Brand Equity Mgt

832019 Brand Equity Mgt

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullbrand-equity-mgt 117

Performance consequences of brand equity managementevidence from organizations inthe value chain Artur Baldauf Department of Strategic Management University of Bern Bern

Switzerland

Karen S CravensThe University of Tulsa Tulsa Oklahoma USA

Gudrun Binder Department of Marketing University of Vienna Vienna Austria

Keywords Brand equity Intangible assets Value chain Financial performance

Customers

Abstract Evaluating the consequences of brand equity management is one of the most

important measurement issues for intangible assets in the new economy Studies havevalidated the effect of brand equity on the value of the firm and addressed the capital

market effects of intangible associations such as brand value Yet there is not sufficient evidence on which dimensions of brand equity should be measured and monitored to

support financial performance Using regression analysis on a sample of managers in Austrian organizations this study investigates the effect of perceived brand equity on

brand profitability brand sales volume and perceived customer value Results indicatestrong support for measures of perceived quality brand loyalty and brand awareness as

antecedents of firm performance customer value and willingness to buy

In recent years management accounting has been criticized for not providing

information to management that is useful in decision making (Kaplan and

Johnson 1987) Most performance indicators focused on aggregate financial

accounting-based measures that were at best very much lagging indicators

of performance At worst these indicators often had little information content

for managers in terms of the effect of their actions on firm performance

Brands are not capitalized on the balance sheet in most countries which

counteracts a long-term management focus on the value of any internally-

developed brands Therefore cash flow and short-term profits are more often

used as important performance parameters Strategically strong brands

represent a key component of competitive advantage and function as the

main source of a companyrsquos future earnings For firms with strong brands

performance indicators should incorporate brand-based performance

measures instead of concentrating on cash flow and short-term profits Brand

equity research has a more established conceptual logic than other areas of

intangibles making it a viable segment for considering performance

measurement implications Brand equity is defined as `à 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 andor to that firmrsquos

customersrsquorsquo (Aaker 1991 p 15) Information about measurement issues

relating to brand equity can yield ancillary benefits by contributing to the

research foundation on measurement issues for other types of intangibles If

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at

httpwwwemeraldinsightcomresearchregister

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available athttpwwwemeraldinsightcom1061-0421htm

B a la n c e s h e e t

2 2 0 J O U R N A L O F P R O D U C T amp B R A N D M A N A G E M E N T V O L 1 2 N O 4 2 0 0 3 p p 2 2 0 - 2 3 6 M C B U P L I M I T E D 1 0 6 1 - 0 4 2 1 D O I 1 0 1 1 0 8 1 0 6 1 0 4 2 0 3 1 0 4 8 5 0 3 2

A n e x e c u t iv e s u m m a ry f o r

m a n a g e rs a n d e x e c u ti v e

re a d e r s c a n b e fo u n d a t t h e

e n d o f th is a rt ic le



management is knowledgeable about brand equity strength it can use this

information together with financial databases to develop appropriate

incentive plans and brand management programs (Aaker 1996b)

We examine one particular intangible asset plusmn the equity of the organizationrsquos

brands plusmn since for a significant number of firms the brand is the central asset of

the company (Aaker 1996a Barwise 1993 Shocker et al 1994) Our research

is intended to provide evidence as to the efficacy of using specific brand equitymeasures to evaluate financial performance Specifically the research objective

is to consider whether dimensions of brand equity are important antecedents of

firm performance such as sales and profitability Moreover as customers

ultimately decide about a firmrsquos success or failure we also examine the linkage

between brand equity dimensions and value to customers

We begin our investigation by examining the conceptual foundations for

brand equity and performance and develop the specific directional

hypotheses tested The methodology section contains the sampling plan the

construct measures used in our study of Austrian managers and analytical

issues We present the results of the empirical study and conclude with

implications and suggestions for future research

Conceptual foundations and research hypotheses

Our research considers a segment of Aakerrsquos (1991) original framework of

brand equity which proposes that various organizational efforts contribute to

developing the dimensions of brand equity These dimensions of brand

equity then have a positive impact on providing value to the firm as well as

to the customer For example a brand with strong equity can be leveraged to

launch new products and serves as a cue in repeat purchases In this research

we test the portion of the model that focuses on the effect of the dimensions

of brand equity in providing value The underlying conceptual logic of a

strong brand equity is that it is an asset which is expected to enhance

customer value increase customersrsquo purchase intentions and increase the

organizationrsquos market performance Brand equity reflects the price premium

of a strong brand in combination with the sales it attracts compared to an

average brand (Aaker 1996a Barwise et al 1989)

Figure 1 shows potential antecedents and consequences of brand equity

(Aaker 1991 p 17) Aaker (1991 p 17) notes that specific antecedents of

Figure 1 Antecedents and consequences of brand equity

In t a n g i b le a s s e t

B r a n d e q u i t y

J O U R N A L O F P R O D U C T amp B R A N D M A N A G E M E N T V O L 1 2 N O 4 2 0 0 3 2 2 1



brand equity comprise brand loyalty brand awareness perceived quality

brand associations and other proprietary assets Together these dimensions

most succinctly represent the assets or liabilities that are linked to a brand its

name or symbol The resulting brand equity thus provides a basis for

strategic initiatives which create value directly for customers and the firm In

addition by providing value to customers brand equity indirectly enhances

value to the firm Aaker (1991 p 17) describes how brand equity enhances

value to customers in terms of their processing and interpretation of

information confidence in the purchasing decision and use satisfaction

Brand equity and customer value in turn provide value to the firm by

enhancing `èfficiency and effectiveness of marketing programs brand

loyalty pricesmargins brand extensions trade leverage and competitive

advantagersquorsquo (Aaker 1991 p 17)

Yoo et al (2000) build on Aakerrsquos (1991 p 17) basic model to incorporate

the brand-building efforts that influence the various dimensions of brand

equity and are also influenced by the provision of value to the firm Yooet al

add a separate construct of brand equity that was not present in Aakerrsquos

original model The major focus of Yoo et alrsquos (2000) research was to

explore the brand-building efforts and the resulting effect on the dimensions

of brand equity They investigated the effects of price store image

distribution intensity advertising spending and price deals on three

particular dimensions of brand equity perceived quality brand loyalty and

brand awareness We continue the focus on these three dimensions of brand

equity

We examine whether the brand awareness brand loyalty and perceived

quality dimensions of brand equity do affect performance as conceptualized

by brand profitability performance brand market performance and customer

perceived value These are core equity dimensions and are expected to be

relevant predictors of value We also include in the model the ultimate test of perceived value in terms of the customersrsquo purchase intention Intention to

purchase is an indication of how likely the customer will purchase the brand

(ranging from definitely will buy to definitely will not buy) If the perception

of the brandrsquos value is favorable and the customers indicate purchase

intention a purchase of the product or service will generate brand

profitability and market performance The conceptual model which guides

our study is shown in Figure 2

The brand equity dimensions of perceived quality brand loyalty and brand

awareness are proposed as antecedents to brand profitability and brand sales

Figure 2 The effect of brand equity dimensions on performance

B r a n d -b u il d i n g

P e rf o r m a n c e

2 2 2 J O U R N A L O F P R O D U C T amp B R A N D M A N A G E M E N T V O L 1 2 N O 4 2 0 0 3



volume Two customer oriented value components are incorporated

perceived customer value and purchase intention The research model

focuses on a special stage in the value chain plusmn resellers This is an important

perspective on brand equity which has not received research attention

Hence these resellers will assess the dimensions of brand equity from their

perspective They will also indicate their perceptions concerning customer

value provided and willingness to buy as well as their firmsrsquo market and

profitability performance (the value to the trade)

Brand equity dimensions

The three dimensions of brand equity that we examine are also predicted to

affect performance through the overall positive effect of brand equity As

brand equity increases the firm is expected to enjoy a positive financial

return and the customer receives higher value (Aaker 1991 Aaker and

Jacobson 1994 Keller 1998 Lane and Jacobson 1995) Instead of

considering a single construct of brand equity we propose to focus on the

separate dimensions of brand equity as contributing to performance

Previous research has validated the dimensions of brand awareness

perceived quality and brand loyalty as relating to a higher order construct of brand equity (Yoo et al 2000 Yoo and Donthu 2001)

Brand awareness A major goal of brand management is developing and

maintaining brand awareness because of the impact of awareness on

consumer decision making and overall effect on firm values Brand

awareness is defined as ``the ability for a buyer to recognize or recall that a

brand is a member of a certain product categoryrsquorsquo (Aaker 1991 p 61)

