This study aims to examine the influences of brand orientation and brand distinctiveness on brand performance. Proportionate stratified random sampling was used to collect data of 550 furniture manufacturing firms. It was found that brand orientation of the furniture manufacturing firms have positive and significant relationships with brand distinctiveness and brand performance. This indicates the more oriented their brand are, the more distinctive and better performance are their brands. Brand distinctiveness was revealed as a mediator between brand orientation and brand performance. Hence, this study provides important findings through the integration of these variables towards brand performance within the furniture firms in Malaysia

1. The Effects of Brand Orientation of Furniture Manufacturing
Firms on Brand Distinctiveness and Brand Performance
Norzanah Mat Nor a
, Syed Jamal Abdul Nasir b
, Puteri Fadzline Tamyez c
a
Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Malaysia
norzanah@salam.uitm.edu.my
b
Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Malaysia
syedjamal145@salam.uitm.edu.my
c
Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Malaysia
120rahmat@gmail.com
Abstract
This study aims to examine the influences of brand orientation and brand distinctiveness on brand
performance. Proportionate stratified random sampling was used to collect data of 550 furniture
manufacturing firms. It was found that brand orientation of the furniture manufacturing firms have
positive and significant relationships with brand distinctiveness and brand performance. This indicates
the more oriented their brand are, the more distinctive and better performance are their brands. Brand
distinctiveness was revealed as a mediator between brand orientation and brand performance. Hence,
this study provides important findings through the integration of these variables towards brand
performance within the furniture firms in Malaysia.
Keywords: Brand performance, Brand orientation, Brand distinctiveness, Furniture Firms, Brand
Strategy
Introduction
The Malaysian furniture industry is known as one of the largest contributors of the country’s economic
growth albeit being classified as a low-tech industry (Unit, S. I., 2011). Robiyah, H. (2012) and Kam, L. V., & Heng, L.
C. (2010) revealed that Malaysia has become a star performer of the timber industry and witnessed accelerated
growth with its eighth rank in Malaysia’s furniture export (Brandt, T., & Wei, C. S., 2012). This rapid change of
economy is having a serious implication to the industry as it still needs to endure the fierce competition with low cost
producers of China and Vietnam (Brandt, T., & Wei, C. S., 2012). Apaydın, F. (2011) identified a number of elements
that need to be focused upon on the industry which are design expertise, research and development, brand,
infrastructure and logistics, manufacturing competence, value for money, easy access to resources, and trained
manpower. More importantly, there has been little attention directed toward their brand orientation and
understanding how brand distinctiveness positively mediates between brand orientation and brand performance.
Against this backdrop, the aim of the study is to investigate mediating effect of brand distinctiveness between brand
orientation and brand performance. Apart from that, this study is to examine the role of brand orientation in the
furniture firms and their brand performance relationship. The significant interactions were investigated based from
previous studies that confirmed the important role of brand orientation and brand distinctiveness have in brand
performance (Mosmans, A., & van der Vorst, R., 1998; Wong, H. Y., & Merrilees, B., 2005; Keller, Kevin Lane,
Sternthal, B., & Tybout, A., 2002; Olson, C. , 2004; Warlop, L., Ratneshwar, S., & Osselaer, S., 2005; Davčik, N. St., &
Rundquist, J., 2012). By proposing and subsequently testing the structural relationships of the conceptual framework

2. with these three constructs, this study is intended to achieve the following research objectives: (1) to examine the
influence of brand orientation of furniture firms on brand distinctiveness (2) to investigate the effects of brand
distinctiveness on brand performance, (3) to access the influence of brand orientation on brand performance, (4) to
evaluate the mediating effect of brand distinctiveness between brand orientation and brand performance.
