated on social media. Furthermore, Malhotra,
Malhotra and See (2013) have reviewed that, brand owners have embraced social media
as one of the important platforms of engaging their consumers, sharing information and
promotional activities with their consumers. Consequently, social media, such as
Facebook has proven to be a key drive to consumers’ engagement among other
important functionalities of social media (Rohm, Kaltcheva & Milne, 2013).
Although, the contents that are posted on social media by brand owners can be
categorized into different types of marketing communications as these contents are
deployed to serve different purposes (Keller, 2009). Research findings have also shown
that, marketing communications have different implications on brand equity
development (Yoo, Donthu, & Lee, 2000; Buil, de Chernatony, & Martínez, 2013).
Therefore, FCC is anticipated as Social Media Promotions, Social Media Advertising
and Social Media Interactive Marketing.
Consumer Generated Content or User Generated Content (UGC) is found to be not
controlled by any organization and solely depends on the consumer or internet users.
Consumers these days are more empowered than ever before and they have more
possibilities these days to generate content (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010; Muniz & Schau,
2011). Marketing and brand communication used to be one-way communication in the
past where only brands had the power of implying information on customers, but now
brand communication is more about two-way communication due to the emergence of
internet and social networking sites and applications. Consumers are not only the
receivers of information that is created by organizations through traditional marketing
tools, but now they also create content on their behalf ((Li & Bernhoff, 2008).

12
According to Gangadharbatla (2008), the emergence of online communities and
channels has promoted the concept of consumer generated content on social networking
sites and applications. User generated content (UGC) is rapidly increasing the concept
of brand communication and brand conversation (Christodoulides et al., 2012).
Researches (e.g., Barwise & Meehan, 2010; Beuker & Abbing, 2010; Fournier &
Avery, 2011; Patterson, 2011) suggest that the consumers and internet users do not only
respond to a particular content, but they also pass and spread the message in their
surroundings which include friends, families and colleagues. The content that is created
by users on internet can be both positive content for the brand and negative content for
the brand. Bambauer-Sachse & Mangold (2010) said in their study that customers
having good experience with the product are more likely to spread positive content
about the brand and customers who did not have good experience with the offering are
more likely to create and spread negative content for the brand. The content, both
negative and positive, develop a particular perception about a particular brand based on
what type of content is shared on internet. Consequently, it can be said that consumers
or internet users get influenced by the information that is available and shared on
internet (Poynter, 2008). According to DEI Worldwide (2008), 70% of the consumers
use social media to gather information about the product before buying a particular
product, and 49% of the consumers end up buying products based on the information
that is available on internet and social networking applications.
2.2. Customer Based Brand Equity
The concept and meaning of brand equity have been discussed in different perspectives,
including perspective of retailers, consumers and manufacturers, but no common
meaning has been identified yet (Vazquez et al., 2002; Keller, 2003). Manufacturers

13
and retailers are more concerned about the strategic point of view of brand equity, while
investors are more concerned about financial aspect of brand equity (Cobb-Walgren &
Ruble, 1995). Financial aspect of brand equity determines the total value of a brand and
its asset when sold (Feldwick, 1996). When marketing professionals talk about brand
equity, they tend to be more concerned about the strength of brand, often called as
customer based brand equity, to distinguish brand equity from its financial aspect or
asset valuation concept (Wood, 2000). The concept of customer based brand equity
approach the subject of brand equity from the point of view of customers- what
customers of a particular brand think about the brand they are consuming. The power
of a brand is highly dependent on how its customers feel about the brand based on their
consuming experience (Keller, 2003). If a brand fails to develop such connection and
meaningful relationship with consumers, then no other definition of brand equity is
significant (Keller, 1993; Cobb-Walgren and Ruble, 1995; Rio et al., 2001a). Thus, the
meaning of consumer based brand equity can be concluded as suggested by Keller
(2003, p.60) “the differential effect that brand knowledge has on consumer response to
the marketing of that brand”. Where there are several other definitions of brand equity
from different perspectives exist, the most comprehensive and generally accepted
definition of brand equity is “a set of brand assets and liabilities linked to a brand, its
name and symbol, that add to or subtract from the value provided by a product or service
to a firm and/or to that firm’s customers” (Aaker, 1991, p. 15).
Consumer-Based Brand Equity (CBBE) is used to assess brand performance in the
market. (Çifci et al., 2016). Keller (1993) believed that strong brand equity achieves
through brand awareness, brand association, brand loyalty and perceived quality. He
defines CBBE as “the differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to

14
the marketing of the brand” (Keller, 1993, p.1). According to Keller, there are two
reason to study CBBE, one is for financial purpose and the second is to know the
perception of the consumers towards brand (Keller, 1993). CBBE helps marketers to
improve the productivity by understanding the brand image that has been created in the
consumer’s mind (Keller, 1993). A review of the literature on brand equity confirms
their models as the prominent measurements of a brand’s value to both business and
consumers (Keller, 1993; Simon and Sullivan, 1993; Lassar et al., 1995; Aaker, 1996;
Pappu et al., 2005; Christodoulides, 2010; Çifci et al., 2016).
Keller introduced three main concepts which are differential effect, brand knowledge
and consumer response to marketing. Differential effect need to be calculated when a
marketer wants to make the comparison of consumer response to marketing of a real
‘branded’ product and one substitute that is fictitious (Keller, 1993). To determine
Brand knowledge, the brand awareness and brand image need to be examined.
Consumer perception, preferences and behavior are the three factors that help to know
the Consumer response towards marketing (Aaker, 1991).
Keller (1993, 02) defined (CBBE) as the differential effect on of brand understanding
on consumer response to the marketing of a particular brand. Keller emphasized the
fact that it’s easier to understand brand equity in terms brand awareness, favorability,
strength of the brand and uniqueness of brand associations which consumers hold in
their minds. Thus, CBBE can be understood as a concept that predicts that consumers
will react more favorably to a branded product than to an unbranded product in the
same category (Aaker 1991; Keller 1993; Yoo, Donthu, and Lee 2000).

15
CBBE can simply be mirrored by the amount of knowledge a customer has related to
that particular brand, their perception about the brand, their experiences while acquiring
a particular brand and what sort of mind-set they have when they come into contact
with the brand. When it comes to Keller (1993) he mentions that brand knowledge is
mainly of two kinds, one being brand image and the other being brand awareness.
Reason being that both brand awareness and brand image are referred as structures of
consumers’ memory, perception, mindset and association with the brand.
In response to these marketing activities, consumer can either have a positive or a
negative response towards a brand. Positive CBBE (brand knowledge) occurs when
consumer’s perception of a brand is unique and strong with favorable image of the
brands attribute and image.
Studies regarding the measurement of brand equity can be divided into two categories,
some authors have focused on the measurement of brand equity in numeric or financial
terms, and others have focused on the measurement of consumer based brand equity
(Atilgan, E., Aksoy, Ş., & Akinci, S,2005). Talking about financial aspect of brand
equity, Simon and Sullivan (1993) focused on macro and micro approaches to calculate
or estimate the value of a brand from the value of firm’s assets (Atilgan, E., Aksoy, Ş.,
& Akinci, S,2005). Moreover, Interbank Group focused on brand’s performance
considering seven dimensions: leadership, stability, market stability, internationality,
trend, support and protection to estimate brand equity (Keller, 1993).
On the other hand, studies regarding measurement of consumer based brand equity
focuses on conceptual constructs suggested by management professionals. Aaker
(1993) proposed or studied 5 dimensions to calculate or estimate consumer based brand
equity that includes brand awareness, brand associations, brand loyalty, perceived

