CUSTOMERS' PERCEIVED BRAND EQUITY AND A RESEARCH ON THE CUSTOMERS OF BELLONA

The Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge * Vol. 16 * Num. 1 * September 2010 93

Customers’ Perceived Brand Equity and A Research on the Customers of Bellona Which is a Turkish Furniture Brand

Dr. H. Anıl Degermen Erenkol and Adnan Duygun, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey

ABSTRACT

Extensive competitive environment that the enterprises are confronted with today and their competition in being different among thousands of similar products that could draw consumers’ attention necessitate the products to have certain elements of differentiation other than their physical characteristics. One of the primary reasons of the necessity in question is that the effort in differentiating the physical specifications of a product from other products is not always successful and the efforts made could cause unnecessary losses of time and money. Therefore, recently, it has been observed that the enterprises focus on “brand value” which is an important element in differentiating both the enterprise and the products they offer. The motive under this focus is that especially nowadays the brand is an important means of competition and the increasing brand value would bring great advantages to the enterprises. For the brand value concept to be established appropriately by the enterprise and to be applied accurately, first of all, correct measurement of the brand value is extremely important. Hence, the brand value concept brings along the question of measuring the brand value. For this reason, the brand value and the measurement of the brand value issues appear in the literature as the issues of utmost importance.

There are two types of methods in the literature which are used for measuring the brand value. These are

the financial methods and the methods based on consumer behavior. In the studies conducted, sometimes the brand value is measured based on one of these methods, and in other cases the brand value is measured using both two methods together at the same time. In this study, the brand value of Bellona, which is one of the leading furniture brands in Turkey, is measured in accordance with the method based on consumer behavior via a questionnaire survey conducted on the customers of Bellona.

INTRODUCTION

Currently, brand is one of the most important concepts related to the marketing science. Brand is a concept that belongs to an enterprise, a football team, a political party, or even an individual person; and it adds value to those it belongs, it integrates and associates with them. The brand that associates with the correct and positive image is critical for product management and marketing communication. Because of all these reasons there are many definitions related to the brand in the marketing literature. According to the definition of American Marketing Association the brand is “the name, term, indicator, design, shape, or a collection of all these which serves the purposes of determining, defining a product or products and services of a group of sellers, and distinguishing and differentiating them from their competitors” (Kotler and Armstrong, 2006).

According to “the Decree Law (DL) No: 556 on the Protection of Brands”, provided that it assures the

differentiation of the goods and services of an enterprise from those of another, the brand includes especially words, shapes, letters (characters), numbers, all kinds of signs together with names of persons which could be displayed through drawings, or expressed in a similar way, published and copied by printing such as the format of the goods or their packages. The condition of the signs “to be displayed through drawings or expressed in a similar way” explained in the DL does not mean that only two dimensional signs can be brands, as a matter of fact, voice or melody represented in musical notes, a two-dimensional picture of a three-dimensional sign may also be considered within this context (Kaya, 2006). This description provided by the DL emphasizes that the brand is a concept made of distinguishing names, signs, or symbols that is protected by law. However the brand is a concept with a context that is wider than this description made by the DL.

The use of the brand as a wider concept than distinguishing name, sign, or symbols that are protected by

law has emerged initially by the assessments done from the marketing point of view. From this perspective, the brand is not only a name/sign protected by the law but also a means that explains the positive images about the enterprise and the product in the heads of the customers and potential customers, customer loyalty, and quality perceptions about the product; causes the customers or potential customers to have emotions about the product such as prestige, robustness, and reliability. In other words, the brand is perceived as an integration of all the


psychological elements that connects the customers to the product and the enterprise and it becomes one of the most important entities (assets) that the enterprise possesses for surviving in the competitive environment (Kotler and Armstrong, 2006).Within this context, it is all of everything that the consumer considers before his/her purchase decision is made. The brands represent a long term strategy that is built around an economical value both for the consumer and the owner of the brand (Pickton and Broderick, 2001).

According to Gardner and Levy (1995), brand is a total of both intrinsic and extrinsic presentations in

which both functional and psychological benefits are blended. According to De Chernatony and McDonald (1998), a successful brand identity is to be able to offer a product, service, or place that could be distinguished from others. The perceptions of the buyer or the user about the brand can only be enhanced this way (Pickton and Broderick, 2001). According to Aaker (1991), who is famous for his several studies about brand and brand valuation, the brand is the differentiating names or symbols such as logo, trademark, or packaging which are utilized for differentiating the goods or services of one vendor or a group of vendors from those of their competitors (Pickton and Broderick, 2001).

Considering all these definitions made about the brand, it could be concluded that the brand is an important

element reflecting the ideas of the consumers regarding the product and service and at the same time it becomes prominent in the competition between the enterprises. The enterprises long for the goods and services they produce to be continuously demanded and a high sales graphics together with a regular cash flow. Hence the brand becomes an indicator of value and power (Marangoz, 2007A). However the value and power possessed by each brand demonstrate differences from others. Therefore determination of the level of the value that the brand has is of great importance for the administrators of the enterprise and in terms of the decisions they make.

In this study, the methods for measuring the brand equity and consumer based brand equity which is one of

the methods used for measuring brand equity purposes, is explained in detail and one of the leading furniture brands of Turkey, namely Bellona’s brand equity and the factors affecting it are measured again regarding the perceptions of Bellona’s customers.

THE BRAND VALUE and METHODS USED IN MEASUREMENT OF THE BRAND VALUE As a result of liberalization and globalization of trade, investments, and capital markets especially in the

USA and in Europe since 1980s, together with the developments and changes occurred in technological fields, the competition pressures on the enterprises have significantly increased. The enterprises have begun realizing mergers and acquisitions in order to overcome these pressures of increasing competition as well as to be able to continue their existence. These developments emerged in the economical life have set forth that especially some enterprises paid for the enterprises they wanted to acquire some prices that were far more higher than the assessments made according to the balance sums of those firms, and these prices were paid for intangible assets, especially for the brands. For example in 1988, Philip Morris Co. purchased Kraft Foods for 12.6 billion dollars and declared that 11.6 billion dollars of this purchase was paid for intangible assets, especially for the brands. With this payment made by Philip Morris for the purchase of Kraft that was six times the value of the enterprise on the paper, the price difference caused by the value of the “Kraft” brand name, drew attention on the brand equity concept for the first time and stated how important the brand equity is for today’s economy and enterprises in terms of competition (Marangoz, 2007A).

The brand equity is assessed according to different aspects by different groups of players in the economy

such as manufacturers, retailers, investors, and consumers. Clearly, brand names add value to each of these groups. For example, Investors have a financial motivation for extracting the value of a brand name from the value of a firm’s other assets.(Walgren, Ruble and Donthu, 1995) Regarding to this example, it is obvious that the brand equity is the capitalized value of the profits obtained without associating the brand name with certain products and services; and it is an abstract entity, which is based on the value attributed by the consumers to the branded products and which is increasing the cash flow of the enterprise (Simon and Sullivan, 1993). Manufacturers and retailers, on the other hand, are motivated more by the strategic implications of brand equity. To the manufacturer, brand equity affords a differential advantage that enables the firm to generate greater volume and greater margins. Brand equity provides a strong platform for introducing new products and insulates the brand against competitive attacks. From the perspective of the trade, brand equity contributes to the overall image of the retail outlet. It builds store traffic, ensures consistent volume, and reduces risk in allocating shelf space.(Walgren, Ruble and Donthu, 1995)


All these definitions and descriptions made regarding the brand equity constitute the fact that it is one of the most valuable assets an enterprise has. Therefore many methods have been developed about the measurement of the brand equity. However it is possible to analyze these assessment methods under three classes according to the curse of their development in time. These are “Financial Methods”, “Composite Methods”, and “Consumer Perception Based Methods”.