Generating and maintaining brand awareness is important as only those

brands of which customers are aware enter into the consideration set of

brands for possible purchase and brand awareness influences the selection of

products from the consideration set (Hoyer and Brown 1990) Hence only

brands which customers recognize can be identified categorized andultimately purchased

Perceived quality Perceived quality is another dimension of brand value that

ultimately compels the consumer to select a good or service to purchase

(Aaker 1991 Zeithaml 1988) Notably product quality is a firmrsquos essential

resource for achieving competitive advantage (Aaker 1989) Perceived

quality is defined as the consumerrsquos judgment (perception) about a productrsquos

overall excellence or superiority with reference to substitutes (Aaker 1991

Zeithaml 1988) Hence perceived quality is the ``perceived ability of a

product to provide satisfaction `relativersquo to the available alternativesrsquorsquo

(Monroe and Krishnan 1985 p 212) Since the selection of important

attributes and comparison standards for a product are chosen by anindividual quality is not an objective measure Consequently quality

assessment is subjective (Zeithaml 1988)

Brand loyalty Brand loyalty is defined as `à deeply held commitment to

rebuy or repatronize a preferred product or service consistently in the future

despite situational influences and marketing efforts having the potential to

cause switching behaviorrsquorsquo (Oliver 1997 p 392) An important

characteristic of loyal customers is that they consistently favor a brand and

refrain from switching to other brands (Grover and Srinivasan 1992)

Both Aaker (1991) and Keller (1993) discuss brand loyalty in their

conceptualizations though from somewhat different perspectives Aaker (1991)

notes the differences of brand loyalty from the other brand equity dimensions

because of its connection to the usage experience Loyalty develops via brand

T h r e e d im e n s io n s

B r a n d v a lu e




usage In contrast to brand awareness or perceived quality brand loyalty only

exists if people have already bought and consumed a product Purchase and

consumption however are not necessary for obtaining brand awareness and

perceived quality Nonetheless the dimensions of brand equity are causally

interrelated but as loyalty is tied to a brand brand loyalty is a dimension of

brand equity (Aaker 1991) We follow this approach in our research

Brand equity consequencesHaving conceptualized the dimensions of brand equity we now consider the

consequences of these constructs Specifically we discuss the effects on

market and profitability performance as well as on customer value and

provide a supporting logic for the proposed hypotheses

At this point it is important to note that goal divergences between

manufacturers and resellers in the value chain exist Indeed manufacturers

and resellers who compete for added value follow different goals in

allocating resources The main goal of resellers is to achieve profitability

and therefore this channel member is not interested in interbrand price wars

In contrast a manufacturer is primarily interested in generating cash flows

although profitability achievement is essential as well Hence the sales

volume in comparison to competing brands is important (Lassar 1998)

Recognizing these different objectives of channel members we focus on two

distinct types of performance measures

Brand profitability performance Profitability performance is used as an

indicator of the financial contribution of a brand to the profit of the reseller

Brand awareness is expected to be positively related to profitability

performance The underlying logic is that higher levels of awareness will

lead to higher levels of purchase Customers who are unaware of a brand are

unlikely to consider it in their purchasing decision

Several studies have examined the effect of perceived quality on profitability(eg Jacobson and Aaker 1987) Most prominent among the studies examining

the quality and performance relationship are the findings from PIMS-projects

such as Phillips et al (1983) who found a strong positive effect of quality on

return on investment Their findings were used as support in studies conducted

by Jacobson and Aaker (1987) A positive effect of perceived quality on stock

returns was also reported by Aaker and Jacobson (1994)

High levels of brand loyalty should substantially enhance sales of a brand

Loyal buyers are less affected by price competition Higher sales are

expected to increase brand profitability assuming no disproportionate

increase in expenses For example after break-even occupancy levels are

reached by hotels additional occupancy provides major contributions to

profit

We propose the following hypotheses in examining the relationship of brand

equity dimensions to profitability

H1a Brand awareness is positively related to brand profitability

performance

H1b Perceived quality is positively related to brand profitability

performance

H1c Brand loyalty is positively related to brand profitability performance

Brand market performance Brand market performance considers the

demand side of the market and refers to indicators such as sales volume and

G o a l d iv e rg e n c e s

B r a n d lo y a l t y




market share (Lassar 1998) The relationship of brand equity dimensions

and brand market performance has received very limited research attention

Yet conceptual support is provided by Webster (2000) who argues that a

major benefit of brand equity is its positive impact on demand Brand

awareness quality and loyalty are expected to enhance brand market

performance These dimensions of brand equity help the organization to

attract and retain customers Due to the support of the manufacturer brand

associations in terms of brand awareness (eg co-op advertising displays)

can be established and therefore brand equity dimensions should be

positively associated with brand market performance The following

hypotheses consider these relationships

H2a Brand awareness is positively related to brand market performance

H2b Perceived quality is positively related to brand market performance

H2c Brand loyalty is positively related to brand market performance

Customer value There is some debate in the literature concerning the

difference between quality and value (Zeithaml 1988) Customer value is

defined as ``the consumerrsquos overall assessment of the utility of a productbased on perceptions of what is rec eived and what is givenrsquorsquo (Zeithaml 1988

p 14) According to Monroe and Krishnan (1985) and Dodds et al (1991)

perceived quality is positively related to perceived value Recognizing a

brand name or logo can lead to positive customer assessments in terms of

considering a product as good value for money or a good bargain A higher

level of brand awareness reduces the consideration set Also it is more likely

that customers will buy familiar products and are more willing to pay a price

premium Hence brand awareness should positively affect perceived value

A higher perceived quality for many people is the reason to buy a product

and some would also be willing to pay a price premium Brand loyalty

should positively impact customer value Loyal customers recognize thefavorable benefitcost opportunity Given these relationships we propose the

following hypotheses

H3a Brand awareness is positively related to customer value

H3b Perceived quality is positively related to customer value

H3c Brand loyalty is positively related to customer value

Purchase intention Executives recognize the importance of purchase

intentions as it is less expensive to retain existing customers instead of

prospecting for new ones (Spreng et al 1995) Customers who perceive

superior value are more likely to buy the same brand in the future (Aaker

1991) Hence there is an expected direct relationship between perceived

customer value and purchase intention Moreover high levels of purchase

intentions should enhance a brandrsquos market and profitability performance

The following hypotheses are offered

H4 Customer value is positively related to purchase intention

H5 Purchase intention is positively related to market performance

H6 Purchase intention is positively related to profitability performance

Methodology

Sampling design and data collection

Our research conducted in Europe examines a stage in the value chain that

is relatively unexplored in terms of brand equity and performance

Q u a li ty a n d v a lu e

E x e c u ti v e s




relationships in general plusmn resellers of tiles[1] Specifically tiles are used in a

variety of construction applications though their main uses are for floor and

wall decorations Tiles are used for brand equity assessment since the

product is relatively homogenous and does not lend itself to multiple product

subcategories In Europe there is a high level of brand identity associated

with tiles Tiles are used for the same basic function and typically vary in

perceived quality and brand image Thus it is possible to assess the

dimensions of brand equity without having to control for a wide range of product variations

We selected tile resellers to solicit the most comprehensive assessment of

customer perceptions along with collecting measures of market performance

The perspectives of resellers provide unique insights since they act at the

customer and manufacturer interface Resellers possess knowledge regarding

the perceptions and preferences of their customers and also are aware of the

market performance and relative profitability of the suppliersrsquo brands that

they distribute Hence using responses from intermediaries provides an

opportunity for consideration of customer perceptions along with firm

performance

Based on existing literature and insight from experts we developed and

pretested a standardized questionnaire The questionnaires were mail

distributed to executives from 794 tile resellers in Austria carrying products

from manufacturers located in various countries We studied the perceptions

of Austrian tile resellers distributing tiles manufactured in Italy the Czech

Republic and Slovakia Because of Austriarsquos central location linking

Western Europe and the former Eastern European countries it was

considered as an appropriate research site to examine brand equity and its

consequences Also we were able to collect information from quasi-neutral

people about different brands produced by tile manufacturers from Italy the

Czech Republic and Slovakia Thus major manufacturers are represented

without adding substantial home country source bias The sample group wasderived from an industry list of companies and the ``golden pagesrsquorsquo of the