16
quality, and other assets of brand. While (Keller 1993) suggested two approaches, direct
and indirect, to calculate consumer based brand equity (Atilgan, E., Aksoy, Ş., &
Akinci, S, 2005). The indirect approach of Keller (1993) focuses on distribution
channels, marketing communication and the success of brand by considering factors
like brand awareness and brand associations (Atilgan, E., Aksoy, Ş., & Akinci, S,2005).
On the other hand, the direct approach of Keller (1993) is concerned about the response
of consumers to the marketing activities of a brand (Atilgan, E., Aksoy, Ş., & Akinci,
S, 2005). Altogether based on the studies, focused on consumer based brand equity, it
is suggested that measure of consumer based brand equity is reflection of a brand
performance in the industry (Atilgan, E., Aksoy, Ş., & Akinci, S, 2005). Hence,
customer based brand equity can be the integral factor to drive financial gains of a brand
or company (Lassar et al., 1995).
(CBBE) was developed by Keller (1993, 02), who deﬁned ‘the differential effect of
brand knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of the brand’. Keller
emphasized that brand equity should be captured and understood in terms of brand
awareness and in the strength, favorability and uniqueness of brand associations that
consumers hold in memory. Thus, CBBE can be understood as a concept that predicts
that consumers will react more favorably to a branded product than to an unbranded
product in the same category (Aaker 1991; Keller 1993; Yoo, Donthu, and Lee 2000)
An alternative concept of consumer-based brand equity (CBBE) was developed by
Keller (1993, 02), who deﬁned ‘the differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer
response to the marketing of the brand’. Keller emphasized that brand equity should be
captured and understood in terms of brand awareness and in the strength, favorability
and uniqueness of brand associations that consumers hold in memory. Thus, CBBE can
be understood as a concept that predicts that consumers will react more favorably to a

17
branded product than to an unbranded product in the same category (Aaker 1991; Keller
1993; Yoo, Donthu, and Lee 2000)
2.3. Aaker's Brand Equity Model
Aaker defined brand equity as “a set of brand assets and liabilities linked to a brand, its
name and symbol that add to or subtract from the value provided by a product or
service” (Aaker, 1991. p.31). Aaker (1991) in his book ‘Managing Brand Equity’,
outlines four dimensions of brand equity; brand loyalty, perceived brand quality, brand
associations, brand awareness and other proprietary brand assets such as patents and
trademarks. Only the four first dimensions will be considered in this research as they
revolve around the consumer’s perception (Rachna and Khajuria, 2017). These four
dimensions are used to measure consumer based brand equity (Aaker, 1991). The order
set for these components is first comes brand awareness, followed by brand association,
then perceived quality, thus resulting in consumer loyalty (Yoo and Donthu, 2001).
2.4. Brand Awareness
Aaker (1991) defines awareness as “the ability of a potential buyer to recognize or recall
a member of a certain product category” (p.78-79). It refers to the features of a brand
in the mind of consumers, it means how easily a consumer can recognize or recall a
brand when any product category or feature such as logo or packaging comes in front
of consumer (Keller, 1993; Aaker, 1996). Furthermore, ongoing visibilities and strong
associations with brand offerings and buying experiences create a brand awareness
(Keller, 1998). Hutter et al., (2013) found that on Facebook, the engagement of
consumers with a fan page of brand had a strong correlation with their perception of

18
brand awareness. And also Bruhn et al., (2012) claims that the customer’s brand
perception is impacted by the brand communication on social media. Brand related
UGC has significant impact on brand awareness (Rachna and Khajuria, 2017). And
also, branded social media communication on Facebook affects the brand awareness
(Schivinski and Dabrowski, 2015). Therefore, we assume that brand related YouTube
videos, as a specific type of UGC, will affect brand awareness.
Aaker (1996b) has constantly highlighted the fact that brand awareness plays a
significant role when studying about brand and with respect to that it plays an essential
part in developing brand equity. Aaker (1991) defines brand awareness as, “the ability
of a buyer to recognize that a brand is a member of a certain product category”.
Following this brand awareness can be measured in terms of customers’ ability to being
able to spot and recognize a brand instantly under different circumstances.
2.5. Brand Association
Aaker (1991) describes brand association as being “anything “linked” in memory to a
brand” (p.131). That is, anything that makes the recall of the brand in the consumer’s
mind. So basically the degree to which the brand is recognized by the consumers in the
market (Keller, 1993). A common misconception is that brand association includes
product benefits (Aaker, 1991). Aaker (1996) instead argues that brand association is
closely related to the brand itself, with respect to being a status symbol, quality and
credibility. He also suggested that the correlation between brand equity and association
lies within the differentiation that it brings among brands. Aaker (1991) meant that
differentiation is the key to make the customer buy the product as it allows the customer
to see the difference between the brand and its competitor, this is what makes brands

19
charge premium prices. Keller (1993) also implied that brand associations is a key
factor that influences price premium, and in return price premium is needed to measure
brand equity. Yoo and Donthu (2001) stated that positive brand associations such as
being durable and reliable result in high brand association. Severi and Ling (2013)
agree that positive brand associations are a sign of quality and commitment. In his
research on brand equity in relation to UGC on Facebook, Schivinskiand Dabrowski
(2015) found that UGC communication on Facebook has an effect on brand association.
Likewise, Rachna and Kahjuria’s (2017) findings showed that UGC on Facebook has
a significant impact on brand association. Therefore, we assume that brand related
YouTube videos, as a specific type of UGC, will affect the consumers brand
association.
Brand association may be defined as positive feelings of customers towards the brand
based on the comparative degree of brand strength (Lasser et al.1995). Furthermore,
Keller also briefly explains that based on the level of brand strength, brand association
can influence consumers’ buying decisions at any point. In some scenarios just because
of the fact that buyers share emotional bonding with a particular brand, they are ready
to even pay premium for it just based on that bonding.
2.6. Brand Loyalty
Brand loyalty was defined by Aaker (1991) as “a measure of the attachment that a
customer has to a brand” (p.55). In brand loyalty research, the significant challenge is
to define and measure brand (loyalty Atilgan, E., Aksoy, Ş., & Akinci, S, 2005).
According to Javalgi and Moberg (1997) brand loyalty is highly dependent on
consumers’ buying behavior, consumers’ attitude towards the brand, and where the