As it was mentioned previously, since the determination of the values of the brands was first required during company mergers or acquisitions, the subject was first included in the interest areas of finance departments in the enterprises and brand valuation methods based on finance were developed. Methods with a focus of finance and composite methods used in the valuation of brands rather included operations aiming at establishing the monetary value of the brand (Simon and Sullivan, 1993).

According to this approach, since a high or low valuation of total value of the enterprise may result in a

financial loss for the shareholders of the enterprise, in the assessment process of the total value of an enterprise it is of critical importance to precisely understand the value of each brand owned or produced by the enterprise. Therefore, the financial market value of a firm is based on the aggregate earning-power of its assets, both tangible and intangible. From the perspective of financial markets, brand equity is the capitalized value of the profits that result from associating that brand’s name with particular products and services.(Simon and Sullivan, 1993). However these methods are criticized for the fact that they do not include all the elements that constitute the power of a brand and they do not take into account the consumer behavior and trends (Marangoz, 2007B). In fact, the principal source of the brand value is the consumers and therefore the brand equity should be valued on the basis of individual consumers.

BRAND VALUATION REGARDING CONSUMER PERCEPTIONS

Consumer perceptions based brand equity could be described as the difference generating impact of the

brand knowledge on the consumer reaction that is developed in direction with the brand that was marketed. In other words, consumer based brand equity is addressed as the comparison of the difference between the customers’ reactions towards an unbranded and a branded product which have the same marketing mix. The brand equity regarding the consumer perceptions emerge when a customer is familiar with a brand and when the customer spares a special place in his/her mind associated with the brand and in favor of the brand (Keller, 1993). It could be seen in the literature that the brand equity based on consumer perceptions concept is a multi-dimensional concept. In the research studies conducted, several dimensions of the brand equity are tested and analyzed.

FIGURE 1: Dimensions of the Brand Equity and Gains from Each Dimension

Source: David A. Aaker. 1996. Building Strong Brands, New York, The Free Press, pp.9.


When the research studies conducted on this issue up to now are analyzed, the brand value is composed of “brand loyalty” and “brand association” according to Shocker and Weitz (1988); it is composed of “brand recognition” which is a composition of “brand awareness” and “brand image” according to Keller (1993) (Yoo, Donthu and Lee, 2000); it is composed of “brand awareness”, “brand loyalty”, “perceived quality”, and “brand image” variables according to Kim et al. (2003); it is composed of “brand awareness”, “brand loyalty”, and “perceived quality” variables according to Baldauf et al. (2003); it is composed of “brand awareness”, “brand loyalty”, “perceived quality”, and “brand association” according to Yoo et al. (2000), Krishnan and Hartline (2001), Myers (2003), Atılgan et al. (2005), and Pappu et al. (2005). (Marangoz, 2007B )

However in the model developed by Aaker in 1991 which is the most frequently used model in practice the

brand equity perceived by the consumers is composed of 4 dimensions. The model is very widely used in practice since it approaches to these dimensions valued by the consumer at a substantial detail level. These dimensions could increase or decrease the value perceived by the customers (Baldauf, S.Baldauf and Binder, 2003). A high level of brand equity indicates that the customer has positive and strong feelings regarding the brand, he/she perceives the brand as of high quality, and he/she is loyal to the brand (Yoo, Donthu and Lee, 2000). The dimensions present in the model and different values contributed to the brand equity by each dimension are given in detail in Figure 1.

According to the model developed by Aaker (1996), the dimensions establishing the brand equity are, as

can be seen from the figure above, composed of brand loyalty, brand awareness, perceived quality, brand associations, and other proprietary brand assets and each dimension has different values contributed to the brand equity. These dimensions establishing the brand equity and the values contributed to the brand equity by each dimension are explained in detail in Sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4.

BRAND LOYALTY

Brand loyalty is the most fundamental dimension of the brand equity. By analogy, brand loyalty reduces uncertainty and saves a customer the cost of seeking new relational exchanges with other brands (Chaudri and Holbrook, 2002). That’s why, the customers with brand loyalty play an important role in the future success and profitability of the environment in the long term. Moreover, the level of loyalty demonstrated by the customers for a specific brand plays an important role in the establishment of the brand equity. Therefore, it is critical for enterprises to create and sustain brand loyalty. Consequently, it is necessary to deliberate upon what brand loyalty is. However the basic difficulty encountered in the research studies conducted on the brand loyalty is to define the brand loyalty and to focus on how to measure it.

When the literature is analyzed it can be seen that the brand loyalty is defined according to two

perspectives which are behavioral and attitudinal perspectives respectively. Dick and Basu (1994) (Dick and Basu 1994)agree that brand loyalty requires both behavioural and attitudinal commitment (Dick and Basu 1994). Also Benneth and Rundle (2002) agree that there are two aspects of brand loyalty; attitudinal and behavioural (Benneth and Rundle, 2002). Then Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2002) suggest that brand loyalty requires some degree of commitment toward the quality of a brand and indicate that brand loyalty is a function of both positive attitudes and repurchase behaviour (Chaudri and Holbrook, 2002).

The definitions of brand loyalty based on behavioral perspective emphasize the actual loyalty of the

customers for the brand as its reflection on the purchase preferences and frequency; while the definitions based on attitudinal perspective stress the intention of the customers for being loyal to the brand (Pappu, G.Quester, W.Cooksey, 2005). According to Aaker, who considered the brand loyalty together with the brand equity, the brand loyalty is defined as “the condition expressing the possibility of the customer switching from the brand he/she is purchasing to another brand when the brand in question makes a change in the price of the brand or in other specifications of the product”. (Aaker, 1991) However according to Oliver (1997) the brand loyalty is the deep attachment felt for regularly purchasing a preferred good or service in the future or for being its continuous customer regardless of the strong effects and marketing efforts of other brands that could cause the customer’s possible behavior of changing brands. (Oliver, 1997) This definition made by Oliver (1997) explains the brand loyalty in accordance with the attitudinal perspective. On the other hand Keller (1993) addresses the brand loyalty together with the “brand resonance” expression. The brand resonance is related to the level of sensing customer-brand structure and how good the customers are in concordance with the brand. The customers who have the actual customer resonance have a high level of brand loyalty, want to build an active and lively relationship with the brand, and share their positive experiences with others (Atılgan, Şafak, and Akıncı, 2005).


The above given definitions regarding the brand loyalty in fact establish the direct relationship between the brand loyalty and the brand equity; and it is understood from all the definitions that the brand loyalty is the most important element in assuring the brand equity (Aaker, 1991). The brand loyalty contributes to the brand equity as follows (Aaker, 1996);

Reduction in marketing costs, Trade leverage, Attracting new customers by creating awareness and reassurance, Time to respond to competitive threats.

One of the most important advantages that the brand loyalty provides the enterprises with is the reduction

in marketing costs. The cost advantage in question is assured from the activities directed to new customers such as intensive advertisements, individual sales, or sales development (Reichheld, 1996). Yet the loyal customers already recognize the brand and know its basic weaknesses and superiorities; therefore it is unnecessary to introduce these persons with the product, and the only thing to be done is to remind them their needs (Rundle-Thiele and Mackay, 2001). Moreover, it is very difficult and costly for competitor enterprises to convince the present customers to change the brand they are loyal to.