Austrian Chamber of Commerce

To enhance the response rate of our mail survey we provided pre-addressed

and pre-stamped envelopes assured anonymity and offered a summary of

the research findings as an incentive to the participants After several follow-

up procedures (eg telephone calls new mailings) responses from 189

executives were obtained Due to missing information the final sample

consisted of information from 154 managers In addition 30 questionnaires

were returned as undeliverable Considering this information we achieved a

20 per cent response rate Of these 154 managers 52 (338 per cent) assessed

the Italian 51 (331 per cent) the Czech and 51 (331 per cent) the Slovakian

brand Of the respondents 115 (747 per cent) were male and 39 (253 per

cent) female The median number of years the managers had been doing

business in the industry was 22

Non-response bias was examined using the method proposed by Armstrong

and Overton (1977) A viable check for non-response bias is to split the

sample into early and late respondents No significant differences at the 005

level between the two groups were found which leads us to conclude that

non-response bias is not a major issue

Scale construction

The scales used for both the elements and consequences of brand equity are

described in Table I

A s s e s s m e n t o f c u s t o m e r

p e r c e p t io n s

R e s p o n s e r a t e




Construct

Scale items

Scale measure 1 strongly disagree

to 5 strongly agree unless noted Source

Standardized

loading t value

Brand awaren ess I know what X looks like Yoo et al 081 plusmn

Agrave2df = 48 I can recognize X among other brands (2000) 075 976

AGFI = 082 I am aware of X 071 913

CFI = 091

RMSEA = 010

Some characteristics of X come to my

mind quickly 071 994

I can quickly recall the symbol or logoof X 064 798

I have difficulty in imagining X in my

mind 061 756

Perceived quality X is of high quality Yoo et al 083 plusmn

Agrave2df = 26

AGFI = 085

The likelihood that X would be

functional is very high

(2000) and

Dodds et al 069 942

CFI = 095 X appears to be of very poor quality (1991) 059 765

RMSEA = 008

The likelihood that X is reliable is very

high 068 922

The workmanship of X would be high 069 941

X must be of very good quality 078 1104

The likelihood that X is dependable is

very high 080 1151

X seems to be durable 070 953Brand loyal ty I consider myself to be l oyal to X Yoo et al 082 plusmn

Agrave2df = 78 X would be my first choice (2000) and 062 684

AGFI = 084

CFI = 091

I will not buy other brands if X is

available at the wholesaler

Beatty and

Kahle

(1988) 043 473

RMSEA = 011

If X were not available at the wholesaler

it would make little difference to me if I

had to choose another brand 066 736

When another brand is on sale I will

generally purchase it rather than X 070 769

Brand profitability

performance

Agrave2df = 12

Compared to all other brands available

in our trade area the profitability for

carrying X is (1 = lowest-highest = 5)

Lassar

(1998)

086 plusmn

AGFI = 096

CFI = 099

RMSEA = 004

Relative to all other brands we carry the

realized margin for X is

(1 = lowest-

highest = 5) 079 936

Overall X is financially very attractive

for us 065 787

What percentage of your total profit

derived from the sale of tiles is

attributable to X (percentage value) 054 646

Brand market

performance

What percentage of your tile sales

volume is attributable to X ()

Lassar

(1998) 076 plusmn

Agrave2df = 014

AGFI = 099

Compared to all other tile brands we

carry X generates the larges sales volume 082 1004

CFI = 100

RMSEA lt 001

Relative to all other tile brands we carry

the sales potential for X is

(1 = lowest-highest = 5) 077 plusmn

Customerperceived value

Agrave2df = 511

My customers consider X to be

(1 = very poor value for money- very

good value for money = 7)

Dodds et al(1991)

065 plusmn

AGFI = 088

CFI = 094

RMSEA = 007

At the usual price my customers consider

X to be (1 = very uneconomical-very

economical = 7) 075 786

The product is considered to be a good

buy (1 = strongly disagree-strongly

agree = 7) 078 780

My customers consider the usual price for

X to be (1 = very unacceptable-very

acceptable = 7) 076 764

(continued)

Table I Scale development for constructs




Perceived quality The scale for perceived quality is based on Dodds et al

(1991) Yoo et al (2000) employed perceived quality to address the overall

evaluation of quality and to avoid considering specific elements of quality

There are eight items in the scale for perceived quality The scale allows a

response from ``1rsquorsquo (strongly disagree) to ``5rsquorsquo (strongly agree) to statements

such as ``X is of high qualityrsquorsquo ``The likelihood that X is reliable is very

highrsquorsquo and ``The likelihood that X is dependable is very highrsquorsquo

Brand loyalty The scale for brand loyalty was developed by Beatty and

Kahle (1988) and has been adapted by Yoo et al (2000) The scale includes

five items With a five-point response scale ranging from ``1rsquorsquo (strongly

disagree) to ``5rsquorsquo (strongly agree) statements for the scale items include ``X

would be my first choicersquorsquo and `Ì will not buy other brands if X is available

at the wholesalerrsquorsquo

Brand awareness The scale for brand awareness consists of six itemsdeveloped by Yoo et al (2000) Respondents used a five-point scale

anchored by ``1rsquorsquo (strongly disagree) to ``5rsquorsquo (strongly agree) to statements

ranging from `Ì can recognize X among other brandsrsquorsquo to ``Some

characteristics of X come to my mind quicklyrsquorsquo

Brand profitability performance The scale for brand profitability

performance has four items as developed by Lassar (1998) Three of the

items allow a scale response such as ``Compared to all other brands

available in our trade area the profitability for carrying X is rsquorsquo with ``1rsquorsquo =

lowest plusmn highest = ``5rsquorsquo Another item asks ``What percentage of your total

profit derived from the sale of tiles is attributable to Xrsquorsquo Resellers are able to

make this assessment since the product offerings to the reseller are indeed

based upon the incentives offered to choose particular brands

Construct

Scale items



Standardized

loading t value

X appears to my customers to be a

bargain (1 = strongly disagree-strongly

agree = 7) Del plusmn

My customers are satisfied when they buy

X (1 = strongly disagree-strongly

agree = 7) Del plusmnThe decision of customers to buy X is

confirmed (1 = strongly disagree-strongly

agree = 7) 069 609

Purchase intention

Agrave2df = 007

The likelihood that my customers

purchase X is (1 = very low-very

high = 7)

Dodds et al

(1991) 088 plusmn

AGFI = 099

CFI = 100

RMSEA lt 001

If a customer is going to buy X heshe

would consider buying X at the usual

price (1 = strongly disagree-strongly


At the usual price my customers would

consider buying X (1 = strongly disagree-

strongly agree = 7) Del plusmn

The probability that my customersconsider buying X is (1 = very low-

very high = 7) 093 1922

The willingness of my customers to buy

X is (1 = very low-very high = 7) 089 plusmn

NotesaWhere X is the brand of interest AGFI = adjusted goodness of fit index

CFI = comparative fit index RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation

Table I




Brand market performance We employ brand sales volume as a measure of

market performance and use the three-item scale developed by Lassar

(1998) One item asks for the percentage of sales volume attributable to X

The other two items are scale responses ``Compared to all other tile brands

we carry X generates the largest sales volumersquorsquo (1 = strongly disagree plusmn

strongly agree = 5) and ``Relative to all other tile brands we carry the sales

potential for X is rsquorsquo (1 = lowest plusmn highest = 5)

Customer perceived value Based on the conceptualization of perceived

value as a trade-off between benefits and sacrifices (costs) the scale for

customer perceived value is obtained from Dodds et al (1991) This scale

uses seven-point responses and the seven statements included relate to items

such as value for money and satisfaction ``The product is considered to be a

good buyrsquorsquo (1 = strongly disagree plusmn strongly agree = 7) and ``My customers

are satisfied when they buyrsquorsquo (1 = strongly disagree plusmn strongly agree = 7)

Purchase intention Purchase intention includes five items such as ``The

likelihood that my customers purchase X is (1 = very low plusmn very high = 7)

and `Àt the usual price my customers would consider buying Xrsquorsquo (1 =

strongly disagree plusmn strongly agree = 7) This scale is based on Dodds et al(1991)