20
brand stands in the preference list of customers. According to Aaker (1991), brand
loyalty is the circumstances in which a consumer is more likely to switch to other brand
when that particular brand brings change in price or in product.
A positive word of mouth is what makes brand loyalty and this is a competitive
advantage for companies (Moisescu, 2006). Aaker (1996) states price premium and
satisfaction/loyalty as the core measurements of brand loyalty. Willingness to pay for
the brand is what is meant by price premium and this basically shows the value placed
by the consumer for the brand. Whereas satisfaction/loyalty reflects the chances of a
customer to switch to a competitor (Aaker, 1996). Brand loyalty has been considered
as the core of brand value because of the switching cost that rests in consumers’ minds,
creating a competitive advantage (Yoo and Donthu, 2001). As user-generated content
is perceived as credible and trustworthy, due to it being created by peers with no
obvious gain, it will increase the brands attractiveness (Christodoulides2012).
Furthermore, UGC on Facebook has been shown to have a significant impact on brand
equity (Rachna and Khajuria, 2017). Also, Schivinski and Dabrowski (2015) finds that
UGC on Facebook has an effect on Brand loyalty. Therefore, we assume that brand
related YouTube videos as a specific type of UGC, will affect the consumers brand
loyalty.
Adding further to this it should not be forgotten that one of the most important element
in branding is brand loyalty. Measuring brand loyalty in behavioral sense is easy, as in
number of repeat purchases a customer is making with respect to that particular brand.
Aaker (1991) defines brand loyalty as “a measure of the attachment of a customer with
a particular brand”. Mark et al. (2007) also pin points the fact that customers will always

21
chose their favorite brand over and over again to whom they are loyal and will always
consider that brand as their preferred selection. These loyal customers don’t just easily
shift or switch to other brands and just have very minimum chances of getting effected
by any sort of following changes. Oliver (1997) explain brand loyalty as a firmly held
dedication to repurchase a product or service often in the future, regardless of
situational impact and marketing efforts having the possibility to seed switching
behavior.
2.7. Perceived Quality
According to Zeithaml (1988) perceived quality has been defined as “the customer’s
perception of the overall quality or superiority of a product or service with respect to
its intended purpose, relative to alternatives” (Aaker, 1991, p.104). Aaker explain that
it is the subjective perception of the brand by a consumer and he tells that it is very
important in building CBBE. The level of perceive quality is dependent on the previous
experience of a consumer with the brand. It has been shown that perceived quality has
a positive relationship with brand image (Rao and Monroe, 1989). Severi and Ling’s
(2013) found that perceived quality is the mediator between brand image and brand
equity. Pappu et al., (2005) claims that high brand awareness, brand loyalty, or brand
association reflect well in perceived quality and vice versa. Schivinski and Dabrowksi
(2015) tells that brand related UGC on Facebook has an effect on perceived brand
quality. Furthermore, Rachna and Khajuria (2017) finding shows that UGC on
Facebook has significant impact on perceived quality of brands. Therefore, we assume
that brand related YouTube videos, as a specific type of UGC, will affect the
consumers’ perceived quality of a brand.

22
Aaker (1991) has explained perceived brand quality as customer’s perception of
products superior quality, compared to what competitors are offering. Biswas and Dean
(2001) state that the extent to which a customer has knowledge about the quality of
brand will be affected by their past experiences with the brand or relevant
feedbacks/information acquired from people who interact with them more often. It is a
necessity for the company and many have converted it into a very powerful strategic
weapon. They increase customer satisfaction and their worth by consistency, meeting
their customers’ needs. Kotler (2000) diverts attention to the personal connection
among product and service quality, customer satisfaction, and company profitability.
Perceived quality is valuable for the brand in many ways. Superior quality changes the
customer mind and give them a reason to purchase the brand and also distinguish itself
from the other challengers in the market, to charge extra amount and to have a strong
premise for the brand extension (Aaker, 1991). Marketers across the whole industry
both product and service have admitted the value of perceived quality in decision
making of a brand (Morton, 1994). There is a very close connection between quality,
company profitability and customer satisfaction (Kotler, 1991). Not the quality of the
product but the perception of the consumer about the product is what perceived quality
is (Zeithaml, 1988, p.3).

23
2.8. Theoretical Framework
2.9. Hypothesis
H1: Brand related UGC on YouTube has an effect on consumers’ brand awareness.
H2: Brand related UGC on YouTube has an effect on consumers’ brand association.
H3: Brand related UGC on YouTube IM has an effect on consumers’ perceived quality.
H4: Brand related UGC on YouTube IM has an effect on consumers’ brand loyalty.
YouTube
videos
Brand awareness
Brand association
Perceived quality
Brand loyalty

24
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
3.1. Research Approach
In this research we identified the impact of User Generated Content, on YouTube, has
on customer based brand equity. This research has been conducted in other countries
but we are conducting this research in Pakistani context. There hypotheses have been
made from the current literature in the field. Therefore, the deductive research approach
is used in this research. It is a quantitative study, with an objective to identify the
measurable and objective relationships between the dependent variable (CBBE) and
the independent variable (YouTube videos). For this particular research, quantitative
method is selected because it allows multiple number of responses, which allows a
greater generalization compared to that which can be obtained with a qualitative
method. More responses are required for this study because the goal is to study the
causality between two variables, rather than collecting detailed answers to questions
about the relationship between the two.
This thesis also uses an explanatory research approach. Explanatory research means to
find relationships between variables (Saunders et al., 2016). As part of this research
project, Saunders et al, Emphasize the significance of asking "why" or "how" questions.
Explanatory studies are used to examine a situation or problem in order to explain the
relationship between variables (Saunders et al., 2016). This goal is achieved by using
existing theory and research to examine a less-sought subject or problem for which
existing theory and research is applicable (Bryman and Bell, 2015). Through this kind
of process, the theories used can be more improved with a better understanding as the

25
problem or situation is explained. This study uses explanatory research because of the
research gap discovered in the current literature review. As mentioned in the previous
chapters, UGC is still of great interest to researchers, particularly with respect to its
impact on CBBE (Rachna and Khajuria, 2017). Explanatory research is used to explain
a new problem or situation by reviewing existing theory that’s why it is an appropriate
complement to research on the effects of the trendy form of UGC that YouTube videos
are and its potential impact on CBBE.
3.2. Research Design
The research design is basically a guideline that ensures that the obtained data is
sufficient to address the research questions as clear as possible (Bryman and Bell,
2015). An explanatory quantitative research is a good fit within experimental design
because it allows for a systematic study where the cause and effect between different
objects of similar interests can be quantified and analyzed.
For this study, an experimental approach is highly applicable because of the nature of
the independent variable that is a brand related YouTube video. The fact that the
respondents will be shown a brand related UGC on YouTube will give a clear picture
of what the interpretation of a brand related UGC on YouTube has in our research.
Also, the experimental design allows for development of a base where the respondents
(control group) and the effect brand related YouTube videos have on CBBE
(experimental group) can be measured. This study uses a classical experiment where
different groups were randomly selected from the chosen sample (Saunders et al, 2016).