Another advantage provided by the brand loyalty to the enterprises is the trade leverage and commercial

recognition brought by the brand loyalty. Strong customer loyalty generated with the brand provides the brand to be preferred by its distribution channel members as well as the retailers. The brand loyalty is a substantially effective factor on store selection decisions of the customers. Retailers are obliged to carry the brands with high level of customer loyalty. If they do not do so, the customers will prefer other retailers that carry the brands they prefer (Aaker, 1995). Again, the brand names with high brand loyalty will be used for branding the new products developed by the enterprise and hence increase the possibility of the new product’s acceptance in the market and its success. The brands with high level of brand loyalty play a risk reducing warranty role especially under circumstances that are perceived by the customers as risky purchase cases. Moreover, high level of brand loyalty provides the enterprises with time to respond to competitive actions. That is to say; when a competitor enterprise develops a product with superior specifications, high brand loyalty provides the enterprise the time to counterbalance this action or make it ineffective (Aaker, 1995).

Because of all the reasons explained above, the brand loyalty is a more important element than all other

elements which contribute to the brand equity. According to Aaker (1991), the reason for this is that brand loyalty is different from other brand equity dimensions because of its relationship with the usage experience. Yet the loyalty develops with the customer’s usage of the brand and being different from other brand equity dimensions such as brand awareness and perceived quality it emerges only after the customer purchases and uses a product. However purchase and consumption is not required for brand awareness and perceived quality. (Aaker, 1991) And no other brand equity dimension is as much effective on the brand equity as the brand loyalty is. Therefore, the principal purpose of the enterprise is with no doubt to increase the number of completely loyal customers. This will be accomplished by creating a brand name that has a high level of awareness; that is recalled with strong and unique associations, and recognized as having high quality. That is why consumers’ perceived quality is an important factor in creating brand loyalty (Marangoz, 2007B).

BRAND AWARENESS

Brand awareness is expressed as the power of the brand’s existence in the consumers’ minds and it is an important part of the brand equity (Pappu, Quester and Cooksey, 2005). Aaker mentioned about four levels regarding the brand awareness. These levels are “top of mind brand”, “brand recall”, “brand recognition”, and “brand unawareness” respectively. Brand awareness does not exist at the last level. The pyramid demonstrating the levels in question is provided in Figure 2 (Aaker, 1991);

As it could be seen from the figure, “those unaware of the brand” are located in the lowest level of the

brand awareness pyramid. Under such a circumstance the customers are unaware of the name of the brand in question within the product category on the market; therefore, it is not possible to talk about the existence of brand equity at this level. Another level which is “brand recognition” is one higher level of brand awareness and it is the ability of the customer to distinguish the brand he/she has seen or heard previously from other brands (Keller, 1993). This level is explained with the customer’s having sufficient information about the brand to place it under a specific category (Matthiesen and Phau, 2005).


FIGURE 2: Brand Awareness Pyramid

Source: David A. Aaker. 1991. Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name. New York, The Free Press, pp.62.

Another level of brand awareness is “brand recall”. Brand recall is the ability of the customer to recall the characteristics of the brand when a specific product category is given to the customer as a clue and reserve a place in mind for that brand (Keller, 1993). However, in order for this to happen, the customer is supposed to more or less have a certain experience regarding the brand. The highest level of brand awareness is the “top of mind” level. This level is accepted to be ideal by all enterprises and it is this level that contributes the increase of the brand equity the most. Brand awareness provides values for the enterprises in several ways. The primary values in question are as follows; (Aaker, 1991)

Effecting other brand associations, Providing familiarity and appreciation, Being an indicator of the brands’ substance and brand loyalty, Assisting in including the brand in the evaluation set of the customer. Brand awareness is the first step in communication with the customers. Brand awareness is a document that

is composed of phenomena and emotions of the customers regarding the brand and that is located in their minds. Without the file including this information all other communication efforts will remain inconclusive and moreover these efforts in questions will turn out to be an unnecessary and costly attempt. However if the brand awareness is assured, then new brand associations can be realized (Aaker, 1991).

One of the competitive advantages that are provided by brand awareness is the customer’s familiarity with

the brand and feeling appreciation for it. The customers appreciate the brands they are familiar with and they trust in these brands. For convenience goods such as soap or chewing gum, familiarity directs the purchase decision. In fact, taste tests of food products such as starched beverages or peanut butter spread show that the recognized brands affect the evaluation even if the products in question are not tried by the customer previously (Aaker, 1995).Brand awareness can at the same time be regarded as an indicator of brand loyalty. That is because the brand effect, which is described as the trust felt for the brand and the potential of the brand to stimulate a positive emotional reaction in the average customer as a consequence of using the brand, is the basic determinant of the brand loyalty. Trust in the brand creates very valuable exchange relationships between the brand and the customer; and as a result of these strong and positive emotional reactions that are developed, high levels of brand loyalty is assured (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001). Brand awareness also affects the decisions on the brand which are included in the evaluation set. For example, the customers’ acceptance of the decision rule for buying only familiar and well constructed brands could be regarded as an incident of this fact. Even if a well constructed consumer attitude does not exist, minimum level of brand awareness is sufficient for the preference of the product in the decision making process of the convenience goods (Keller, 1993).

PERCEIVED QUALITY

Another important dimension that constitutes the brand equity is the perceived quality. In general, perceived quality can be defined as “the customer’s extensive judgment of perfection or superiority about a product”. During the development of perceived quality process, the customer reaches a result by comparing his/her perceived service performance and his/her expectations. Therefore, the perceived quality is not the actual or objective quality of the product but the customer’s subjective evaluation of the product (Zeithaml, 1988). The perceived quality emerges as a result of customers’ comparing their perceptions and expectations. Primary values provided by the perceived quality to the enterprises in several ways are as follows; (Aaker, 1991)


Establishing reasons for purchase for the customers, Differentiating the brand from competitive brands and positioning the brand, Making it possible to charge high prices, Attracting the interest of distribution channel members, Making it possible for the brand to grow.

Determining what other brands to include in the customers’ evaluation processes or what other brands to

exclude from the evaluation set, and what brand it is that is going to be preferred, the perceived quality of a brand provides an actual reason for purchase for the customers. Apart from this, the perceived quality becomes the basic element that is directly affecting the purchase decision under circumstances where the customers do not have the motivation to make an objective evaluation regarding the quality, the information is inaccessible, and the customer does not have enough resources or skills to obtain information and analyze (Aaker, 1991). Perceived quality, at the same time, is used for differentiating a product for the purposes of obtaining higher market share; basic positioning characteristic of a brand is determined according to its position in the perceived quality dimension. Perceived quality becomes the foundation for differentiating the position of a brand within the categories of high price or prestige and a measure of the impact of the brand identity, which reflects the functional benefits related to the perceived quality, on the consumers. As the perceived quality develops, generally, other elements of the customers’ perceptions regarding the brand also develop (Aaker, 1996).

Perceived quality allows for high price implementation. High price increases the profitability and provides

resources for incorporating the brand with new properties. These resources may be used for developing awareness or utilized in brand building activities such as research and development (R&D) activities to improve the product. High price not only provides resources but also affects the perceived quality as well (Aaker, 1991). Perceived quality is also important for retailers, distributors, and other channel members. The products and services available in the line of products and services determine the image of a channel member and therefore offering high quality products is important for developing the images of the channel members. That is why, the channel members are willing to carry brands that are preferred by the customers and regarded good by the intermediary players (Aaker, 1991).