Reliability and validity assessments

Given the multiple-item nature of the scales used in this research we

assessed their psychometric properties following the recommendations of

Churchill (1979) and Gerbing and Anderson (1988) First each scale was

subjected to exploratory factor analysis loading on the dominant factor (at

least at 05) with a sum of the items in the factor explaining more that 50 per

cent of the factorrsquos variance Second reliability analyses were conducted

(Cronbach 1951) The alpha coefficients range from 080 to 093 and are

well above the 070 level suggested by Nunnally (1978) Third based onGerbing and Anderson (1988) we also performed confirmatory factor

analysis (CFA) using maximum likelihood estimation procedures for

measure validation The results indicate both acceptable model fits and item

properties and are shown in Table I The overall model fit indices chi-

squaredegrees of freedom adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI)

comparative fit index (CFI) and root mean square error of approximation

(RMSEA) indicate acceptable model fits All items significantly load on

their corresponding construct (lowest t -value is 473) demonstrating

adequate convergent validity

Following the recommendations of Bagozzi et al (1991) pairwise

comparisons of the constructs within our models were conducted to examineconvergent and discriminate validity We arranged the measures into

subgroups with the first measurement model comprising the brand equity

constructs and the second measurement model consisting of the

consequences constructs All latent-trait correlations are significantly

different at one because each phi-value plus or minus twice the standard

error does not include one thus indicating discriminant validity Tables I

and II provide the summary statistics for the constructs used in testing the

hypotheses Table III shows the correlations within the constructs

To summarize the psychometric properties of the measures are acceptable

For further analyses the individual items of each measure were combined by

calculating the arithmetic means The items relating to reseller performance

were first standardized

B e n e fit s a n d s a c r if ic e s

P a ir w i s e c o m p a ri s o n s




Analysis and results

The primary tests of the hypotheses employed (linear) single and multiple

regression analysis (Cohen and Cohen 1983) The findings obtained from

these analyses are reported in Table IV Both single and multiple regression

analyses results show significant ( p lt 001) F -values (lowest F -value 1142)

indicating good overall model fit Examining the magnitude of the adjusted

R-squared value also leads us to conclude that acceptable amounts of the

variance of the dependent variables can be explained (lowest R-squared

017) Multicollinearity was not a problem as the variance inflation factors

are well below the critical level of 10 All of the coefficients are significant

at p lt 001 with the exception of one coefficient (brand awareness) in one

model which is significant at p lt 005 Moreover the coefficients are all

positive as hypothesized

In the first model the three brand equity dimensions brand awareness (016)

perceived quality (028) and brand loyalty (033) are significant predictors

of brand profitability performance Together the three predictors explain 34

percent of the variation in profitability performance Therefore strong

support for the first three hypotheses ( H1a-H1c) is found

Using brand market performance as the dependent variable the standardized

coefficients (brand awareness 018 perceived quality 022 brand loyalty

034) of the independent variables are significant which supports H2a H2b

and H2c

Of the variance of customer value 31 per cent is explained by the three

brand equity dimensions The estimated standardized coefficients of the

three independent variables (brand awareness 018 perceived quality 021

brand loyalty 019) are all significant Hence support is found for H3a H3b

and H3c

Performing single regression analyses the findings indicate a significant

relationship between customer value and purchase intention (coefficient

054) which supports H4 Also when purchase intention is regressed on

brand market performance (coefficient 062) and brand profitability

performance (coefficient 055) significant results are obtained Therefore

the analyses provide strong support for H5 and H6

Conclusion and implications

The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of using measures of

brand equity as indicators of performance Perceived quality brand loyalty

and brand association were selected as measures of brand equity Results

indicate that all three measures are significant predictors of performance

Constructs (number of items)

Coefficient

alphas

Mean

(standard deviation) Range

Brand awareness (6) 086 394 (081) 100-500

Perceived quality (8) 090 351 (067) 163-500

Brand loyalty (4) 080 241 (086) 100-440

Brand profitability (4)a

080 na na

Brand market performance (3)a

083 na na

Customer perceived value (8) 087 430 (102) 117-683Purchase intention (3) 093 320 (128) 100-667

Notes na = not applicable adue to different scales used as measures for the items thescale was standardized

Table II Summary statistics for constructs

E q u it y d im e n s i o n s

R e g re s s io n a n a ly s e s




B r a n d a w a r e n e s s

P e r c e i v e d q u a l i t y

B r a n d l o y a l t y

B r a n d

p r o f i t a b i l i t y

B r a n d s a l e s

v o l u m e

C u s t o m e r

p e r c e i v e d v a l u

e

P u r c h a s e i n t e n t i o n

B r a n d

a w a r e n e s s


0 2

2

B r a n d

l o y a l t y

0 3

4

0 4

6

B r a n d

p r o f i t a b i l i t y p e r f o r m a n c e

0 3

4

0 4

7

0 5

2

B r a n d

m a r k e t p e r f o r m a n c e

0 3

9

0 4

1

0 5

0

0 7

0

C u s t o

m e r p e r c e i v e d v a l u e

0 2

9

0 3

3

0 3

5

0 3

8

0 3

1

P u r c h

a s e i n t e n t i o n

0 3

4

0 4

7

0 5

2

0 5

5

0 6

2

0 5

4

N o t e s

A l l c o r r e l a t i o n s s i g n i f i c a n t a t p lt 0 0

1

T a b l e

I I I C o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s b y c o n s t r u c t




measures This was true for all three indicators of performance brand

profitability brand sales volume and customer perceived value

The standardized coefficients from the regression analysis in Table IV

provide some indication of the relative importance of the three brand equity

measures as predictors of performance Intercorrelations exist among the

measures as brand awareness and perceived quality will ultimately affect

brand loyalty The standardized coefficients reflect this relationship since the

coefficient for brand loyalty is almost double that of brand awareness

Loyalty is an important predictor of performance Given the difficulty in

selecting a parsimonious yet comprehensive set of performance measures

managers might consider the greater potential information content of ameasure such as brand loyalty

Building brand loyalty is an actionable initiative for manufacturers Possible

actions include creating a reason-to-buy differentiationpositioning creating

value chain member interest and making brand extensions (eg new tile

designs) (Aaker 1991) Brand loyalty increase can be measured on a

longitudinal basis Our research supports the relevance of tracking resellersrsquo

perceptions of brand loyalty

The brand equity constructs have been validated in previous research and

our study lends support to these scales from a unique perspective in the value

chain plusmn resellers The significance of the brand equity measures has

important implications for developing measures of other intangible assetsOur results supported a relationship between non-financial measures and

indicators of performance Without a link to performance the measures are

unlikely to generate results that support the strategic objectives of a firm

A major implication of our research results refers to strategic channel

partnerships (Narus and Anderson 1986) Given the positive relationships

among channel partners the sacrifices and benefits of manufacturers and

resellers have to be assessed and continually developed Although not

examined in this research problems of channel conflict like power or

opportunism are also of central issue (Webster 2000) More importantly as

the new economy compels less traditional and more cooperative ways of

conducting business it is essential to consider the impact of these

cooperative ventures on performance measurement

Dependent variables

Independent

variables

Standardized

- -coefficient

(t-value) F -value

Adjusted

R2

Brand profitability performance Brand awareness 016 (233) 2776 034

Perceived quality 028 (376)

Brand loyalty 033 (435)

Brand market perf or mance Brand awar eness 018 (250) 2334 031

Perceived quality 022 (284)Brand loyalty 034 (427)

Customer perceived value Brand awareness 018 (227) 1142 017



Purchase intention Customer

p ercei ved v alu e 05 4 (79 3) 6 29 3 0 2 9

Brand market performance Purchase intention 062 (963) 9266 038

Brand profitability performance Purchase intention 055 (802) 6436 029

Notes Significant at p lt 001 unless noted Significant at p = 005

Table IV Results of single and multiple regression analysis

In it ia ti v e fo r m a n u fa c t u r e rs

R e s e a r c h r e s u lt s




It is apparent from the study results that factors other than brand equity also

impact performance since the variations in performance explained by brand

equity ranges from 17 to 34 percent (Table IV R-squared values) Brand

equity is an important predictor of performance but other factors such as

competition prices and expenses also impact performance A shortcoming

of our research is the focus on cross-sectional data Hence we are not able to

explore the long-term effects of brand equity on performance Clearly future

studies could refer to longitudinal data Tracking at the reseller level of the

value chain should be more feasible than end-user tracking of brand equity

The reliance on subjective information in our study might be a matter of

concern as well While brand equity from a customer-based perspective and

perceived customer value require quasi subjective information by definition

an alternative view might suggest that objective assessments are necessary

with respect to performance measures However Dess and Robinson (1984)

found no significant differences comparing the validity of subjective and

objective performance measures Nonetheless in future research the model

could be replicated using more objective performance data

Note

1 We term these intermediaries resellers as they distribute the products (tiles) to both

businesses and customers

References

Aaker DA (1989) ``Managing assets and skills the key to a sustainable competitive

advantagersquorsquo California Management Review Vol 32 Winter pp 91-106

Aaker DA (1991) Managing Brand Equity The Free Press New York NY

Aaker DA (1996a) Building Strong Brands The Free Press New York NY

Aaker DA (1996b) ``Measuring brand equity across products and marketsrsquorsquo California