26
3.3 Population and Sampling Method
The sampling selection criteria will be limited to Millennials and Generation Z who
study or work in Pakistan. UGC is extremely popular among the social media users
now a day, it is mostly popular among Millennials and Generation Z (Medium, 2018,
The Odyssey Online, 2018, Repositories.tdl.org, 2018). There will be a total of 205
respondents. However, the sampling criterion will be based on geographic convenience
and generation relevance. Based on the Bryman and Bell sampling frame (2015), data
collection will be systematic, with all participants remaining anonymous and their
responses will be given only a numerical identifier to avoid accidental mixing.
However, the questionnaire will ask for information on age, sex, marital status and
occupation. According to the data collection method, the researchers will mostly
approach the students at SZABIST, CBM and IQRA university Karachi campus. These
respondents were informed about the study before collecting any sort of information
from them and after their permission they were asked to fill out the questionnaire.
This survey is a self-completion questionnaire, the researchers will need a sample
nearby, and so for this purpose convenience sampling was used because it allows to
achieve the Millennials and Generation Z goals which will be easily available to them.
The purpose of this research was to provide a basis for further research and to link the
data to the previous ones.

27
3.4 Data Collection Method
There are different methods for data collection which are used for research purposes
such as surveys, secondary data collection observations focus groups and interviews
(Saunders ET AL.., 2016). Data collection tools such as interviews and focus groups
allow for data to be gathered and then compared, hence they are qualitative methods
and do not fit well with explanatory studies and so were excluded from our research.
As far as observation techniques is considered it does not fit well with experimental
studies because they have certain limitations thus were excluded from this research.
Quantitative study with secondary data collection can provide the relevant data that is
required to produce results however the independent variable in this research lacked
enough research surrounding it hence it is not a suitable method. After eliminating
different methods of collecting data, surveys were the last option left as the most viable
data collection method for this research.
Researches with a deductive approach are considered to be of optimal choice (Saunders
ET AL., 2016) Saunders also mentions that “Survey strategy is perceived as
authoritative by people in general and is comparatively easy both to explain and to
understand” (P.181). Relationships between different variables in survey can also be
quantified through easily. However, the issue with survey data is that it does not show
a wide range of data as other techniques and also the data can be greatly distorted if the
survey is poorly conducted. (Saunders ET AL.2016). The survey strategy functions
were well defined within the scope of our research. Large Samples are also easy to
collect through quantitative study that enable us to compare the effects of the
experiment’s independent variable brand related, YouTube video on the dependent

28
variable, consumer based brand equity. With the use of survey strategy and with a
narrow focus of our research, in case of a lack of a wide range of data, the research
process will not be affected.
3.5. Data Collection Instrument
A self-completion questionnaire has been chosen as the instrument for this research.
When conducting a descriptive or explanatory study the most common instrument used
are questionnaires. There are certain advantages that questionnaire holds while being
used as a research instrument such as the researchers can complete them are convenient
for the respondents, there is less or no risk of interviewer effects, fast and cheap
administration.
The disadvantages of a questionnaire are that, once it has been sent out the questions
mentioned cannot be further clarified, the researcher is unable to identify, who answers
the questions in the questionnaire and cannot collect further data on the same
respondents and the last but not the least there is no possibility of probing questions.
Moreover, there is a risk of incomplete questionnaires or missing data.
In order to tackle the disadvantages associated with questionnaires we tried our best to
make sure that the questionnaire is formulated and that it serves the purpose it has been
made for. The experimental research has such a nature that there is a need for holding
all other things constant while measuring the effects between independent variable and
the dependent variable and for that a self-completion questionnaire has been designed

29
by us. Another reason for choosing questionnaires is that it allows to collect large
samples and gathering of data in a standardized way (Saunders ET AL., 2016).
3.6 Questionnaire Design
The chosen brand for our research is Coca cola, a consumer brand that has 8th
highest
number of videos uploaded on YouTube. Initially Shan masala was being considered
for our research however it was realized that it might receive maximum value on the
scales from the respondents, due to an assumption that strong pride and national
sentiment for the brand would cause the Likert scale questions to be unable to depict if
there is any difference between control and experiment groups. Different options were
also considered such as the one used by (Rachna and Khajuria.,2017) where the
respondents were asked to think of a retail brand on their own which has presence on
Facebook, however in our research due to an experimental design approach we could
not follow their approach as different brands and their relationships cannot be
simultaneously measured through experimental design hence it is significant to have a
single brand where results of both experimental and control group can easily be
compared. At one point, a fake brand was also being considered however that would
deviate from the purpose of the study which is to identify whether brand related
YouTube videos have any impact on consumer based brand equity. Had a fake brand
been created for this research, the respondents would have no prior knowledge
regarding the brand, which contradicts from the objective of measuring a change in
consumer based brand equity.

30
The research consists of two groups which are experimental and control group, both the
groups will have the same statements and questions with only the independent variable
being added to one group that is the experimental group, both of the groups will first
receive an introduction about the survey and the structure of the questionnaire. Only
the experimental group before being asked to fill out the questionnaires will be shown
a brand related user generated content on YouTube of coca cola brand. The chosen
brand related UGC was random YouTube video selected from a large sample.
A five point Likert scale was used to answer the statements by the respondents, ranging
from strongly made use of a five point Likert scale (Yoo & Donthu, 2001); (Rachna
and Khajooria, 2017) ;(Severi and Ling, 2013), On the other hand an 11 point Likert
scale and a 10 point Likert scale were used by Pappu ET AL. (2005) & Atilgan ET AL
(2005) respectively. This 5 point Likert scale was chosen for its ability to show minor
shifts and due to kind of statements which were in our questionnaire. In the first section,
the demographics of the people who took the questionnaire were asked and they were
to answer in accordance with their details and then so on in the 2nd
section of the
questionnaire, it would totally consist of a number of 20 statements which have been
derived from the components of consumer based brand equity that are 5 questions from
each component and these statements were to be answered on a Likert scale.
3.7 Analysis Method
SPSS is used to perform all statistical analyzes. Descriptive analysis was used for mean,
asymmetry and kurtosis. The Pearson correlation was used to measure validity between
the four scales. Reliability tests was performed at the item level for each scale, where

31
Cronbach's Alpha coefficient measured the internal reliability. Furthermore, one
sample test was used for hypothesis testing of both the groups.
3.8 Pilot Testing
3.8.1 Experimental Group
3.8.1.1 Brand awareness
The value of Cronbach alpha 0.808 suggests that the questionnaire contains 5
statements of brand awareness having the value of Cronbach alpha greater than 0.7
which reflects that the questionnaire is reliable and further data can be conducted by
using the same questionnaire.
3.8.1.2 Brand association
statements of brand association having the value of Cronbach alpha is closed to 0.7
3.8.1.3 Perceived quality
statements of perceived quality having the value of Cronbach alpha greater than 0.7

32
3.8.1.4 Brand loyalty
statements of brand loyalty having the value of Cronbach alpha greater than 0.7 which
reflects that the questionnaire is reliable and further data can be conducted by using the
same questionnaire.
3.8.2 Control Group
3.8.2.1 Brand awareness
statements of brand awareness having the value of Cronbach alpha greater than 0.7
3.8.2.2 Brand association
statements of brand association having the value of Cronbach alpha is closed to 0.7

33
3.8.2.3 Perceived quality
statements of perceived quality having the value of Cronbach alpha greater than 0.7
3.8.2.4 Brand loyalty
statements of brand loyalty having the value of Cronbach alpha is closed to 0.7 which
reflects that the questionnaire is reliable and further data can be conducted by using the
same questionnaire.
3.9 Ethical Considerations
All the responses were collected with the consent of the respondents. And all the data
which was collected was used for educational purpose only. Furthermore, the
confidentiality of all the responses shall be maintained at all times. The questionnaire
was developed in a way that the participants were not know about what the real purpose
of the study. Therefore, when distributing the questionnaire, the respondents were not
aware about the purpose of the study. The researchers did not mention to participants
that they had participated in any sort of experiment testing, which resulted in genuine
results about the effect of user generated content on YouTube videos. If the researchers
would have explained the purpose of research, it could have easily influenced the

34
results that’s why researchers did not mention anything about the purpose of this study
to obtain accurate results.