Perceived quality is used for brand expansions by using the brand’s name for entering into new product

categories. A strong brand with high perceived quality is able to expand more than another weak brand with low perceived quality and the efforts for expansion will lead to more successful outcomes. (Aaker, 1991) Products with high reputation and quality in a product line becomes an indicator of the quality of that product line for the customers and therefore they increase the prestige of the brand by making the customers think positively about the brand. These prestigious brands in the extensions of the product lines affect the perceptions of the customers about brand equity and quality; and they affect the purchasing process by assuring that the customers react to the prestigious brands in a more positive way .

BRAND ASSOCIATION

These are another important component of brand equity. Aaker describes brand association as “‘everything’ that belongs to any brand; that is related to the brand in the consumer’s mind” (Aaker, 1991). Keller defines brand association as “impressions based on other information that is related to the impressions created by the brand in the minds of consumers and that include the brand’s meaning for the consumers (Keller, 1993). Brand association’s being unique, strong, and superior have a great contribution in the establishment of the brand equity. The primary ones of several values provided by the brand associations to the enterprises are as follows; (Aaker, 1991)

Assisting in information processing and reminiscence, Differentiating and positioning the brand, Establishing reasons for purchase, Inducing positive attitudes and emotions, Providing expansion. Brand associations summarize the information to be processed in the consumer information process, which

could be difficultly processed especially by the consumers, and characteristics of the brand that could be explained only by difficult and expensive communication. In this sense the associations create compressed and summarized information that assists in the consumers’ recall process of the brand (Uztuğ, 1999). Briefly, brand associations assist the communicators in easier transfer of ideas and thoughts related to the brand that could be more difficult otherwise. Brand association also provides brand differentiation and brand positioning. A well-positioned brand provides that brand in question to be placed in a different location in the eyes of the consumers. Hence it provides an


important competitive advantage by differentiating the brand from its competitors and makes it difficult for the competitors to enter the market (Aaker, 1991). Brand associations include certain qualities and benefits that assure the brand to be used or preferred. These qualities and benefits establish a foundation for the purchase decisions and brand loyalty; and influence the purchase decisions by increasing the trust in the brand (Aaker, 1991). Brand associations assist in the establishment of positive attitudes and feelings in the consumers about the product categories in which the brand is present. Moreover, strong brand associations support the brand extension operations by providing concordance among new products developed by the enterprises and the current brand name (Aaker, 1991). APPLICATION OF A MEASURE DESIGNED FOR ASSESSING THE PERCEIVED BRAND EQUITY ON

BELLONA BRAND

The research is conducted on Bellona, which is one of the most recognized brands operating in the furniture industry. Bellona realizes an important part of its investments in Kayseri Organized Industry Zone. It has a total of 190,000 m2 closed production facility. Production of Bellona branded products is realized in four main facilities. These are “Boytas 1”, “Boytas 2”, “Boytas 3”, and “Bed and Household Textile" production facilities. Bellona has a total of 4,035 employees 3,778 of which are workers and the remaining 257 are administrative personnel (www.bellona.com.tr, accessed on June 25, 2009).

Bellona, which is an important brand in the furniture industry, is a brand operating in the preferential

products category. Like every other brand, Bellona too, aims at increasing its brand equity in the eyes of its customers. For this purpose, it is required to determine the factors affecting the brand equity in the first place, and then the brand equity should be assessed. In this study a measure for assessing the brand equity in the furniture industry will be developed and afterwards with the help of this measure Bellona’s brand equity will be assessed.

PURPOSE, SCOPE, AND LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

The primary goal of the study is to measure the brand equity and the factors affecting the brand equity of one of the leading brands of Turkey, namely Bellona, according to the perceptions of Bellona’s customers. Sub-goals determined based on this main purpose can be arranged as follows:

Developing a measure by adopting the variables used for brand equity assessment to the furniture industry, Determining whether a relationship between the factors affecting the brand equity and the demographic factors of the consumers exists

or not, Analyzing the cause-effect relationships within the factors affecting the brand equity, Analyzing the relationship between the factors affecting the brand equity and satisfaction level of the consumers which is one of the

sub-variables.

Bellona is a furniture brand with dealers all over Turkey. Considering the difficulty of conducting the research in entire Turkey in terms of cost and time, the research is conducted with the customers of Bellona’s dealers located in Istanbul. Bellona has a total of 170 dealers with 100 dealers on the European side of Istanbul and 70 dealers on the Asian side.

METHODOLOGY OF THE RESEARCH Preliminary Studies of the Research

Motivated by the idea that different industries may have different brand equity dimensions, it would be appropriate to develop different measures for each industry to measure the factors affecting the brand equity. For this purpose, utilizing focus group interview technique, it is aimed at establishing the dimensions regarding measurement of brand equity in the furniture industry. Focus group interviews are not based on certain forms, they are carried out as a natural meeting where few numbers of participants can find the opportunity to interact with each other freely. Here the main purpose is to determine the views and suggestions of the participants about the matter to be discussed. Focus group interviews are generally composed of at least three groups and each group has participants that have similar characteristics. The size of the group is about 8-12 people; group meetings are held on predetermined dates and last about 1-3 hours. The interviews are facilitated by a moderator. It is possible to record the meetings on audio and video tapes or as notes, and sometimes mirrors are also used during the process (Odabasi, 2004).

http://www.bellona.com.tr/�


In the research three groups are formed with nine people who have similar characteristics in accordance with the focus group interview technique. Each group included three managers, three customer advisors, and three customers. With this study, variables affecting the brand equity in the furniture industry are determined. The variables in question are given in Table 1.

TABLE 1: The Variables Affecting the Brand Equity in the Furniture Industry Dimensions of brand equity Correspondence in the furniture industry Brand loyalty Preferability of the brand

Recognizance of the brand Comparison with other brands Recommendability of the brand Price of the brand Satisfaction of consumer needs

Perceived quality Contentedness with the brand Quality of the brand Fashionability of the brand Modern appearance Utilization convenience After sales service

Brand Association Comfort of the products Different image Sensitivity to consumer complaints Fulfilling consumer requests Luxurious brand Ambiance brought to the house by the products

Brand awareness Noticeable signboards Recallable commercial jingle Recallable slogan Recallable brand Noticeable primary characteristics Distinguishable among other brands

Variables and Model of the Research

The variables used in the research are the variables related to the measurement of the brand equity and the variables regarding the socio-demographic attributes of the participants. The variables regarding the Brand Equity are as follows:

d1. Preferability of the brand d2. Recognizance of the brand d3. Comparison with other brands d4. Recommendability of the brand d5. Price of the brand d6. Satisfaction of consumer needs d7. Contentedness with the brand d8. Quality of the brand d9. Fashionability of the brand d10. Modern appearance d11. Utilization convenience d12. After sales service

- d13. Comfort of the products - d14. Different image - d15. Sensitivity to consumer complaints - d16. Fulfilling consumer requests - d17. Luxurious brand - d18. Ambiance brought to the house by the products - d19. Noticeable signboards - d20. Recallable commercial jingle - d21. Recallable slogan - d22. Recallable brand - d23. Noticeable primary characteristics - d24. Distinguishable among other brands

Variables related to the socio-demographic characteristics of the participants are as follows: Gender Age Family income Level of education Occupation

FIGURE 3: Model of the Research

As it could be understood from the model of the research (Figure 3), initially the factors affecting the brand equity will be determined. It is hypothesized that there exist a relationship between the factors affecting the brand


equity and the socio-demographic factors. Moreover, it is hypothesized that the factors affecting the brand equity would have an impact on the level of customer satisfaction. Method and Means of Data Collection

In the research, initially a secondary literature review is conducted to determine the methods and variables to be used for assessing the brand equity. In the secondary literature review it is observed that there exist some methods used for assessing the brand equity. In this research, Aaker’s method, which has been determined to be the most frequently used method for assessing the brand equity, is used. In the research, questionnaire surveys are used for data and information collection. The variables included in the questionnaire form are determined utilizing the variables decided in the focus group studies. Table 2 provides the variables and scales used in the questionnaire survey.