Management Review Vol 38 No 3 pp 102-20Aaker DA and Jacobson R (1994) ``The financial information content of perceived

qualityrsquorsquo Journal of Marketing Research Vol 31 pp 191-201

Armstrong JS and Overton TS (1977) ` Estimating non-response bias in mail surveysrsquorsquo

Journal of Marketing Research Vol 14 August pp 396-402

Bagozzi RP Yi Y and Phillips LW (1991) `Àssessing construct validity in organizational

researchrsquorsquo Administrative Science Quarterly Vol 36 September pp 421-58

Barth ME Clement MB Foster G and Kasznik R (1998) ` Brand values and capital

market valuationrsquorsquo Review of Accounting Studies Vol 3 pp 41-68

Barwise P (1993) ``Brand equity snark or boojumrsquorsquo International Journal of Research in

Marketing Vol 10 March pp 93-104

Barwise P Higson C Likierman A and Marsh P (1989) Accounting for Brands London

Business School and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales

London

Beatty SE and Kahle LR (1988) `Àlternative hierarchies of the attitude-behavior

relationship the impact of brand commitment and habitrsquorsquo Journal of the Academy of

Marketing Science Vol 16 Summer pp 1-10

Churchill GA Jr (1979) ` A paradigm for developing better m easures of marketing

constructsrsquorsquo Journal of Marketing Research Vol 16 February pp 64-73

Cohen J and Cohen P (1983) Applied Multiple RegressionCorrelation Analysis for the

Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed) Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Hillsdale NJ

Cronbach LJ (1951) ``Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of testsrsquorsquo Psychometrika

Vol 16 September pp 297-334

Dess GG and Robinson RB (1984) ``Measuring organizational performance in the absence

of objective measures the case of privately-held firm and conglomerate business unitrsquorsquo

Strategic Management Journal Vol 5 pp 265-73

S u b je c t iv e in fo r m a t io n




Dodds WB Monroe KB and Grewal D (1991) ` Effects of price brand and store

information on buyersrsquo product evaluationrsquorsquo Journal of Marketing Research Vol 28

August pp 307-19

Gerbing DW and Anderson JC (1988) ` An updated paradigm for s cale development

incorporating unidimensionality and its assess mentrsquorsquo Journal of Marketing Research

Vol 25 May pp 186-92

Grover R and Srinivasan V (1992) `Èvaluating the multiple effects of retail promotions on

brand-loyal and brand-switching segmentsrsquorsquo Journal of Marketing Research Vol 18

February pp 76-89

Hoyer W D and Brown SP (1990) `Èffects of brand awareness on choice for a common

repeat purchase productrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 17 pp 141-8

Jacobson R and Aaker DA (1987) ``The strategic role of product qualityrsquorsquo Journal of

Marketing Vol 51 October pp 31-44

Kaplan RS and Johnson T (1987) Relevance Lost The Rise and Fall of Management

Accounting Harvard Business School Press Boston MA

Keller KL (1993) ``Conceptualizing measuring and managing customer-based brand

equityrsquorsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 57 January pp 1-22

Keller KL (1998) Building Measuring and Managing Brand Equity Prentice Hall

Englewood Cliffs NJ

Lane V and Jacobson R (1995) ``Stock market reactions to brand extension announcements

the effects of brand attitude and familiarityrsquorsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 59 January

pp 63-77

Lassar WM (1998) ``Control systems in supplier-retailer relationships and their impact on

brand performancersquorsquo Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services Vol 5 No 2 pp 65-75

Monroe KB and Krishnan R (1985) ` The effect of price on s ubjective product

evaluationsrsquorsquo in Jacoby J and Olson J (Eds) Perceived Quality Lexington Books

Lexington MA pp 209-32

Narus JA and Anderson JC (1986) ` Turn your industrial distributors into partnersrsquorsquo

Harvard Business Review Vol 64 MarchApril pp 66-71

Nunnally JC (1978) Psychometric Theory 2nd ed McGraw-Hill New York NY

Oliver RL (1997) Satisfaction A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer McGraw-Hill

New York NY

Phillips LW Chang DR and Buzzell RD (1983) ``Product quality cost position and

business performance a test of some key hypothesesrsquorsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 47

Spring pp 26-43

Shocker AD Srivastava RK and Ruekert RW (1994) ``Challenges and opportunities

facing brand management an introduction to the special issuersquorsquo Journal of Marketing

Research Vol 31 pp 149-58

Spreng RA Harrell GD and Mackoy RD (1995) ` Service recovery impact on

satisfaction and intentionsrsquorsquo Journal of Service Marketing Vol 9 No 1 pp 15-23

Webster FE (2000) ` Understanding the relationships among brands consumers and

resellersrsquorsquo Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Vol 28 No 1 pp 17-23

Yoo B and Donthu N (2001) ` Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-

based brand equity scalersquorsquo Journal of Business Research Vol 52 pp 1-14

Yoo B Donthu N and Lee S (2000) `Àn examination of selected marketing mix elements

and brand equityrsquorsquo Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Vol 28 No 2

pp 195-211

Zeithaml VA (1988) ``Consumer perceptions of price quality and value a means-end

model and synthesis of evidencersquorsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 52 July pp 2-22

amp




Executive summary and implications for managers andexecutives

Brand investment benefits sales and the firmrsquos value

The debate around brand equity and brand valuation has in many ways

settled into two camps plusmn the consumer-based approach (mostly marketers)

and the aggregate sales approach (mostly accountants) I appreciate that

this is a gross over-simplification of the distinction between different approaches and that many models (and much of current theory) endeavour

to join together the two approaches However it is important for marketers

to appreciate that they have yet to fully convince others of the validity of

consumer-based approaches to the measurement of brand equity

Baldauf e t a l set out to produce further validation of the consumer-based

model by examining how the dimensions of brand equity are antecedents of

firm performance and especially sales and profitability This consideration is

important since much of the brand valuation debate concerns the treatment

of the brand on the balance sheet rather than its impact on the profit and loss

account And while marketers will always argue that brands are important

intangible assets (thereby meriting inclusion within the balance sheet) muchof our work as marketers is intended to influence sales and profitability

The antecedents of brand equity

Baldauf Cravens and Binder draw on Aakerrsquos model of brand equity in their

study focusing on the three most important antecedents of brand equity plusmn

brand loyalty brand awareness and perceived quality Aakerrsquos argument is

that where a brand has loyal customers high levels of market awareness and

is perceived to be of high quality it will have a high level of equity plusmn it is

more valuable to the firm

This means that the firmrsquos strategy needs to address each antecedent plusmn

focusing on one or other element will not necessarily deliver brand value However given that we are concerned here with the effect on sales volumes

and profits we need to ask whether achieving positive effect in this area

requires a different balance within the strategy Indeed there could

conceivably be a conflict between strategies aimed at increasing the firmrsquos

value (a balance sheet strategy) and strategies aimed at increasing sales (a

profit and loss strategy)

There is a concern that the latter approach to strategy can result in a sales

promotion led approach to marketing as a complement to the corporate

focus on cash flow and short-term profits Therefore being able to

demonstrate that strategies aimed at increasing brand value also produce

short-term benefits in terms of sales and profitability means being able to justify important brand strategies in a climate of short-term focus