35
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
4.1 Descriptive Profile of the Data
The overall sample consist of 205 respondents in which 103 respondents were from
control group and 102 respondents were from experimental group. Control group
respondents were asked to fill the questionnaire without showing any UGC whereas
experimental group respondents were asked to fill the questionnaire after showing UGC
on YouTube of the brand coca cola.
4.1.1 Gender
4.1.1.1 Control Group
Table 4.1.1.1 Gender
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Male 75 72.1 72.8 72.8
Female 28 26.9 27.2 100.0
Total 103 99.0 100.0
Missing System 1 1.0
Total 104 100.0

36
In control group, there were 103 respondents out of which 72.8% were male and
remaining 27.2% were female.
4.1.1.2 Experimental Group
Table 4.1.1.2 Gender
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Male 54 52.9 52.9 52.9
Female 48 47.1 47.1 100.0
Total 102 100.0 100.0
In experimental group, 102 respondents fill out the questionnaire correctly out of which
52.9% were male and 47.1% were female
4.1.2 Age
Table 4.1.2.1 Age
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative %
Valid 18.0 4 3.8 3.9 3.9
19.0 4 3.8 3.9 7.8
20.0 7 6.7 6.8 14.6
21.0 14 13.5 13.6 28.2
22.0 23 22.1 22.3 50.5

37
23.0 15 14.4 14.6 65.0
24.0 6 5.8 5.8 70.9
25.0 3 2.9 2.9 73.8
26.0 2 1.9 1.9 75.7
27.0 3 2.9 2.9 78.6
28.0 9 8.7 8.7 87.4
29.0 1 1.0 1.0 88.3
30.0 2 1.9 1.9 90.3
32.0 2 1.9 1.9 92.2
34.0 1 1.0 1.0 93.2
38.0 2 1.9 1.9 95.1
39.0 2 1.9 1.9 97.1
42.0 2 1.9 1.9 99.0
51.0 1 1.0 1.0 100.0
Total 103 99.0 100.0
Total 104 100.0
As we distributed our questionnaire in universities, we found that most of the
respondents were millennials that are also known as generation Y because most of them
were about 20-24 years old.

38
Table 4.1.2.2 Age
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 18 1 1.0 1.0 1.0
19 14 13.7 13.7 14.7
20 25 24.5 24.5 39.2
21 24 23.5 23.5 62.7
22 27 26.5 26.5 89.2
23 7 6.9 6.9 96.1
24 2 2.0 2.0 98.0
30 1 1.0 1.0 99.0
35 1 1.0 1.0 100.0
Total 102 100.0 100.0
In experimental group, most of the respondents were about 19-22 years because most
of the respondents were from universities.

39
4.1.3 Marital Status
Table 4.1.3.1 Marital status
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Single 89 85.6 86.4 86.4
Married 14 13.5 13.6 100.0
Total 103 99.0 100.0
Total 104 100.0
In control group, 86.4% respondents were single and 13.6% were married. As most of
the respondents were students that’s why most of them were single.
Table 4.1.3.2 Marital status
Frequenc
y Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Single 97 95.1 95.1 95.1
Married 5 4.9 4.9 100.0
Total 102 100.0 100.0

40
As in experimental group most of the respondents were university students
that’s why most of them were not married. Around 95.1% were single and
4.9% were married.
4.1.4 Occupation
Table 4.1.4.1 occupation
Frequenc
y Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Student 68 65.4 66.0 66.0
Employed 26 25.0 25.2 91.3
Business 9 8.7 8.7 100.0
Total 103 99.0 100.0
Total 104 100.0
In control group, 66% were student, 25.2% were employed and 8.7% were
self-employed. As in control group there were many people who filled the
questionnaire online that’s why there were all three occupation respondents.

41
Table 4.1.4.2 Occupation
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Student 98 96.1 96.1 96.1
Employed 4 3.9 3.9 100.0
Total 102 100.0 100.0
For experimental group, the questionnaires were distributed mostly in
universities that’s why 96.1% respondents were student and only around 4%
were employed.
4.2 Scale reliability
Table 4.2 Reliability test
Scale Number of items Cronbach alpha
Brand awareness (EG)
Brand awareness (CG)
5
5
0.803
0.744
Brand association (EG)
Brand association (CG)
5
5
0.648
0.697
Perceived quality (EG)
Perceived quality (CG)
5
5
0.878
0.891
Brand loyalty (EG)
Brand loyalty (CG)
5
5
0.696
0.633

42
Cronbach alpha test was used to measure the reliability of the scales within the
questionnaire. The reliability of each scale within the experimented and controlled
group are mentioned in the above table. As the table shows, each of the scale present
in the questionnaire passed the reliability test. This proves that the questionnaire is
reliable and all the data collected from that questionnaire is reliable.
4.3 Descriptive
4.3.1 Control Group
table 4.3.1 Descriptive statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic
Brand awareness 103 4.7184 .51292 -1.633 1.833
Brand association 103 4.3010 .68363 -.652 .116
Perceived quality 103 3.9029 .82265 -.356 -.402
Brand loyalty 103 3.4951 .83869 -.340 -.042
Valid N (list wise) 103
The data collected was skewed on a scale of (1/-1). In all the four variables the data was
negatively skewed and none of the variable showed positive skewness. The most
negatively skewed variable was Brand Awareness (-1.633) and the least negatively
skewed variable was Brand Loyalty (-0.340). In case of kurtosis, most of the cases are
close to a normal distribution where only Brand Awareness (1.833) showed the most
extreme deviation. Moreover, the means of each scale are presented in the table.

43
4.3.2 Experimental group
Table 4.3.2 Descriptive statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistics
Brand awareness 102 4.7157 .53357 -2.136 5.963
Brand association 102 4.1176 .76163 -.751 1.361
Perceived quality 102 3.3922 .96633 -.729 .412
Brand loyalty 102 3.1961 .90148 -.070 -.054
Valid N (list wise) 102
The data collected was skewed on a scale of (1/-1). In all the four variables the data was
negatively skewed and none of the variable showed positive skewness. The most
negatively skewed variable was Brand Awareness (-2.136) and the least negatively
skewed variable was Brand Loyalty (-0.70). In case of kurtosis, most of the cases are
close to a normal distribution where only Brand Awareness (5.963) showed the most
extreme deviation. Another case of extreme deviation was on the Brand Association
where the kurtosis was at 1.361. Moreover, the means of each scale are presented in the
table.