TABLE 2: Scales Used in the Research Variables Scale used Variables related to the brand equity 24 variables with 5 point Likert scale Socio-demographic attributes of the consumers 5 variables with nominal, interval, and ratio scales

Sampling Plan

All customers of Bellona dealers which are the subject of the research and located in Istanbul constitute the universe of the research. Because of time and cost limitations it was not possible to perform a complete count. Therefore sampling was required. In the sampling process, initially the sample size was determined. As it was already mentioned before, with a total of 170 dealers, Bellona has 100 dealers on the European side of Istanbul, and 70 dealers on the Asian side. A total of 60,000 customers exist in the customer records of Bellona dealers in Istanbul. Since it is most often impossible to know the standard deviation and variances in the population, these parameters are supposed to be estimated. It is far easier to do such an estimate over the ratios. Even if there is no a priori information about these ratios, (0.5 X 0.5 = 0.25) value, where is Π(1-Π) the highest, can be accepted as a basis. Because of all these reasons, the most frequently used sampling formula in the application stage is as follows: (Kurtulus, 1989)

n= Π (1- Π)/(e / z)2.

According to this formula, the sample size to be selected from 60,000 people should be 400 based on the maximum variance and the z value of 1.96 for 95% confidence interval. Since it is estimated that there could be differences among the dealers in terms of customer advisors and physical environments, stratified sampling is conducted. These samples, which are determined according to the ratio of customers that belong to the population in Istanbul - European side and Istanbul - Asian side, are determined by random sampling method. Considering the fact that it is not possible to reach the entire population, taking into account that there could be forms filled incompletely or erroneously, 1,000 people are included in the sample of the research in order to increase the confidence of the research. Two thousand questionnaires are distributed according to the ratios of the predetermined strata in the population. According to this, the data regarding the number of questionnaires that were distributed with respect to the determined sampling plan in 2 regions are summarized in Table 3. Data acquisition is conducted via e-mails.

Table 3: Number of Observations Obtained from the Questionnaires Region Number of

Questionnaires sent out

Number of Questionnaires received back

Number of incomplete or erroneous questionnaires

Number of valid and usable

questionnaires Istanbul – European side 588 498 24 474 Istanbul – Asian side 412 366 15 351 Total 1000 864 39

825

Data Analysis In the research, SPSS 12.0 software package is used for the analysis of the data. The methods used in the

analysis of the data are factor analysis, correlation analysis, and regression analysis. Factor analysis is conducted to determine the factors underlying the 24 variables used as brand equity variables. Moreover, Kendall correlation (since it is applicable to parametric and non-parametric data) analysis is conducted between the brand equity and socio-demographic attributes and Pearson correlation (since general satisfaction and perceived service are measured by interval scales, both of them are parametric) analysis is conducted between brand equity and the satisfaction level. Finally, regression analysis is utilized to determine the effect of factors, which determine the brand equity, on the brand equity.


Hypotheses of the Research Based on the research model presented in Figure 3, the hypotheses of the research could be explained as follows: Hypothesis 1:

H0: There is not

H1: There is a statistically significant relationship between the socio-demographic attributes of the customers and their perceived brand equity at α = 0.05 confidence level.

a statistically significant relationship between the socio-demographic attributes of the customers and their perceived brand equity at α = 0.05 confidence level.

Hypothesis 2: H0: There is not

H1: There is a statistically significant relationship between the customers’ perceived brand equity and their satisfaction level at α = 0.05 confidence level.

a statistically significant relationship between the customers’ perceived brand equity and their satisfaction level at α = 0.05 confidence level.

Hypothesis 3: H0: The factors affecting the brand equity do not

H1: The factors affecting the brand equity have a statistically significant impact on the perceived brand equity at α = 0.05 confidence level.

have a statistically significant impact on the perceived brand equity at α = 0.05 confidence level.

FINDINGS OF THE RESEARCH

Characteristics of the Participants

In Table 4 below, summary information is provided about gender, age, household income level, education status, and occupation of the 825 participants included in the research.

As it could be seen from Table 4, 49.1% of 825 participants are male and the remaining 50.9% are female.

As of household income, 5.2% of the participants have an income less than or equal to 500 TL, 31.2% have an income between 501 and 1,000 TL, 31% have an income between 1,001 and 1,500 TL, 18.5% have an income between 1,501 and 2,000 TL, and finally 14.1% have an income greater than or equal to 2,001 TL. When the education status is analyzed; it is observed that 16.1% of the participants are graduated from primary school, 18.2% are graduated from secondary school, 39.3% are graduated from high school, 20.8% have an undergraduate degree, 4.5% have a master’s degree, and finally 1.1% have a doctorate degree. When the occupations of the participants of the research are analyzed, 7.5% of them are government employees, 15.6% are workers, 31% are private sector employees, 7% are retired, 15.8% are self-employed, 6.1% are students, and finally 17% are housewives.

TABLE 4: Frequency Distributions Frequency Percentage

Gender Male 405 49.1 Female 420 50.9

Age Ages of the participants of the research change between 20 and 65. The first five age groups with the highest frequency are 20 with 5.8%, 30 with 5.7%, 38 with 4.8%, 40 with 4.6%, and 25 with 4.6%, respectively.

Household Income Level

500 TL or less 43 5.2 501-1000 TL 257 31.2 1001-1500 TL 256 31 1501-2000 TL 153 18.5 2001 or above TL 116 14.1

Education

Primary school 133 16.1 Secondary school 150 18.2 High school 324 39.3 Undergraduate 172 20.8 Master’s 37 4.5 Doctorate 9 1.1

Occupation

Government employee 62 7.5 Worker 129 15.6 Private sector 256 31 Retired 58 7 Self-employed 130 15.8 Student 50 6.1 Housewife 140 17


Factor Analysis Regarding the Brand Equity In the research, factor analysis is conducted to determine the factors underlying the measure prepared for

the brand equity which is composed of 24 variables. Factor analysis is a multi-variate statistical analysis type which is interested in the reciprocal interrelations among all variables. One of the most important goals of factor analysis is to search for the source of reciprocal dependence among the variables (Kurtulus, 1998). Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett test results obtained by the conducted factor analysis are given in Table 5:

TABLE 5: Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin and Barlett’s Test Results Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (measure of sampling adequacy) 0.95 Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approximate Chi-Square 8723.73

df 276 Significance 0.00

According to Table 5, KMO test tells us that the sampling adequacy is 0.95, in other words, for example, it

is adequate for conducting factor analysis. The chi-square value obtained in the Bartlett’s test is 8723.73 and α = 0.000. These test results indicate that factor analysis is applicable.