Brand equity is not the only thing influencing performance

While brand strategies are important we have to recognise (and Baldauf

et al remind us) that performance is not solely influenced by brand equity

Marketers have to pay attention to other factors and especially to issues

often dismissed as tactical or mere implementation The marketing director

who fails to appreciate that tactical errors and sloppy implementation can

wreck a strategy should not keep his job

Baldauf et al identify three influences other than brand equity plusmn competition

pricing and expenses Since these clearly have an impact on performance

any marketing strategy needs to be flexible enough and the firm needs also to


T h is s u m m a ry h a s b e e n

p r o v id e d t o a ll o w m a n a g e r s

a n d e x e c u t i v e s a r a p id

a p p r e c i a ti o n o f t h e c o n t e n t

o f t h is a r ti c le T h o s e w it h a

p a r t ic u la r in t e r e s t i n t h e

t o p ic c o v e r e d m a y t h e n r e a d

t h e a r t ic l e i n t o t o t o t a k e a d v a n t a g e o f t h e m o r e

c o m p r e h e n s i v e d e s c r i p ti o n

o f t h e r e s e a r c h u n d e rt a k e n

a n d it s r e s u lt s t o g e t t h e fu ll

b e n e fit o f t h e m a t e r ia l

p r e s e n t



pay attention to its performance in terms of cost containment In addition the

impact of pricing and competition requires a regular reality check against

what is actually happening in the market

However too many firms concentrate on these other issues and respond to

market changes by fine tuning tactics undertaking reactive sales promotions

and trimming costs Often the equally important task of developing brand

equity gets lost in the tactical war with competitors plusmn firms must remember that investing in brand equity has a direct impact on sales (elsewhere in this

issue of JPBM Ataman and U Egrave lengin provide a substantive assessment of this

impact) as well as contributing plusmn accounting approaches allowed plusmn to the

firmrsquos overall value

Brand equity strategies plusmn options

We have noted that the dominant elements of Aakerrsquos brand equity model are

brand loyalty brand awareness and perceived quality but this does not

provide us with a direct guide to the setting of strategies Aaker also included

in his model brand associations and other proprietary assets such as

intellectual property and for some brands these considerations are of

considerable importance

The brand strategy first strikes a balance between investing in awareness plusmn

telling people about the brand plusmn and investing in brand loyalty and repeat

purchase While it remains the case that securing repeat purchase is (all

things being equal) more easy than recruiting a new customer we cannot

overlook the need to maintain and extend our brandrsquos position within the

portfolio of brands from which the consumer chooses

Brand investment therefore should consist of general advertising primarily

aimed at building brand awareness and merchandising sales promotions

direct marketing and packaging that reinforces the choice made by

consumers The price details of the mix depend on the stability of marketsrates of market growth or decline competitor activity and the tactical

demands of distribution channels (and especially retailers)

Baldauf et al provide further evidence that brand investment contributes to

overall firm performance and while such investment should not be to the

exclusion of other factors (price c ompetition etc) that affect performance it

is a central element of successful consumer goods marketing What is very

clear is that investing in the brand is about sales and profits as well as the

overall value of the brand itself

(A preAcirccis of the article ``Performance c onsequences of brand equity

management evidence from organizations in the value chainrsquorsquo Supplied byMarketing Consultants for Emerald)



management is knowledgeable about brand equity strength it can use this

information together with financial databases to develop appropriate

incentive plans and brand management programs (Aaker 1996b)

We examine one particular intangible asset plusmn the equity of the organizationrsquos

brands plusmn since for a significant number of firms the brand is the central asset of

the company (Aaker 1996a Barwise 1993 Shocker et al 1994) Our research

is intended to provide evidence as to the efficacy of using specific brand equitymeasures to evaluate financial performance Specifically the research objective

is to consider whether dimensions of brand equity are important antecedents of

firm performance such as sales and profitability Moreover as customers

ultimately decide about a firmrsquos success or failure we also examine the linkage

between brand equity dimensions and value to customers

We begin our investigation by examining the conceptual foundations for

brand equity and performance and develop the specific directional

hypotheses tested The methodology section contains the sampling plan the

construct measures used in our study of Austrian managers and analytical

issues We present the results of the empirical study and conclude with

implications and suggestions for future research

Conceptual foundations and research hypotheses

Our research considers a segment of Aakerrsquos (1991) original framework of

brand equity which proposes that various organizational efforts contribute to

developing the dimensions of brand equity These dimensions of brand

equity then have a positive impact on providing value to the firm as well as

to the customer For example a brand with strong equity can be leveraged to

launch new products and serves as a cue in repeat purchases In this research

we test the portion of the model that focuses on the effect of the dimensions

of brand equity in providing value The underlying conceptual logic of a

strong brand equity is that it is an asset which is expected to enhance

customer value increase customersrsquo purchase intentions and increase the

organizationrsquos market performance Brand equity reflects the price premium

of a strong brand in combination with the sales it attracts compared to an

average brand (Aaker 1996a Barwise et al 1989)

Figure 1 shows potential antecedents and consequences of brand equity

(Aaker 1991 p 17) Aaker (1991 p 17) notes that specific antecedents of

Figure 1 Antecedents and consequences of brand equity

In t a n g i b le a s s e t

B r a n d e q u i t y



























equity






































































B r a n d v a lu e









































profit




performance


performance



















































Methodology





E x e c u ti v e s




















performance































Scale construction









Construct

Scale items



Standardized

loading t value




CFI = 091

RMSEA = 010





mind 061 756


Agrave2df = 26

AGFI = 085



(2000) and

Dodds et al 069 942


RMSEA = 008


high 068 922




very high 080 1151



AGFI = 084

CFI = 091



Beatty and

Kahle

(1988) 043 473

RMSEA = 011






Brand profitability

performance

Agrave2df = 12




Lassar

(1998)

086 plusmn

AGFI = 096

CFI = 099

RMSEA = 004



(1 = lowest-

highest = 5) 079 936


for us 065 787




Brand market

performance



Lassar

(1998) 076 plusmn

Agrave2df = 014

AGFI = 099



CFI = 100

RMSEA lt 001





Agrave2df = 511




Dodds et al(1991)

065 plusmn

AGFI = 088

CFI = 094

RMSEA = 007






agree = 7) 078 780




(continued)






























Construct

Scale items



Standardized

loading t value








agree = 7) 069 609

Purchase intention

Agrave2df = 007



high = 7)

Dodds et al

(1991) 088 plusmn

AGFI = 099

CFI = 100

RMSEA lt 001









very high = 7) 093 1922





Table I














































































and H2c





and H3c













Coefficient

alphas

Mean


Brand awareness (6) 086 394 (081) 100-500


Brand loyalty (4) 080 241 (086) 100-440


080 na na


083 na na












B r a n d


B r a n d s a l e s

v o l u m e

C u s t o m e r


e


B r a n d

a w a r e n e s s


0 2

2

B r a n d

l o y a l t y

0 3

4

0 4

6

B r a n d


0 3

4

0 4

7

0 5

2

B r a n d


0 3

9

0 4

1

0 5

0

0 7

0

C u s t o


0 2

9

0 3

3

0 3

5

0 3

8

0 3

1

P u r c h


0 3

4

0 4

7

0 5

2

0 5

5

0 6

2

0 5

4

N o t e s


1

T a b l e





































Dependent variables

Independent

variables

Standardized

- -coefficient

(t-value) F -value

Adjusted

R2










p ercei ved v alu e 05 4 (79 3) 6 29 3 0 2 9



























Note



References


















London



















August pp 307-19






February pp 76-89










Englewood Cliffs NJ



pp 63-77










New York NY



Spring pp 26-43












pp 195-211



amp






























































p r e s e n t
































































equity






































































B r a n d v a lu e









































profit




performance


performance



















































Methodology





E x e c u ti v e s




















performance































Scale construction









Construct

Scale items



Standardized

loading t value




CFI = 091

RMSEA = 010





mind 061 756


Agrave2df = 26

AGFI = 085



(2000) and

Dodds et al 069 942


RMSEA = 008


high 068 922




very high 080 1151



AGFI = 084

CFI = 091



Beatty and

Kahle

(1988) 043 473

RMSEA = 011






Brand profitability

performance

Agrave2df = 12




Lassar

(1998)

086 plusmn

AGFI = 096

CFI = 099

RMSEA = 004



(1 = lowest-

highest = 5) 079 936


for us 065 787




Brand market

performance



Lassar

(1998) 076 plusmn

Agrave2df = 014

AGFI = 099



CFI = 100

RMSEA lt 001





Agrave2df = 511




Dodds et al(1991)

065 plusmn

AGFI = 088

CFI = 094

RMSEA = 007






agree = 7) 078 780




(continued)






























Construct

Scale items



Standardized

loading t value








agree = 7) 069 609

Purchase intention

Agrave2df = 007



high = 7)