44
4.4 Validation of model
4.4.1 Correlation
Table 4.4.1.1 Correlations
Brand
awareness
Brand
association
Perceived
quality
Brand
loyalty
Brand
awareness
Pearson
Correlation
1 .473**
.084 .076
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .401 .448
N 102 102 102 102
Brand
association
Pearson
Correlation
.473**
1 .408**
.355**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 102 102 102 102
Perceived
quality
Pearson
Correlation
.084 .408**
1 .672**
Sig. (2-tailed) .401 .000 .000
N 102 102 102 102
Brand loyalty Pearson
Correlation
.076 .355**
.672**
1
Sig. (2-tailed) .448 .000 .000
N 102 102 102 102

45
As shown in the table, the validity of each scale is not valid. Furthermore, the
correlation is not significant at 0.01 for all the scales. Not all the dimensions in the study
have a strong relationship. In the table, the overall range is between 0.191- 0.539. Brand
Awareness does not have a significant relationship with Brand Loyalty. All the
dimensions have a positive relationship amongst them.
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table 4.4.1.2 Correlations
Brand
awareness
Brand
association
Perceived
quality
Brand
loyalty
Brand
awareness
Pearson Correlation 1 .473**
.084 .076
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .401 .448
N 102 102 102 102
Brand
association
Pearson Correlation .473**
1 .408**
.355**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 102 102 102 102
Perceived
quality
Pearson Correlation .084 .408**
1 .672**
Sig. (2-tailed) .401 .000 .000
N 102 102 102 102
Brand
loyalty
Pearson Correlation .076 .355**
.672**
1
Sig. (2-tailed) .448 .000 .000
N 102 102 102 102

46
As shown in the table, the validity of each scale is not valid. Furthermore, the
correlation is not significant at 0.01 for all the scales. Not all the dimensions in the study
have a strong relationship. In the table, the overall range is between 0.76 – 0.672. Brand
Association has a moderate relationship with Brand Awareness and Brand Loyalty.
Perceived Quality has strong relationship with Brand loyalty and a moderate relation
with Brand Association. All the dimensions have a positive relationship amongst them.
4.5 Hypothesis testing
4.5.1 Control Group
Table 4.5.1

47
Hypothesis testing was done through non parametric one sample test. Considering H1,
there is a significant effect of brand related YouTube videos on brand awareness at the
p<0.05 [p=0.000]. H1 is therefore accepted. For H2, there is a significant effect of brand
related YouTube videos on brand association at the p<0.05 [p=0.000]. H2 is therefore
accepted. For H3, there is a significant effect of brand related YouTube videos on
perceived quality at the p<0.05 [p=0.000]. H3 is therefore accepted. For H4, there is a
significant effect of brand related YouTube videos on brand loyalty at the p<0.05
[p=0.000]. H4 is therefore accepted.
4.5.2 Experimental group
Table 4.5.2

48
Hypothesis testing was done through non parametric one sample test. Considering H1,
there is a significant effect of brand related YouTube videos on brand awareness at the
p<0.05 [p=0.000]. H1 is therefore accepted. For H2, there is a significant effect of brand
related YouTube videos on brand association at the p<0.05 [p=0.000]. H2 is therefore
accepted. For H3, there is a significant effect of brand related YouTube videos on
perceived quality at the p<0.05 [p=0.000]. H3 is therefore accepted. For H4, there is a
significant effect of brand related YouTube videos on brand loyalty at the p<0.05
[p=0.000]. H4 is therefore accepted.
4.6 Hypothesis assessment summary
4.6.1 Control Group
Table 4.6.1
Hypothesis Accepted/Rejected
H1: Brand related UGC on YouTube has an effect on
consumers’ brand awareness.
Accepted
consumers’ brand association.
Accepted
H3: Brand related UGC on YouTube IM has an effect on
consumers’ perceived quality.
Accepted
consumers’ brand loyalty.
Accepted

49
4.6.2 Experimental Group
Table 4.6.2
Hypothesis Accepted/Rejected
consumers’ brand awareness.
Accepted
consumers’ brand association.
Accepted
consumers’ perceived quality.
Accepted
consumers’ brand loyalty.
Accepted

50
CHAPTER – 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
5.1 Conclusion
This research paper set out to determine the impact of brand related YouTube videos
on consumer based brand equity. Due to The limited amount of literature on brand
related YouTube videos and consumer based brand equity, the applied literature was
on user generated content and consumer based brand equity. The applied frame work
in the study was adapted from the literature (Joseph & Kristjan 2018) which was based
on the Akers model. The design used to make the questionnaire was an independent
measure experimental design and data collection was done through a self-completion
questionnaire. The obtained statistical analysis of the data showed that all the four
dimensions of the consumer based brand equity were impacted by a single form of user
generated content that is brand related YouTube video.
As previously mentioned the results match the previous findings from research papers
where user generated content had an impact on all four dimensions of consumer based
brand equity. However, there are various elements of YouTube videos as a UGC which
needs to be identified and a further understanding of YouTube video in relation to
brands is needed. However, as the results and findings of this research highlights that
the understanding of user generated content and consumer based brand equity and its
impact on brands is relevant and with YouTube still being used as mode of
communication the importance still stands.

51
5.2 Discussion
The results obtained from the research indicate that all the four components of
consumer based brand equity have a relationship with a single form of user generated
content YouTube videos. This contradicts from the research of Joseph hall green &
Kristjan (2018) where internet memes as single form of user generated content had an
impact only on brand association, the rest of the three components of consumer based
brand equity had no significant relationship with the independent variable internet
memes. Though the research design used by Joseph & Kristjan (2018) is similar to our
experimental design but still the results are different maybe because of the difference
in the independent variable. Other research papers findings have shown that user
generated content has an impact on all four dimensions of consumer based brand equity
such as the one by Rachna & Khajuria (2017) where Facebook was being picked as an
independent variable, though a cross-sectional design was being used in their research
but our results match theirs maybe because social media platform were used in both the
researches and also in both the researches the questionnaire were on well-known
brands.
The results show that the mean of all the four dimensions in controlled group is higher
than the experimental group, also the skewness in controlled group are close to normal
distribution however in case of experimental group there are extreme deviations. The
results obtained can also be misguiding as the brand related user generated content
(YouTube video) picked by us for this research on coca cola was a negative
representation of the brand, where apart from brands name, packaging and logo
appearing in the video there’s no other feature associated with the brand highlighted.