As a result of the factor analysis, 4 factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 are detected. These factors are

summarized in Table 6. With a value of 55.71%, total explained variance is greater than the desired 0.5 value. Moreover the reliability of the measure is at a high value such as 93.1%. The reliability of a measure is related to the internal consistency of the variables included in the measure. In the reliability analysis, Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Coefficient is commonly used. If the Alpha Coefficient found using this method is between 0.8 and 1.00 then the developed measure is highly reliable, if the coefficient is between 0.6 and 0.8 then the measure is considerably reliable, if it is between 0.4 and 0.6 then the reliability of the measure is low, and if it is between 0.00 and 0.4 then the measure is not reliable at all (Alpar, 2003). Also, the results of the reliability analysis are given in Table 7.

TABLE 6: The Results of the Factor Analysis Conducted for the Brand Equity of Bellona*

Brand Equity Dimensions and Variables for Bellona Factor Loadings

Factor 1 – Brand Image (d1) Bellona’s being the first preference 0.69 (d2) Bellona’s being a well-known brand 0.76 (d3) Bellona’s being preferred over other brands 0.62 (d4) Recommending Bellona to others 0.64 (d6) Satisfaction from Bellona 0.46 (d7) Quality of Bellona 0.50 (d8) Fashionability of Bellona 0.47 (d9) Modern appearance of Bellona 0.48

Factor 2 – Perceived Quality (d10) Utilization convenience of Bellona 0.45 (d11) Comfort of Bellona 0.44 (d12) Quality of Bellona in after sale services 0.64 (d13) Different image of Bellona from other brands 0.52 (d14) Sensitivity of Bellona to consumer complaints 0.78 (d15) Bellona’s fulfilling consumer requests 0.73 (d16) Bellona’s being a luxurious brand 0.53 (d17) Ambiance brought to houses by Bellona products 0.45

Factor 3 – Brand Awareness (d18) Noticeability of Bellona stores’ signboards 0.59 (d19) Recallability of Bellona’s commercial jingle 0.79 (d20) Recallability of Bellona’s commercial slogan 0.78 (d21) Bellona’s products’ fulfilling the needs 0.58

Factor 4 – Brand Loyalty (d5) Continue to use even if Bellona increases its price 0.74 (d22) Bellona’s being top of mind brand in the furniture industry 0.51 (d23) Recall Bellona’s primary characteristics 0.62 (d24) Distinguish Bellona among other brands 0.48 * Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization; Number of Iterations: 9 Total Variance Explained: % 55.71 / Reliability of the Measure: % 93.

Reliability analyses of the measures that belong to the factors constituting the brand equity according to the factor analysis are given in Table 7. The reliability of the measure which belongs to the brand equity is 0.931.


Cronbach’s Alpha value is suggested to be 0.70 for descriptive research studies. All factors are above this value. Within this context, the measures are considerably reliable. Analysis of the Relationship between the Socio-Demographic Attributes of the Customers and the Perceived Brand Equity

In this section, it is investigated whether a statistically significant relationship between the socio-demographic attributes of the customers who participated in the research and their perceived brand equity exists at α = 0.05 confidence level or not. In other words, 1st Hypothesis is tested. The hypothesis is as follows:

H0: There is not

H1: There is a statistically significant relationship between the customers’ socio-demographic attributes and their perceived brand equity at α = 0.05 confidence level.

a statistically significant relationship between the customers’ socio-demographic attributes and their perceived brand equity at α = 0.05 confidence level.

TABLE 7: The Reliability Analysis Results of the Factors

The Factor Affecting the Brand Equity Cronbach’s Alpha Brand Image 0.85 Perceived Quality 0.85 Brand Awareness 0.80 Brand Loyalty 0.74

The socio-demographic variables to be analyzed in this hypothesis are gender, age, household income level,

education status, and occupation. Whether there exist a statistically significant relationship between the customers’ socio-demographic attributes and their perceived brand equity at α = 0.05 confidence level or not is analyzed by using Kendall Correlation (since it is applicable to parametric and non-parametric data) analysis.

TABLE 8: The relationship between the Perceived Quality and Gender Gender

Perceived Brand Equity Correlation coefficient -.017 Significance level (Two sided) .550

As it could be seen from Table 8, there is not a statistically significant relationship between the perceived

brand equity and gender at α = 0.05 confidence level. Under this circumstance, H0 is accepted and H1 is rejected.

TABLE 9: The relationship between the Perceived Quality and Age Age

Perceived Brand Equity Correlation coefficient .011 Significance level (Two sided) .653

As it could be seen from Table 9, there is not a statistically significant relationship between the perceived

brand equity and age at α = 0.05 confidence level. Under this circumstance, H0 is accepted and H1 is rejected.

TABLE 10: The relationship between the Perceived Quality and Household Income Level Household Income Level


As it could be seen from Table 10, there is not a statistically significant relationship between the perceived brand

equity and household income level at α = 0.05 confidence level. Under this circumstance, H0 is accepted and H1 is rejected.

TABLE 11: The relationship between the Perceived Quality and Education Status Education Status


As it could be seen from Table 11, there is not a statistically significant relationship between the perceived brand

equity and education status at α = 0.05 confidence level. Under this circumstance, H0 is accepted and H1 is rejected.

TABLE 12: The relationship between the Perceived Quality and Occupation Occupation



As it could be seen from Table 12, there is not a statistically significant relationship between the perceived brand equity and occupation at α = 0.05 confidence level. Under this circumstance, H0 is accepted and H1 is rejected.

In conclusion, there is not a statistically significant relationship between the customers’ socio-demographic

attributes and their perceived brand equity at α = 0.05 confidence level. In other words, H0 is accepted and H1 is rejected. Analysis of the Relationship between the Perceived Brand Equity of Customers and the Level of Satisfaction

In this section, it is investigated whether a statistically significant relationship between the perceived brand equity of the customers who participated in the research and their perceived level of satisfaction exists at α = 0.05 confidence level or not. In other words, 2nd Hypothesis is tested. The hypothesis is as follows:

H0: There is not

H1: There is a statistically significant relationship between the perceived brand equity of the consumers and their satisfaction level at α = 0.05 confidence level.

a statistically significant relationship between the perceived brand equity of the consumers and their satisfaction level at α = 0.05 confidence level.

TABLE 13: The relationship between the Perceived Quality and Satisfaction Level

Satisfaction Level


According to the Pearson Correlation (since the general satisfaction and the perceived service quality are

measured with interval scales) Analysis given in Table 13, there is a statistically significant positive relationship between the perceived brand equity and the satisfaction level at α = 0.01 confidence level. As the perceived brand equity increase the satisfaction level increases as well, or as their perceived brand equity decreases, the satisfaction level decreases. Therefore, H0 that belongs to the 2nd hypothesis is rejected and H1 is accepted. According to this result, the improvements regarding the perceived brand equity will be positively reflected upon the satisfaction level of the customers. Analysis of the Cause-Effect Relations between the Perceived Brand Equity and the Factors Affecting the Brand Equity

In this section, it is investigated whether the factors affecting the brand equity have a statistically significant positive impact on the brand equity at α = 0.05 confidence level or not. In other words, 3rd Hypothesis is tested. The hypothesis is as follows:

H0: The factors affecting the brand equity do not

H1: The factors affecting the brand equity have a statistically significant positive impact on the brand equity α = 0.05 confidence level.

have a statistically significant positive impact on the brand equity α = 0.05 confidence level.