Literature Review
Figure 1 depicts the proposed hypothetical causal model for the current study. Numerous authors have also
discussed on clustering the brand performance literature along financial, customer and employee dimensions (Aaker,
1991; Ambler, 2003; Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001; de Chernatony, L., Harris, F. & Christodoulides, 2004;
Ehrenberga, Unclesb, & Goodhardta, 2004; Keller, 1998; Kim, H.-B. et al., 2003; KL, 1993; Munoz & Kumar, 2004;
O’Cass & Ngo, 2007; Weerawardena, O’Cass, & Julian, 2006).
Some scholars determine brand performance through the customers’ perspective of their awareness and image
towards a brand (Aaker, 1996; Keller, 2003). Hu, Chang, Hsieh, & Chen (2010) stated that brand performance
acquired intangible assets apart from tangible assets in a product itself. According to Collins & Montgomery (1995);
Delaney & Huselid (1996); Hamel & Prahalad (1989); Hu et al. (2010); Penrose (1959); Wong & Merrilees (2007) ,
brand performance acts as a tool to measure the level of accomplishment and success of an organization mission and
objectives within the market. Subjective judgments need to be carried out to assess the firm’s performance where the
ultimate objective is to improve a firm’s finance and profits.
Brand performance indicates a strength of a brand as revealed by O’Cass & Ngo, (2007) as well as a
shareholder value (Madden, Fehle, & Fournier, 2002). The strength of a brand is a combined measure towards brand
equity that consists of three sets of metrics- knowledge, preference and financial. A number of studies have been
conducted to explore factors that contribute to brand performance through the importance of employees’ involvement
in brand building. Firms that deeply involves employees must have a deeper focus on brand management to drive
better brand performance (Burmann & Zeplin, 2005; Gapp & Merrilees, 2006).
Consumer orientation, differentiation, brand knowledge and strategy are the four factors that contribute to a
brand success as stated by Davčik & Rundquist (2012). It is inappropriate to measure it in terms of economic
elements. Some researchers suggested to access in terms of brand awareness, reputation and loyalty . Another model
describes brand orientation and brand distinctiveness as a backbone to brand-marketing performance, with the
addition of brand barriers as a main factor for under-investing SMEs to build distinctiveness in their brand strategy.
Thus, higher brand barriers and the lowest brand orientation will result to become minimalist SMEs.
The second type of SMEs are embryonic firms that obtain higher levels of brand distinctiveness and the third
type are integrated SMEs that has the strongest brand distinctiveness and brand orientation (de Chernatony &
McDonald, 1998). There are two categories that constitute the measurement of brand performance; which are
business-based performance and customer-based performance.
Brand performance can also be accessed through financial value, equity, or through brand report card by
Wong & Merrilees (2005) or on the brand building process by Carvalho (2007) or brand metrics . A combination of a
few assessments will enhance the evaluation of their brand performance . have identified factors to enhance brand
performance through roles of employees and corporate marketers. Apart from that, De Mortanges & A. (2003) and

3. Madden et al.(2002) revealed that values of shareholders increases with the strength of a brand. This will further
increase the level of resources of the brand team.
Another study has been carried out by indicating a synergy of both market orientation and innovative
culture that are able to pursue for a better brand performance. Besides that, sales growth, profitability, training,
marketing communications, product development and market share as measurements of financial performance are
also other indicators to reflect brand performance (Aaker & Jacobsen, 1994; Jain, 1989; Keller & Lehmann, 2003;
Keller, 1993; Lassar, Mittal, & Sharma, 1995; Simon & Sullivan, 1993).
“Brand Value Chain” is another measurement of brand performance through six factors introduced by Keller
(2003). These include flexibility of prices, price premium, brand extension rate, market share, profit capability and
cost structure. Four stages covers the “Brand Value Chain” which are the investment of marketing plans, customers’
attitudes, brand performance, and shareholder value (Keller, 2003). More precisely, brand marketing performance
may be examined through the firm’s financial value by Feldwick (1996), on its equity by Aaker (1996), brand report
card by Keller (2000) or on brand building process by de Chernatony (2001) or the combination of all (de
Chernatony, 2001).