52
5.3 Implications
This research is basically conducted to prove that a relationship exists between user
generated content and consumer based brand equity to make brands and advertising/PR
agencies understand that how important it is to for them to monitor the content
produced by consumers as it can either promote a positive image of the brand or tarnish
the image of the brand in the mind of the consumers. Few years back two employees
of “Dominos” created a dirty video in the kitchen where they violated the health
standards of the company while making a pizza, within a short span of time the video
reached millions of views on YouTube and an infant issue turned into a marketing crisis
for the company. Similarly, for advertising/PR agencies in case a client gets into such
an issue they will know how to respond and will actually make sure the brand doesn’t
get into such an issue in the first place but for that to happen it’s important for the
agencies themselves to realize the importance of it.
5.4 Limitations
This research does possess potential to be generalized for millennials within the
geographic confine of Karachi, there is no possibility of going beyond that. Moreover,
both resources and time proved to be significantly limiting factors. The traditional route
of handing out the questionnaire in person was chosen for this research in the
experimental group and also online method of filling the questionnaire was used for the
control group, where the limitation phase was that the response rate was slow.
Following the traditional approach did indeed permit numerous and quick results of
completed surveys, nonetheless cost of printing material kind of limited the extent up
to which questionnaires were produced as there was a limited budget that could not be

53
exceeded. Lastly, there was a certain time limitation to conduct the research as it had a
submission deadline that cannot be exceeded.
5.5 Recommendations
We believe the results derived from this research can be misinterpreting as the brand
picked for the purpose of this research was already a well-known brand amongst the
respondents so the responses collected in case of the experimental group made no or
less difference in the mind of the consumers and that is why we see the results obtained
from both the groups that is controlled and experimental do not vary much. We
recommend that the next time a research is conducted on a similar topic a newly
launched brand or a lesser known brand should be picked for the research so that the
impact of a single form of user generated content could be determined on the
components of consumer based brand equity while eliminating other factors which
could possibly manipulate the results obtained. The questionnaire designed for the
purpose of this research was adapted from previous researches based on user generated
content and consumer based brand equity, but were not specific to the type of user
generated content (Brand related YouTube videos), we believe other factors need to be
identified which are specifically for you tube.

54
REFERENCES
Aaker, D. (1991). Managing Brand Equity. The Free Press. New York.
Aaker, D. (1996). Measuring Brand Equity across Products and Markets. California
Management Review, 38(3), pp.102-120.
Atilgan, E., Aksoy, Ş. and Akinci, S. (2005). Determinants of the brand equity. Marketing
Intelligence & Planning, 23(3), pp.237-248.
Bambauer-Sachse, S. and Mangold, S. (2011). Brand equity dilution through negative
online wordof-mouth communication. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
18(1), pp.38-45.
Bruhn, M., Schoenmueller, V. and Schäfer, D. (2012). Are social media replacing
traditional media in terms of brand equity creation? Management Research Review,
35(9), pp.770-790.
Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2015). Business Research methods. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Bryman, A., Bell, E., Mills, A., Yue, A. (2011). Business Research Methods. First
Canadian Edition. Oxford University Press. Canada.

55
Christodoulides, G. (2010). Consumer-Based Brand Equity Conceptualisation and
Measurement: A Literature Review. International Journal of Market Research, 52(1),
pp.43-66.
Christodoulides, G., Jevons, C. and Bonhomme, J. (2012). Memo to Marketers:
Quantitative Evidence for Change. Journal of Advertising Research, 52(1), pp.53-64.
Çifci, S., Ekinci, Y., Whyatt, G., Japutra, A., Molinillo, S. and Siala, H. (2016). A cross
validation of Consumer-Based Brand Equity models: Driving customer equity in retail
brands. Journal of Business Research, 69(9), pp.3740-3747.
Dawkins, R. (1976). The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press.
Dawkins, R. (1999). The Selfish Meme. Time International (Canada Edition),
153(15), p.46
Dean, D.H. and Biswas, A. (2001), “Third-party organization endorsement of products:
an advertising cue affecting consumer pre-purchase evaluation of goods and services”.
Journal of Advertising, 30(4), 41-57.
Díaz, C. (2013). Defining and Characterizing the Concept of Internet Meme. CES Psicol,
6(2), pp.82-104
Forehand, M. and Keller, K. (1996). Initial Retrieval Difficulty and Subsequent Recall in
an Advertising Setting. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 5(4), pp.299-323.

56
Gangadharbatla, H. (2008). FacebookMe. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 8(2), pp.5-
15.
Hallgren, H., Sigurbjornsson, K. and Black, T. (2018). The Relationship between Brand
Related UGC and CBBE: An Internet Meme Experiment
Hernon, P. (2004). The Sage Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods. Library
& Information Science Research, 26(3), pp.404-406.
Hutter, K., Hautz, J., Dennhardt, S. and Füller, J. (2013). The impact of user interactions
in social media on brand awareness and purchase intention: the case of MINI on
Facebook. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 22(5/6), pp.342-351.
Keller, K. (1993). Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand
Equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), pp.1-22
Kim, A. and Johnson, K. (2016). Power of consumers using social media: Examining the
influences of brand-related user-generated content on Facebook. Computers in Human
Behavior, 58, pp.98-108
Kozinets, R., de Valck, K., Wojnicki, A. and Wilner, S. (2010). Networked Narratives:
Understanding Word-of-Mouth Marketing in Online Communities. Journal of
Marketing, 74(2), pp.71-89.

57
Lassar, W., Mittal, B. and Sharma, A. (1995). Measuring customer‐based brand equity.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 12(4), pp.11-19.
Liu, X., Burns, A. and Hou, Y. (2017). An Investigation of Brand-Related User-Generated
Content on Twitter. Journal of Advertising, 46(2), pp.236-247.
Medium. (2018). The Importance of Memes & Meme Culture in Millennial Marketing.
[online] Available at: https://medium.com/@KennySoto/the-importance-of-memes-
meme-culture-inmillennial-marketing-62f2c350f152
Milner, R.M. (2013). Pop Polyvocality: Internet Memes, Public Participation, and the
Occupy Wall Street Movement. International Journal of Communication, 7(34),
pp.2357-2390.
Moisescu, O. (2006). A Conceptual Analysis of Brand Loyalty as Core Dimension of
Brand Equity.
Moran, G. and Muzellec, L. (2014). eWOM credibility on social networking sites: A
framework. Journal of Marketing Communications, 23(2), pp.149-161.
Morrison, M., Cheong, H. and McMillan, S. (2013). Posting, Lurking, and
Networking: Behaviors and Characteristics of Consumers in the Context of User-
Generated Content. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 13(2), pp.97-108.

58
Pappu, R., Quester, P. and Cooksey, R. (2005). Consumer‐based brand equity: improving
the measurement – empirical evidence. Journal of Product & Brand Management,
14(3), pp.143-154.
Plevritis, V. (2014), Satirical User-Generated Memes as an Effective Source of Political
Criticism, Extending Debate and Enhancing Civic Engagement. Centre for Cultural
Policy Studies. University of Warwick. Warwick, UK.
Rachna, M. and Khajuria, L. (2017). A Study of User-Generated Content on Social
Networking Sites and its Impact on Consumer-Based Brand Equity Constructs. Global
Journal of Management and Business Research: E Marketing, 17(1), pp.1-8
Rao, A., & Monroe, K. (1989). The effect of price, brand name, and store name on buyers'
perceptions of product quality: An integrative review. Journal of Marketing Research,
26(3), 351357.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2016). Research methods for business students.
7th ed. Pearson Education Limited.
Schivinski, B. and Dabrowski, D. (2014). The effect of social media communication on
consumer perceptions of brands. Journal of Marketing Communications, 22(2), pp.189-
214.