Dodds et al

(1991) 088 plusmn

AGFI = 099

CFI = 100

RMSEA lt 001









very high = 7) 093 1922





Table I














































































and H2c





and H3c













Coefficient

alphas

Mean


Brand awareness (6) 086 394 (081) 100-500


Brand loyalty (4) 080 241 (086) 100-440


080 na na


083 na na












B r a n d


B r a n d s a l e s

v o l u m e

C u s t o m e r


e


B r a n d

a w a r e n e s s


0 2

2

B r a n d

l o y a l t y

0 3

4

0 4

6

B r a n d


0 3

4

0 4

7

0 5

2

B r a n d


0 3

9

0 4

1

0 5

0

0 7

0

C u s t o


0 2

9

0 3

3

0 3

5

0 3

8

0 3

1

P u r c h


0 3

4

0 4

7

0 5

2

0 5

5

0 6

2

0 5

4

N o t e s


1

T a b l e





































Dependent variables

Independent

variables

Standardized

- -coefficient

(t-value) F -value

Adjusted

R2










p ercei ved v alu e 05 4 (79 3) 6 29 3 0 2 9



























Note



References


















London



















August pp 307-19






February pp 76-89










Englewood Cliffs NJ



pp 63-77










New York NY



Spring pp 26-43












pp 195-211



amp






























































p r e s e n t



























































































B r a n d v a lu e









































profit




performance


performance



















































Methodology





E x e c u ti v e s




















performance































Scale construction









Construct

Scale items



Standardized

loading t value




CFI = 091

RMSEA = 010





mind 061 756


Agrave2df = 26

AGFI = 085



(2000) and

Dodds et al 069 942


RMSEA = 008


high 068 922




very high 080 1151



AGFI = 084

CFI = 091



Beatty and

Kahle

(1988) 043 473

RMSEA = 011






Brand profitability

performance

Agrave2df = 12




Lassar

(1998)

086 plusmn

AGFI = 096

CFI = 099

RMSEA = 004



(1 = lowest-

highest = 5) 079 936


for us 065 787




Brand market

performance



Lassar

(1998) 076 plusmn

Agrave2df = 014

AGFI = 099



CFI = 100

RMSEA lt 001





Agrave2df = 511




Dodds et al(1991)

065 plusmn

AGFI = 088

CFI = 094

RMSEA = 007






agree = 7) 078 780




(continued)






























Construct

Scale items



Standardized

loading t value








agree = 7) 069 609

Purchase intention

Agrave2df = 007



high = 7)

Dodds et al

(1991) 088 plusmn

AGFI = 099

CFI = 100

RMSEA lt 001









very high = 7) 093 1922





Table I














































































and H2c





and H3c













Coefficient

alphas

Mean


Brand awareness (6) 086 394 (081) 100-500


Brand loyalty (4) 080 241 (086) 100-440


080 na na


083 na na












B r a n d


B r a n d s a l e s

v o l u m e

C u s t o m e r


e


B r a n d

a w a r e n e s s


0 2

2

B r a n d

l o y a l t y

0 3

4

0 4

6

B r a n d


0 3

4

0 4

7

0 5

2

B r a n d


0 3

9

0 4

1

0 5

0

0 7

0

C u s t o


0 2

9

0 3

3

0 3

5

0 3

8

0 3

1

P u r c h


0 3

4

0 4

7

0 5

2

0 5

5

0 6

2

0 5

4

N o t e s


1

T a b l e





































Dependent variables

Independent

variables

Standardized

- -coefficient

(t-value) F -value

Adjusted

R2










p ercei ved v alu e 05 4 (79 3) 6 29 3 0 2 9



























Note



References


















London



















August pp 307-19






February pp 76-89










Englewood Cliffs NJ



pp 63-77










New York NY



Spring pp 26-43












pp 195-211



amp






























































p r e s e n t














































































profit




performance


performance



















































Methodology





E x e c u ti v e s




















performance































Scale construction









Construct

Scale items



Standardized

loading t value




CFI = 091

RMSEA = 010





mind 061 756


Agrave2df = 26

AGFI = 085



(2000) and

Dodds et al 069 942


RMSEA = 008


high 068 922




very high 080 1151



AGFI = 084

CFI = 091



Beatty and

Kahle

(1988) 043 473

RMSEA = 011






Brand profitability

performance

Agrave2df = 12




Lassar

(1998)

086 plusmn

AGFI = 096

CFI = 099

RMSEA = 004



(1 = lowest-

highest = 5) 079 936


for us 065 787




Brand market

performance



Lassar

(1998) 076 plusmn

Agrave2df = 014

AGFI = 099



CFI = 100

RMSEA lt 001





Agrave2df = 511




Dodds et al(1991)

065 plusmn

AGFI = 088

CFI = 094

RMSEA = 007






agree = 7) 078 780




(continued)






























Construct

Scale items



Standardized

loading t value








agree = 7) 069 609

Purchase intention

Agrave2df = 007



high = 7)

Dodds et al

(1991) 088 plusmn

AGFI = 099

CFI = 100

RMSEA lt 001









very high = 7) 093 1922





Table I














































































and H2c





and H3c













Coefficient

alphas

Mean


Brand awareness (6) 086 394 (081) 100-500


Brand loyalty (4) 080 241 (086) 100-440


080 na na


083 na na












B r a n d


B r a n d s a l e s

v o l u m e

C u s t o m e r


e


B r a n d

a w a r e n e s s


0 2

2

B r a n d

l o y a l t y

0 3

4

0 4

6

B r a n d


0 3

4

0 4

7

0 5

2

B r a n d


0 3

9

0 4

1

0 5

0

0 7

0

C u s t o


0 2

9

0 3

3

0 3

5

0 3

8

0 3

1

P u r c h


0 3

4

0 4

7

0 5

2

0 5

5

0 6

2

0 5

4

N o t e s


1

T a b l e





































Dependent variables

Independent

variables

Standardized

- -coefficient

(t-value) F -value

Adjusted

R2










p ercei ved v alu e 05 4 (79 3) 6 29 3 0 2 9



























Note



References


















London



















August pp 307-19






February pp 76-89










Englewood Cliffs NJ



pp 63-77










New York NY



Spring pp 26-43












pp 195-211



amp






























































p r e s e n t



















































































Methodology





E x e c u ti v e s




















performance































Scale construction









Construct

Scale items



Standardized

loading t value




CFI = 091

RMSEA = 010





mind 061 756


Agrave2df = 26

AGFI = 085



(2000) and

Dodds et al 069 942


RMSEA = 008


high 068 922




very high 080 1151



AGFI = 084

CFI = 091



Beatty and

Kahle

(1988) 043 473

RMSEA = 011






Brand profitability

performance

Agrave2df = 12




Lassar

(1998)

086 plusmn

AGFI = 096

CFI = 099

RMSEA = 004



(1 = lowest-

highest = 5) 079 936


for us 065 787




Brand market

performance



Lassar

(1998) 076 plusmn

Agrave2df = 014

AGFI = 099



CFI = 100

RMSEA lt 001





Agrave2df = 511




Dodds et al(1991)

065 plusmn

AGFI = 088

CFI = 094

RMSEA = 007






agree = 7) 078 780




(continued)






























Construct

Scale items



Standardized

loading t value








agree = 7) 069 609

Purchase intention

Agrave2df = 007



high = 7)

Dodds et al

(1991) 088 plusmn

AGFI = 099

CFI = 100

RMSEA lt 001









very high = 7) 093 1922





Table I














































































and H2c





and H3c













Coefficient

alphas

Mean


Brand awareness (6) 086 394 (081) 100-500


Brand loyalty (4) 080 241 (086) 100-440


080 na na


083 na na












B r a n d


B r a n d s a l e s

v o l u m e

C u s t o m e r


e


B r a n d

a w a r e n e s s


0 2

2

B r a n d

l o y a l t y

0 3

4

0 4

6

B r a n d


0 3

4

0 4

7

0 5

2

B r a n d


0 3

9

0 4

1

0 5

0

0 7

0

C u s t o


0 2

9

0 3

3

0 3

5

0 3

8

0 3

1

P u r c h


0 3

4

0 4

7

0 5

2

0 5

5

0 6

2

0 5

4

N o t e s


1

T a b l e





































Dependent variables

Independent

variables

Standardized

- -coefficient

(t-value) F -value

Adjusted

R2










p ercei ved v alu e 05 4 (79 3) 6 29 3 0 2 9



























Note



References


















London



















August pp 307-19






February pp 76-89










Englewood Cliffs NJ



pp 63-77










New York NY



Spring pp 26-43












pp 195-211



amp






























































p r e s e n t

























































performance































Scale construction









Construct

Scale items



Standardized

loading t value




CFI = 091

RMSEA = 010





mind 061 756


Agrave2df = 26

AGFI = 085



(2000) and

Dodds et al 069 942


RMSEA = 008


high 068 922




very high 080 1151



AGFI = 084

CFI = 091



Beatty and

Kahle

(1988) 043 473

RMSEA = 011






Brand profitability

performance

Agrave2df = 12




Lassar

(1998)

086 plusmn

AGFI = 096

CFI = 099

RMSEA = 004



(1 = lowest-

highest = 5) 079 936


for us 065 787




Brand market

performance



Lassar

(1998) 076 plusmn

Agrave2df = 014

AGFI = 099



CFI = 100

RMSEA lt 001





Agrave2df = 511




Dodds et al(1991)