TABLE 14: The Effect of Brand Image on Brand Equity

Variables B Std. Error Beta t Level of Significance

Constant 0.66 0.05 12.18 0.00 (d1) Bellona’s being the first preference 0.10 0.01 0.18 9.32 0.00 (d2) Bellona’s being a well-known brand 0.05 0.01 0.08 4.10 0.00 (d3) Bellona’s being preferred compared to other brands 0.10 0.01 0.15 7.70 0.00 (d4) Recommending Bellona to others 0.10 0.01 0.16 8.07 0.00 (d6) Satisfaction with Bellona 0.12 0.01 0.18 9.68 0.00 (d7) Quality of Bellona 0.12 0.01 0.18 9.21 0.00 (d8) Fashionability of Bellona 0.11 0.01 0.17 8.54 0.00 (d9) Modern Appearance of Bellona 0.13 0.01 0.20 10.26 0.00

R= 0.91 R2= 0.82 F= 463.82 Level of Significance = 0.00

As it could be seen from Table 14, eight independent variables that constitute the brand image has an explanatory power of R2= 82% in explaining the brand equity which is the dependent variable. According to the regression coefficient (Beta) modern appearance of Bellona is at the first place in the order of importance for the brand image on the brand equity, while Bellona’s being a well-known brand is in the last place in order of importance. According to the t test results that explain the significance of the coefficients, modern appearance of


Bellona is the variable that has the most positive impact on the brand equity, while Bellona’s being a well-known brand is the variable with the lowest impact on the brand equity.

TABLE 15: The Effect of Perceived Quality on Brand Equity Variables B Std. Error Beta t Level of

Significance Constant 0.57 0.05 11.02 0.00

(d10) Utilization convenience of Bellona 0.13 0.01 0.20 10.48 0.00 (d11) Comfort of Bellona 0.12 0.01 0.18 9.50 0.00 (d12) Quality of Bellona’s after sale service 0.08 0.01 0.14 7.75 0.00 (d13) Bellona’s image different from other brands 0.12 0.01 0.18 10.23 0.00 (d14) Bellona’s sensitivity to consumer complaints 0.07 0.01 0.11 5.48 0.00 (d15) Bellona’s fulfilling consumer requests 0.10 0.01 0.15 7.64 0.00 (d16) Bellona’s being a luxurious brand 0.09 0.01 0.14 8.18 0.00 (d17) Ambiance brought to the house by Bellona products 0.13 0.01 0.20 11.61 0.00


As it could also be seen from Table 15, the explanatory power of the eight independent variables that constitute the perceived quality in explaining the dependent variable, which is the brand equity, is R2= 83%.

TABLE 16: The Effect of Brand Awareness on Brand Equity Variables B Std. Error Beta t Level of


(d18) Notice Bellona stores’ signboards 0.19 0.02 0.31 11.76 0.00 (d19) Recall Bellona’s commercial jingle 0.08 0.02 0.12 4.06 0.00 (d20) Recall Bellona’s commercial slogan 0.11 0.02 0.19 6.26 0.00 (d21) Bellona products fulfill the needs 0.26 0.02 0.38 14.66 0.00


According to the regression coefficient (Beta), the ambiance brought to the house by Bellona products and the utilization convenience of Bellona are the most important factors on the brand equity, while Bellona’s sensitivity to consumer complaints is in the last place in order of importance. According to the results of the t test which indicate the significance of regression coefficients, ambiance brought to the house by Bellona products is the variable that has the most positive impact on the brand equity, while sensitivity of Bellona to consumer complaints is the least effective variable. As it could be seen from Table 16 as well, the explanatory power of four independent variables that constitute the brand awareness on the brand equity, which is the dependent variable, is R2= 62%. According to the regression coefficient (Beta), in the order of importance of the variables that constitute the brand awareness on the brand equity, Bellona products’ fulfilling the needs is in the first place, while recalling Bellona’s commercial jingle is in the last place. According to the results of the t test which indicate the significance of regression coefficients, the variable with the highest level of effect in the positive direction is Bellon a products’ fulfilling the needs, while the least effective variable is recalling Bellona’s commercial jingle.

TABLE 17: The Effect of Brand Loyalty on Brand Equity Variables B Std. Error Beta t Level of


(d5) Continue to use even if Bellona increases its price 0.08 0.01 0.17 7.29 0.00 (d22) Bellona’s being top of mind brand in the furniture industry 0.22 0.02 0.36 13.39 0.00 (d23) Recall Bellona’s primary characteristics 0.13 0.02 0.21 7.37 0.00 (d24) Distinguish Bellona among other brands 0.17 0.02 0.28 10.14 0.00


As it could as well be seen from Table 17, the explanatory power of four independent variables that constitute the brand loyalty on the brand equity, which is the dependent variable, is R2= 64%. According to the regression coefficient (Beta), in the order of importance of the variables that constitute the brand loyalty on the brand equity, Bellona’s being top of mind brand in the furniture industry is in the first place, while continuing to use even if Bellona increases its price is in the last place. According to the results of the t test which indicate the significance of regression coefficients, the variable with the highest level of effect in the positive direction is Bellona’s being top of mind brand in the furniture industry, while the least effective variable is continuing to use even if Bellona increases its price.


In conclusion, all the factors that have an impact on the brand equity have a statistically significant positive impact on the brand equity at α = 0.05 confidence level. Therefore, H0 that belongs to the 3rd hypothesis is rejected and H1 is accepted.

CONCLUSIONS and FURTHER SUGGESTIONS

Currently the enterprises are in a continuous effort to stay successful and be profitable in the extensive competition environment. For this reason, the enterprises need several elements in every area which would help them to differentiate themselves from their competitors. One of these elements that could provide advantage in this extensive competition is differentiation of products and services. Brand equity becomes an important element for being able to establish the differentiation regarding the products and services and being able to have an advantage in the competition. In order to understand how much advantage would be provided to the enterprises by the brand equity, it is necessary to assess the brand equity. There are 2 methods used in the assessment process of brand equity. These are financial methods and the methods based on consumer behavior. In the studies that have been done previously, brand equity is sometimes assessed based on one of these methods, and sometimes it is measured taking into account both methods. In this research the brand equity is assessed using the method based on consumer behavior for one of the leading furniture brands in Turkey, namely Bellona by a questionnaire survey conducted on the customers of Bellona furniture brand. In the study, motivated by the idea that there could be different variables affecting the brand equity in different industries, the variables affecting the brand equity are determined by focus group interviews and 24 variables were revealed to be affecting the brand equity in the furniture industry.

By the help of the data obtained as a result of the questionnaire survey conducted with the customers, factor

analysis is conducted to detect the underlying factors that affect the brand equity in the furniture industry. Cronbach’s Alpha obtained as a result of the reliability analysis regarding the factors is attained to be 0.93 and it is concluded that the factor model has a high reliability. The total variance explained by four factors obtained from the research is 56%. This value is above the desired 50% value. Moreover, these results indicate that this measure could be used in other research studies on the brand equity that could be realized in the furniture industry.