Some measurements on brand performance focus on customers’ evaluation through attitudes and
preferences on brand choices (Ghosh, Chakraborty, & Ghosh, 1995). From the customers’ perspective, certain brands
depends on their knowledge and experiences where most customers acquire very little knowledge on brands
(Zeithaml, 1988). There are many marketing literature that focuses on consumer behavior in terms of how they
evaluate their brands and also in the usage of Dirichlet benchmarks (Bettman & Park, 1980; Ehrenberga, Unclesb, &
Goodhardta, 2004; Smith & Bristor, 1994). Dirichlet benchmarks particularly involves the shopper as the buyer and
purchases over a fixed period of time such as month or year (Ehrenberga, Unclesb, & Goodhardta, 2004; Rungie &
Goodhardt, 2004).
On the other hand, brand metrics are comprehensively related with the brand measurement system where it
heavily links to brand management and business performance. It merely acts as a static snapshot but a continuous
improvement of brand performance. It comprises of 5As which are brand awareness, acquaintance, association,
allegiance and appraisal are brand performance indicators which spread over financial, performance and perceptional
(Rajagopal, 2008).
Another brand performance index is proposed by Aaker (1991) from the viewpoints of markets and products.
It is called as “Brand Equity Ten” which consists of five categories; brand loyalty, brand awareness, brand perception,
brand association, and market behavior. indicated a measurement of overall performance of brands through the
application of brand scorecard and brand metrics strategy. The performance of a brand is also dependent on the
attributes of both product-related attributes and non-product-related attributes (Keller, 1993). Satisfaction is an
element that customers search for as a choice in a brand (Doyle, 1990). Other scholars such as Arjun Chaudhuri &
Holbrook (2001); Reid (2002); Wong & Merrilees (2007) view a brand’s performance from the perspective of brand
reputation, awareness and loyalty.
This research is taking a non-financial measurement into account for its long term benefits to one’s company
as opposed to financial results that are fast and familiar for managers. The most beneficial effect of non-financial
measures such as the brand performance measurement is the ability to balance factors within and beyond their

4. control. In comparison to financial accountability that are often affected by external forces like economic and market
changes, non-financial measures provide a better control of the organization as it is less susceptible to external
changes and managers are able to improve their strategies within their objectives and vision of organization
(Pangarkar, Ajay M. & Kirkwood, Teresa, 2006). The model of the study examined the structural, causal relationships
between brand orientation of furniture firms, brand distinctiveness and brand performance as researched by Wong &
Merrilees (2007). Hypothetically, brand orientation influences brand distinctiveness and brand performance. In
addition, brand distinctiveness influences brand performance, as illustrated in Figure 1:
Figure 1: Proposed Hypothetical Model
Hypotheses
On the basis of preceding findings, the following is hypothesized:
Hypothesis 1: Brand orientation has a positive effect on brand distinctiveness
Hypothesis 2: Brand distinctiveness has a positive effect on brand performance
Hypothesis 3: Brand orientation has a positive effect on brand performance
Hypothesis 4: Brand distinctiveness mediates between brand orientation and brand performance
Research Methodology
To test the hypothesis, questionnaires were distributed to furniture manufacturing firms in Malaysia to
answer the questionnaire. The selection of the furniture industry in Malaysia in this study is due to the fact that this
sector is one of the major contributors to the Malaysian economy. Knowing that the Malaysian furniture industry still
applies OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturing) approach identified by , the subjects of branding and innovation
revealed by Nor et al. (2012) has become a developed interest among the government agencies and manufacturers
which should be investigated seriously and critically as one of the positive steps in increasing the competitiveness for
the economy.