065 plusmn

AGFI = 088

CFI = 094

RMSEA = 007






agree = 7) 078 780




(continued)






























Construct

Scale items



Standardized

loading t value








agree = 7) 069 609

Purchase intention

Agrave2df = 007



high = 7)

Dodds et al

(1991) 088 plusmn

AGFI = 099

CFI = 100

RMSEA lt 001









very high = 7) 093 1922





Table I














































































and H2c





and H3c













Coefficient

alphas

Mean


Brand awareness (6) 086 394 (081) 100-500


Brand loyalty (4) 080 241 (086) 100-440


080 na na


083 na na












B r a n d


B r a n d s a l e s

v o l u m e

C u s t o m e r


e


B r a n d

a w a r e n e s s


0 2

2

B r a n d

l o y a l t y

0 3

4

0 4

6

B r a n d


0 3

4

0 4

7

0 5

2

B r a n d


0 3

9

0 4

1

0 5

0

0 7

0

C u s t o


0 2

9

0 3

3

0 3

5

0 3

8

0 3

1

P u r c h


0 3

4

0 4

7

0 5

2

0 5

5

0 6

2

0 5

4

N o t e s


1

T a b l e





































Dependent variables

Independent

variables

Standardized

- -coefficient

(t-value) F -value

Adjusted

R2










p ercei ved v alu e 05 4 (79 3) 6 29 3 0 2 9



























Note



References


















London



















August pp 307-19






February pp 76-89










Englewood Cliffs NJ



pp 63-77










New York NY



Spring pp 26-43












pp 195-211



amp






























































p r e s e n t









































Construct

Scale items



Standardized

loading t value




CFI = 091

RMSEA = 010





mind 061 756


Agrave2df = 26

AGFI = 085



(2000) and

Dodds et al 069 942


RMSEA = 008


high 068 922




very high 080 1151



AGFI = 084

CFI = 091



Beatty and

Kahle

(1988) 043 473

RMSEA = 011






Brand profitability

performance

Agrave2df = 12




Lassar

(1998)

086 plusmn

AGFI = 096

CFI = 099

RMSEA = 004



(1 = lowest-

highest = 5) 079 936


for us 065 787




Brand market

performance



Lassar

(1998) 076 plusmn

Agrave2df = 014

AGFI = 099



CFI = 100

RMSEA lt 001





Agrave2df = 511




Dodds et al(1991)

065 plusmn

AGFI = 088

CFI = 094

RMSEA = 007






agree = 7) 078 780




(continued)






























Construct

Scale items



Standardized

loading t value








agree = 7) 069 609

Purchase intention

Agrave2df = 007



high = 7)

Dodds et al

(1991) 088 plusmn

AGFI = 099

CFI = 100

RMSEA lt 001









very high = 7) 093 1922





Table I














































































and H2c





and H3c













Coefficient

alphas

Mean


Brand awareness (6) 086 394 (081) 100-500


Brand loyalty (4) 080 241 (086) 100-440


080 na na


083 na na












B r a n d


B r a n d s a l e s

v o l u m e

C u s t o m e r


e


B r a n d

a w a r e n e s s


0 2

2

B r a n d

l o y a l t y

0 3

4

0 4

6

B r a n d


0 3

4

0 4

7

0 5

2

B r a n d


0 3

9

0 4

1

0 5

0

0 7

0

C u s t o


0 2

9

0 3

3

0 3

5

0 3

8

0 3

1

P u r c h


0 3

4

0 4

7

0 5

2

0 5

5

0 6

2

0 5

4

N o t e s


1

T a b l e





































Dependent variables

Independent

variables

Standardized

- -coefficient

(t-value) F -value

Adjusted

R2










p ercei ved v alu e 05 4 (79 3) 6 29 3 0 2 9



























Note



References


















London



















August pp 307-19






February pp 76-89










Englewood Cliffs NJ



pp 63-77










New York NY



Spring pp 26-43












pp 195-211



amp






























































p r e s e n t


































































Construct

Scale items



Standardized

loading t value








agree = 7) 069 609

Purchase intention

Agrave2df = 007



high = 7)

Dodds et al

(1991) 088 plusmn

AGFI = 099

CFI = 100

RMSEA lt 001









very high = 7) 093 1922





Table I














































































and H2c





and H3c













Coefficient

alphas

Mean


Brand awareness (6) 086 394 (081) 100-500


Brand loyalty (4) 080 241 (086) 100-440


080 na na


083 na na












B r a n d


B r a n d s a l e s

v o l u m e

C u s t o m e r


e


B r a n d

a w a r e n e s s


0 2

2

B r a n d

l o y a l t y

0 3

4

0 4

6

B r a n d


0 3

4

0 4

7

0 5

2

B r a n d


0 3

9

0 4

1

0 5

0

0 7

0

C u s t o


0 2

9

0 3

3

0 3

5

0 3

8

0 3

1

P u r c h


0 3

4

0 4

7

0 5

2

0 5

5

0 6

2

0 5

4

N o t e s


1

T a b l e





































Dependent variables

Independent

variables

Standardized

- -coefficient

(t-value) F -value

Adjusted

R2










p ercei ved v alu e 05 4 (79 3) 6 29 3 0 2 9



























Note



References


















London



















August pp 307-19






February pp 76-89










Englewood Cliffs NJ



pp 63-77










New York NY



Spring pp 26-43












pp 195-211



amp






























































p r e s e n t



















































































































and H2c





and H3c













Coefficient

alphas

Mean


Brand awareness (6) 086 394 (081) 100-500


Brand loyalty (4) 080 241 (086) 100-440


080 na na


083 na na












B r a n d


B r a n d s a l e s

v o l u m e

C u s t o m e r


e


B r a n d

a w a r e n e s s


0 2

2

B r a n d

l o y a l t y

0 3

4

0 4

6

B r a n d


0 3

4

0 4

7

0 5

2

B r a n d


0 3

9

0 4

1

0 5

0

0 7

0

C u s t o


0 2

9

0 3

3

0 3

5

0 3

8

0 3

1

P u r c h


0 3

4

0 4

7

0 5

2

0 5

5

0 6

2

0 5

4

N o t e s


1

T a b l e





































Dependent variables

Independent

variables

Standardized

- -coefficient

(t-value) F -value

Adjusted

R2










p ercei ved v alu e 05 4 (79 3) 6 29 3 0 2 9



























Note



References


















London



















August pp 307-19






February pp 76-89










Englewood Cliffs NJ



pp 63-77










New York NY



Spring pp 26-43












pp 195-211



amp






























































p r e s e n t












































B r a n d


B r a n d s a l e s

v o l u m e

C u s t o m e r


e


B r a n d

a w a r e n e s s


0 2

2

B r a n d

l o y a l t y

0 3

4

0 4

6

B r a n d


0 3

4

0 4

7

0 5

2

B r a n d


0 3

9

0 4

1

0 5

0

0 7

0

C u s t o


0 2

9

0 3

3

0 3

5

0 3

8

0 3

1

P u r c h


0 3

4

0 4

7

0 5

2

0 5

5

0 6

2

0 5

4

N o t e s


1

T a b l e





































Dependent variables

Independent

variables

Standardized

- -coefficient

(t-value) F -value

Adjusted

R2










p ercei ved v alu e 05 4 (79 3) 6 29 3 0 2 9



























Note



References


















London



















August pp 307-19






February pp 76-89










Englewood Cliffs NJ



pp 63-77










New York NY



Spring pp 26-43












pp 195-211



amp






























































p r e s e n t









































































Dependent variables

Independent

variables

Standardized

- -coefficient

(t-value) F -value

Adjusted

R2










p ercei ved v alu e 05 4 (79 3) 6 29 3 0 2 9



























Note



References


















London



















August pp 307-19






February pp 76-89










Englewood Cliffs NJ



pp 63-77










New York NY



Spring pp 26-43












pp 195-211



amp






























































p r e s e n t


























































Note



References


















London



















August pp 307-19






February pp 76-89










Englewood Cliffs NJ



pp 63-77










New York NY



Spring pp 26-43












pp 195-211



amp






























































p r e s e n t











































August pp 307-19






February pp 76-89










Englewood Cliffs NJ



pp 63-77










New York NY



Spring pp 26-43












pp 195-211



amp






























































p r e s e n t



































































































p r e s e n t







































Brand Equity Mgt

Documents

Transcript of Brand Equity Mgt