In the research, initially, it is investigated whether a statistically significant relationship between the socio-

demographic attributes of the customers and their perceived brand equity exists at α = 0.05 confidence level or not. As it could be seen from Tables 8-12 as well, there is not a statistically significant relationship between the socio-demographic attributes, which are gender, age, household income, education status, and occupation, and the perceive brand equity at α = 0.05 confidence level. Under this circumstance H0 is accepted and H1 is rejected. In other words, the perceived brand equity is independent of socio-demographic attributes. In the 2nd hypothesis which is another hypothesis, it is investigated whether a statistically significant relationship between the perceived brand equity of the customers and their satisfaction level exists at α = 0.05 confidence level or not. As it could also be seen from Table 13, there is a statistically significant relationship the perceived brand equity and the satisfaction level in the positive direction between at α = 0.05 confidence level. Therefore, the H0 that belongs to the 2nd hypothesis is rejected and H1 is accepted. According to this result, the improvements to be conducted on the perceived brand equity will be reflected upon the satisfaction level of the consumers in a positive way. In the 3rd hypothesis which is also the last hypothesis of the research, it is investigated whether the factors affecting the brand equity have a statistically significant and positive impact on the brand equity at α = 0.05 confidence level or not. In Table 14 R2= 82%, in Table 15 R2= 83%, in Table 16 R2= 62%, and finally in Table 17 R2= 64%. Therefore, all factors affecting the brand equity have a statistically significant positive impact on the brand equity at α = 0.05 confidence level. Under this circumstance H0 that belongs to the 3rd hypothesis is rejected and H1 is accepted. In other words, the factors affecting the brand equity have a positive impact on the perceived brand equity.

Within this context, we could infer the following conclusions and suggestions; In accordance with the research of Aaker (1991) which was realized in another industry, four factors

(perceived quality, brand image, brand loyalty, and brand awareness) have emerged in furniture industry as well and it has been detected that, being different from Aaker’s research, “perceived quality” factor of these factors is the most effective factor on the brand equity. It could be concluded from here that in different industries other factors may emerge to have impact on the brand equity and the level of impact of these factors on the brand equity may be different.


In this research conducted, it is observed that not only the perceived quality but also all other factors have a positive impact on the brand equity. Therefore, the managers working in the furniture industry are supposed to work on primarily increasing the perceived quality, together with other factors such as brand image, brand awareness, and brand loyalty respectively. Because, if these factors are managed successfully, then the perceived brand equity of the customers increase; and hence the enterprises benefit from the advantages brought by the high brand value. Within this context, the managers, should review their marketing strategies and goals under the light of factors that contribute to the brand equity and rebuild them for the success of these factors.

REFERENCES Aaker, David A. 1991. Managing Brand Equity. New York, The Free Press. Aaker, David A. 1995. Strategic Market Management. New York, Fourth Edition, John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Aaker, David A. 1996. Building Strong Brands. New York, The Free Press. Alpar, Reha. 2003. Uygulamalı Çok Değiskenli İstatistiksel Yöntemlere Giriş 1 (Introduction to Applied Multivariate Statistical Methods 1).

Extended 2nd Edition, Ankara, Nobel Publication Distribution. Atılgan, Eda and Akıncı, Serkan. 2005. Determinants of the Brand Equity: A Verification Approach in the Beverage Industry in Turkey,

Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol.23, No:2/3: 237-248. Baldauf, Artur, Baldauf, S. Karen, and Binder, Gudrun. 2003. Performance Consequences of Brand Equity Management: Evidence from

Organizations in the Value Chain. Journal of Product&Brand Management, Vol.12, No.4: 220-234. Bennett, Rebekah and Rundle Thiele, Sharyn.2002. A Comparison of Attitudinal Loyalty Measurement Approaches. Brand Mangemen, Vol.9,

No:3: 193-209. Chaudhuri, Arjun and Holbrook, Morris B. 2001. The Chain of Effects from Brand Trust and Brand Affect to Performance: The Role of Brand

Loyalty. Journal of Marketing, Vol.65, No:2: 81-93. Dick, Alan. S, and Basu, Kunal.1994. Customer Loyalty: Integrated Conceptual Framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Scienc,

Vol.22, No:2: 99-113. Kaya, Yusuf. 2006. The Need for Brand Valuation and Brand Valuation Methods. Marketing World, November-December, Year:20, Issue: 6: 47-

54. Keller, Kevin Lane. 1993. Conceptualizing, Measuring and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity. Journal of Marketing, Vol.57, January: 1-

22. Kotler, Philip and Armstrong, Gary. 2006: Principles of Marketing. Eleventh Ed., New Jersey, Pearson Educational Inc., Upper Saddle River. Kurtuluş, Kemal. 1989. Isletmelerde Arastirma Yontembilimi (Research Methods). Istanbul, Faculty of Management Publication No: 210,

Institute of Business and Economy Publication No:106 Kurtulus, Kemal. 1998: Pazarlama Arastirmalari (Marketing Research). Istanbul, Extended 6th Ed., Management Faculty Publication No: 274,

Institute of Business and Economy Publication No: 406 Marangoz, Mehmet 2007A. A Research on Measurement of Brand Value based on Consumer Behavior. Advice Journal, June,V.7; Issue:28: 87-

96. Marangoz, Mehmet 2007B. The Impact of Brand Equity Perceptions on Brand Deployment. Aegean Academic View, Vol: 7(2): 459-483. Matthiesen, Insa and Phau, Ian. 2005. The HUGO BOSS Connection: Achieving Global Brand Consistency Across Countries. Journal of Brand

Management, Vol.12, No:5, June: 325-338. Odabaşı, Yavuz. 2004. Consumer Relations Management in Sales and Marketing. 4th Ed., Istanbul, Sistem Publications Oliver, Richard L. 1997. Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. McGraw Hill, New York, NY. Reichheld, Frederick F. 1996. The Loyalty Effect: The Hidden Force Behind Growth, Profits and Lasting Value, Boston, Bain & Company Inc. Simon, Carol J. and Sullivan, Mary W. 1993. The Measurement and Determinants of Brand Equity: A Financial Approach. Marketing Science,

Vol.12, Issue 1, Winter: 28-52. Pappu, Ravi, Quester, Pascale G., and Cooksey, Ray W. 2005. Consumer-Based Brand Equity: Improving the Measurement-Empirical Evidence.

The Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol.14, No:2/3: 143-154. Pickton, David and Broderick, Amanda. 2001. Integrated Marketing Communication. Pearson Education Ltd., Edinburgh Gate, England. Thiele, Sharyn Rundle, and Mackay, Marisa Maio. 2001. Assessing the Performance of Brand Loyalty Measures. Journal of Services Marketing,

Vol.15, No:7: 529-546. Uztuğ, Ferruh. 1999. Brand Building Strategies in Advertisements and their Applications. Eskisehir Anadolu University, Communication

Division, Unpublished PhD Thesis, October. Yoo, Boonghee, Donthu, Naveen, and Lee, Sungho. 2000. An Examination of Selected Marketing Mix Elements and Brand Equity. Academy of

Marketing Science, Vol.28, No.2, Spring: 195-211. www.bellona.com.tr, accessed on 25 June 2009. Zeithaml, Valarie. 1988. Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality and Value: A Means-End Model Synthesis of Evidence. Journal of Marketing,

Vol.52, July: 2-22. Walgren, Cathy J.Cobb, Ruble Cynthia A and Donthu Naveen.1995. Brand Equity, Brand Prefence and Purchase Intent. Journal of Advertising, Vol.24, No: 3: 25-40.

http://www.bellona.com.tr/�

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

CUSTOMERS' PERCEIVED BRAND EQUITY AND A RESEARCH ON THE CUSTOMERS OF BELLONA

Documents

Transcript of CUSTOMERS' PERCEIVED BRAND EQUITY AND A RESEARCH ON THE CUSTOMERS OF BELLONA