550 questionnaires were distributed using a survey methodology based on the stratified random sampling of
the population of furniture manufacturing firms. The study utilized a survey approach, with self-administered
questionnaires, which were distributed through mail. For each sample company, the appropriate respondents (CEO
or marketing managers) were identified and contacted. This is due to their extensive knowledge particularly CEOs
that act as brand ambassadors by involving in the decision-making process on their branding and design innovation
activities (Roll, 2006a). The questionnaires include three constructs namely brand orientation, brand distinctiveness
and brand performance. The scales were adopted from the extent literature due to their relevance to the study context
Brand
Orientation
Brand
Orientation
Brand
Distinctiveness
Brand
Distinctiveness
Brand PerformanceBrand Performance

5. and their reliability. A five-point scale was used ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. There are 7 items
measuring brand orientation, 7 items for measuring brand distinctiveness, and 5 items to gather information on
brand performance. These items are taken as frame of reference of the study of Wong & Merrilees (2008).
Results
The structural model was tested to assess the hypothesized structural relationships of the three (3)
constructs. This model was tested using AMOS and with some modification it showed a good model fit (CMIN=1.273,
TLI= 0.961, GFI= 0.803, RMSEA=0.037, NFI= 0.856), in comparison to the original model by Wong and Merrilees
(2008), which indicates a good model fit of χ² value of 98.70 the freedom of 48, AGFI= 0.94, RMSEA = 0.05, IFI =
0.98, and NFI = 0.97. It is indicated that all hypotheses were significant in the hypothesized tests. The relationship
between brand orientation and brand distinctiveness was significant and positive (standardized regression
coefficient= 0.655, standard error =0.104, p-value is ≤ .05) and thus supporting H1. H2, which link between brand
distinctiveness and brand performance was also significant (standardized regression coefficient= 0.127, standard
error =0.127, p-value is ≤ .05). This result thus provides support for H3. Likewise, H3, which is the relationship
between brand orientation and brand performance was also supported (standardized regression coefficient= 0.388,
standard error =0.122, p-value is ≤ .05).
Table 1: Results of the tested hypotheses
Hypothesis Hypothesized Paths Standardized Coefficient S.E Result
H1 Brand orientation  Brand distinctiveness 0.655 0.104 Supported
H2 Brand distinctiveness  Brand performance 0.127 0.127 Supported
H3 Brand orientation  Brand performance 0.388 0.122 supported
The simple effects of brand orientation on brand performance are tested. The output shows brand orientation is
0.388 and it has a significant effect on brand performance (p-value < 0.001), as shown in Figure 2.

6. Figure 2: The direct effect of brand orientation on brand performance
Secondly, the potential mediator variable brand distinctiveness is entered into the model as shown in Figure
3. The direct effect of brand orientation on brand performance is reduced from 0.388 to 0.088 when brand
distinctiveness entered the model. Now the direct effect on brand performance is no longer significant (p-
value=0.519). Here, the requirement for complete mediation is met, as shown in Figure 3 as the mediating effect of
brand distinctiveness between brand orientation and brand performance.
Figure 3: The mediating effect of brand distinctiveness between brand orientation and brand performance.
Discussion and Conclusions
Findings in this study indicate all four hypotheses were supported by the data. The result of analysis is
harmonious with Wong, H. Y., & Merrilees, B. (2008)’s study which demonstrates a similar pattern for brand
orientation influencing brand distinctiveness. However, it must be understood by firms that orientating a brand need
to be regarded as a process rather than a project (Reijonen, H., Laukkanen, T., Komppula, R., & Tuominen, S., 2012).
A number of studies have investigated the effect of brand orientation on brand distinctiveness and support the view
that an increased level of brand orientation will drive better brand distinctiveness in a firm (Krishnan, H. S., 1996). As

7. a result, brand distinctiveness is not only a determinant towards brand performance, but also brand equity and
success as stated by Keller (1998) cited in Baumgarth, C. (2008).