59
Schivinski, B. and Dabrowski, D. (2015). The impact of brand communication on brand
equity through Facebook. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 9(1), pp.31-
53.
Severi, E. and Ling, K. (2013). The Mediating Effects of Brand Association, Brand
Loyalty, Brand Image and Perceived Quality on Brand Equity. Asian Social Science,
9(3).
Simon, C. and Sullivan, M. (1993). The Measurement and Determinants of Brand Equity:
A Financial Approach. Marketing Science, 12(1), pp.28-52.
Smith, A., Fischer, E. and Yongjian, C. (2012). How Does Brand-related User-generated
Content Differ across YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter? Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 26(2), pp.102113.
Washburn, J. and Plank, R. (2002). Measuring Brand Equity: An Evaluation of a
Consumer-Based Brand Equity Scale. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,
10(1), pp.46-62.
Yoo, B. and Donthu, N. (2001). Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-
based brand equity scale. Journal of Business Research, 52(1), pp.1-14.

60
APPENDIX
QUESTIONNAIRE:
Gender: Male Female Age: ______________
Marital
status:
Single Married
Occupation: Student Employed Business
Instructions: for each statements please check whether you strongly agree, agree,
neutral, disagree or strongly disagree.
s.
no.
Statements Strongly
agree
Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree
1 I am aware of the brand coca cola
2 I can recognize the brand coca cola among other
competing brands
3 I know what the brand coca cola looks like
4 I immediately recognize coca cola advertisements
5 Coca cola brand comes to mind when thinking
about the product category carbonated soft drinks.
6 Some characteristics of the brand coca cola come
quickly to my mind.
7 I can quickly recall the symbol or logo of coca cola
8 I have difficulty imagining the brand coca cola in
my mind.
9 I can quickly recall the taste of coca cola.
10 I know what values coca cola stands for.
11 Coca cola is of high quality
12 Coca cola is likely to be reliable
13 I expect coca cola to be of high quality
14 I expect coca cola to be of highly refreshing
15 I expect coca cola to be price worthy
16 I consider myself to be loyal to coca cola
17 Coca cola would be my first choice.
18 I would refer coca cola to others.
19 I will buy other brands if coca cola is available.
20 I am satisfied with the experience I have had with
coca cola

61
SPSS RESULTS
CONTROL GROUP
Frequencies
GENDER
Cumulative
Percent
Valid MALE 75 72.1 72.8 72.8
FEMALE 28 26.9 27.2 100.0
Total 103 99.0 100.0
Total 104 100.0
MARITAL STATUS
Cumulative
Percent
Valid SINGLE 89 85.6 86.4 86.4
MARRIED 14 13.5 13.6 100.0
Total 103 99.0 100.0
Total 104 100.0

62
OCCUPATION
Cumulative
Percent
Valid STUDENT 68 65.4 66.0 66.0
EMPLOYED 26 25.0 25.2 91.3
BUSINESS 9 8.7 8.7 100.0
Total 103 99.0 100.0
Total 104 100.0

63
AGE
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 18.0 4 3.8 3.9 3.9
19.0 4 3.8 3.9 7.8
20.0 7 6.7 6.8 14.6
21.0 14 13.5 13.6 28.2
22.0 23 22.1 22.3 50.5
23.0 15 14.4 14.6 65.0
24.0 6 5.8 5.8 70.9
25.0 3 2.9 2.9 73.8
26.0 2 1.9 1.9 75.7
27.0 3 2.9 2.9 78.6
28.0 9 8.7 8.7 87.4
29.0 1 1.0 1.0 88.3
30.0 2 1.9 1.9 90.3
32.0 2 1.9 1.9 92.2
34.0 1 1.0 1.0 93.2
38.0 2 1.9 1.9 95.1
39.0 2 1.9 1.9 97.1
42.0 2 1.9 1.9 99.0
51.0 1 1.0 1.0 100.0
Total 103 99.0 100.0
Total 104 100.0

64
Reliability
Brand awareness
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.744 5
Brand association
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.697 4
Perceived quality
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.819 5
Brand loyalty
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.633 5
Descriptive Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Variance Skewness kurtosis
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic statistic
BRAND
AWARENESS
103 4.7184 .51292 .263 -1.633 1.833
BRAND
ASSOCIATION
103 4.3010 .68363 .467 -.652 .116
PERCIEVED
QUALITY
103 3.9029 .82265 .677 -.356 -.402
BRAND
LOYALTY
103 3.4951 .83869 .703 -.340 -.042
Valid N (listwise) 103

66
Correlations
Brand
awareness
Brand
association
Perceived
quality
Brand
loyalty
Brand awareness Pearson Correlation 1 .468**
.283**
.191
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .004 .054
N 103 103 103 103
Brand association Pearson Correlation .468**
1 .471**
.422**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 103 103 103 103
Perceived quality Pearson Correlation .283**
.471**
1 .539**
Sig. (2-tailed) .004 .000 .000
N 103 103 103 103
Brand loyalty Pearson Correlation .191 .422**
.539**
1
Sig. (2-tailed) .054 .000 .000
N 103 103 103 103

67
EXPERIMENTAL GROUP
Frequency Table
GENDER
Cumulative
Percent
Valid MALE 54 52.9 52.9 52.9
FEMALE 48 47.1 47.1 100.0
Total 102 100.0 100.0
MARITAL STATUS
Cumulative
Percent
Valid SINGLE 97 95.1 95.1 95.1
MARRIED 5 4.9 4.9 100.0
Total 102 100.0 100.0

68
AGE
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 18 1 1.0 1.0 1.0
19 14 13.7 13.7 14.7
20 25 24.5 24.5 39.2
21 24 23.5 23.5 62.7
22 27 26.5 26.5 89.2
23 7 6.9 6.9 96.1
24 2 2.0 2.0 98.0
30 1 1.0 1.0 99.0
35 1 1.0 1.0 100.0
Total 102 100.0 100.0

69
OCCUPATION
Cumulative
Percent
Valid STUDENT 98 96.1 96.1 96.1
EMPLOYED 4 3.9 3.9 100.0
Total 102 100.0 100.0
Reliability test
Brand awareness
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.803 5
Brand association
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.648 4
Perceived quality
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.878 5

70
Brand loyalty
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.696 5
Descriptive Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Variance Skewness kurtosis
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic
BRAND AWARENESS 102 4.7157 .53357 .285 -2.136 5.963
BRAND ASSOCIATION 102 4.1176 .76163 .580 -.751 1.361
PERCIEVED QUALITY 102 3.3922 .96633 .934 -.729 .412
BRAND LOYALTY 102 3.1961 .90148 .813 -.070 -.054
Valid N (listwise) 102
Correlations
Brand
awareness
Brand
association
Perceived
quality
Brand
loyalty
Brand awareness Pearson
Correlation
1 .473**
.084 .076
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .401 .448
N 102 102 102 102
Brand association Pearson
Correlation
.473**
1 .408**
.355**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 102 102 102 102
Perceived quality Pearson
Correlation
.084 .408**
1 .672**
Sig. (2-tailed) .401 .000 .000
N 102 102 102 102
Brand loyalty Pearson
Correlation
.076 .355**
.672**
1
Sig. (2-tailed) .448 .000 .000
N 102 102 102 102

Thesis

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (10)

Similar to Thesis

Similar to Thesis (20)

More from Asad Ali

More from Asad Ali (15)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Thesis