Brand orientation is positively associated with brand performance, providing opportunities to expand
theories developed in the West to the Malaysian context. This result supports and validates the recent studies of
Wong, H. Y., & Merrilees, B. (2008). Orientating a brand in a firm that will reflect a change in a customer’s taste is
indicated as a brand that is positioned before the competition enters the market. However, to escape from a mature
original market or a decline of market, a firm must consider a long-term perspective by investing the brand over a
long period of time (Jobber, 2003). The finding also accords with earlier observations by Tuominen, Laukkanen, &
Reijonen (2009), who highlighted that brand-oriented firms have higher brand performance than firms that are not
orientated on brand and markets.
Brand distinctiveness plays as a mediator between brand orientation and brand performance. This result is
congruent with the study of Carvalho, R. P. G. (2007) who asserts that brand orientation must be equipped with its
distinctivenees to create a stronger brand performance. Bridson & Evans (2004) conducted a study on brand
orientation through the perspective of fashion retailers’ brand orientation. They mentioned the importance of
instilling a symbolic reflection of customers and a source of value adding as being distinctive towards greater brand
performance. Doyle (1990) reflects brand distinctiveness as an indicator of a firm’s success by producing distinctive
products than what are delivered by the competitors. Weerawardena et al.(2006) consider this element as motivation
for firms to look for innovative ways to produce innovative products and further leads to a stronger brand. It is also
one of the potential marketing force for company’s success in the long run. This research has contributed to extend
the framework brand strategy adapted by Wong, H. Y., & Merrilees, B. (2008) and Keller, Kevin Lane, Sternthal, B., &
Tybout, A. (2002) in the furniture industry context.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the help and support of the Malaysian Furniture Promotion Council (MFPC),
Malaysian Timber Industry Board (MTIB) and fellow respondents who participated in this study.
References
Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name. New York: The Free Press.
Aaker, D. A., & Jacobsen, R. (1994). The Financial Information Content of Perceived Quality. Journal of Marketing
Research, 31(2), 191–201.
Ambler, T. (2003). Marketing and the Bottom Line: Marketing Metrics to Pump Up Cash Flow. Prentice Hall.

8. Apaydın, F. (2011). A Proposed Model of Antecedents and Outcomes of Brand Orientation for Nonprofit Sector. Asian
Social Science, 7(9), 194–202.
Baumgarth, C. (2008). Living the brand: brand orientation in the business-to-business sector. European Journal of
Marketing, 44(5), 653–671.
Brandt, T., & Wei, C. S. (2012). Market Watch 2012: The Timber Sector in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: The German
Chamber Network and MGCC.
Bridson, K., & Evans, J. (2004). The secret to a fashion advantage is brand orientation. International Journal of
Retail & Distribution Management, 32(8), 403–411.
Carvalho, R. P. G. (2007). The Role of Branding in SME startups. Gordon Institute of Business Science. University of
Pretoria, Pretoria.
Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The Chain of Effects from Brand Trust and Brand Affect to Brand
Performance: The Role of Brand Loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 65(2), 81–93.
Council, M. F. P. (2011). Malaysia Furniture Trade Performance 2011.
Davčik, N. St., & Rundquist, J. (2012). An Exploratory Study of Brand Success: Evidence From the Food Industry.
Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, 24(1), 91–109.
De Chernatony, L., Harris, F. & Christodoulides, G. (2004). Developing Brand Performance Measure for Financial
Service Brands. The Services Industries Journal, 24, 15–33.
De Mortanges, P. C., & A., van R. (2003). Brand Equity and Shareholder Value. European Management Journal,
21(4), 521–527.
Doyle, P. (1990). Building successful brands: the strategic options. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 7(2), 5–20.
Ehrenberga, A. S. C., Unclesb, M. D., & Goodhardt, G. J. (2004). Understanding brand performance measures: using
Dirichlet benchmarks. Journal of Business Research, 57, 1307–1325.
Gromark, J., & Melin, F. (2011). The underlying dimensions of brand orientation and its impact on financial
performance. Journal of Brand Management, 18(6), 394–410.
Jobber, D. (2003). Principles and Practice of Marketing. Europe: TATA McGraw HILL.
Kam, L. V., & Heng, L. C. (2010). Accelerating Innovations in Malaysian Industry Supply Chains. Institute of Supply
Chain Management, Malaysia University of Science and Technology.

9. Keller, K L, & Lehmann, D. R. (2003). How do brands create value? . Marketing Management, 12, 26–31.
Keller. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57, 1–
22.
Keller, K. L. (1998). Strategic Brand Management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Keller, Kevin Lane, Sternthal, B., & Tybout, A. (2002). Three Questions You Need to Ask About Your Brand. Harvard
Business School Publishing Corporation.
Kim, H.-B., K., G., W., & An, J. A. (2003). The Effect of Consumer-Based Brand Equity on Firms’ Financial
Performance. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 20, 335–351.
KL, K. (1993). Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer Based Brand Equity. J Mark, 57, 1–22.
Krishnan, H. S. (1996). Characteristics of Memory Associations: A Consumer-Based Brand Equity Perspective.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13(4), 389–405.
Lassar, W., Mittal, B., & Sharma, A. (1995). Measuring customer-based brand equity. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 12(4), 11–19.
Madden, T., Fehle, F. R., & Fournier, S. M. (2002). Brands Matter: An Empirical Demonstration of the Creation of
Shareholder Value Through Branding. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 224–235.
Mosmans, A., & van der Vorst, R. (1998). Brand-based strategic management. Journal of Brand Management, 6(2),
99–110.
Munoz, T., & Kumar, S. (2004). Brand metrics: Gauging and linking brands with business performance. Journal of
Brand Management, 11, 381–387.
Nor, N. M., Tamyez, P. F., & Nasir, S. J. A. (2012). A Conceptual Framework on the Relationship between Furniture
Design and Branding Strategy-Performance Relationship in Malaysian Exporting Furniture Firms. Online
Journal of Social Sciences Research, 1(2), 42–48.
O’Cass, A., & Ngo, L. V. (2007). Market orientation versus innovative culture: two routes to superior brand
performance. European Journal of Marketing, 41(7), 868–887.
Olson, C. (2004). Maximizing brand recognition. Information Outlook, 8(1), 43.
Robiyah, H. (2012). Furniture Industry in Malaysia - Status and Market Prospects. Kota Kinabalu, Sabah.

10. Reijonen, H., Laukkanen, T., Komppula, R., & Tuominen, S. (2012). Are Growing SMEs More Market-Oriented and
Brand-Oriented? Journal of Small Business Management, 50(4), 699–716.
Pangarkar, A.M & Kirkwood, Teresa (2005). Capitalizing on brain power: Tapping into your human capital network:
An article from: CMA Management.
Simon, C. J., & Sullivan, M. W. (1993). The measurement and determinants of brand equity: a financial approach.
Marketing Science, 12(1), 28–52.
Tuominen, S., Laukkanen, T., & Reijonen, H. (2009). Market orientation, brand orientation, and brand performance
in SMEs: Related constructs? In Proceedings of the Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy
Conference. Melbourne, Australia.
Unit, S. I. (2011). Malaysia National Innovation Strategy: National Innovation Study in Wood-Based Industry.
Prime Minister’s Department.
Warlop, L., Ratneshwar, S., & Osselaer, S. (2005). Distinctive brand cues and memory for product consumption
experiences. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 22(1), 27–44.
Weerawardena, J., O’Cass, A. G., & Julian, C. (2006). Does industry matter? Examining the role of industry structure
and organizational learning in innovation and brand performance. Journal of Business Research, 59(1), 37–
45.
Wong, H. Y., & Merrilees, B. (2005). A brand orientation typology for SMEs: a case research approach. The Journal
of Product and Brand Management, 14(2/3), 155–162.
Wong, H. Y., & Merrilees, B. (2008). The performance benefits of being brand-orientated. Journal of Product &
Brand Management, 17(6), 372–383..