The Effect of Marketing Communications on Customer Based Brand Equity

7/17/2019 The Effect of Marketing Communications on Customer Based Brand Equity

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-effect-of-marketing-communications-on-customer-based-brand-equity 1/13

Mu’ ani L., 2015. The Effect of Marketing Communications on Customer Based Brand Equity. International Journal of Online Marketing Research, 1(1), pp.13-25

International Journal of Online Marketing Research |Volume 1| Issue 1 | September 2015 [13]

International Journal of Online Marketing Research

www.ijomr.org

ARTICLE

The Effect of Marketing Communications on

Customer Based Brand Equity

Asst. Prof. Dr. Lu ’ay Al- Mu’ani

Department of Marketing, Jadara University, Jordan

ARTICLE INFO

Doi: 10.5455/IJOMR.2015201695

Keywords:

Customer based brand equity,

CBBE,

Brand awareness,

Brand associations,

Brand loyalty,

Brand attachment,

Perceived quality,Brand trust,

Mobile phones,

Jordan

Article History:

Received | 20 July 2015

Accepted | 4 August 2015

Published | September 2015

Corresponding Author

Asst. Prof. Dr. Lu’ay Mu’ani

Department of Marketing,

Jadara University, Jordan

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study is to determine the effects of customer based

brand equity dimensions that only generated through marketing

communications on customer based brand equity in the Jordanian market

for mobile phones. 471 self-administrative questionnaires were analyzed

through structural equation modeling to test hypotheses. The results of the

analyses showed that brand associations, brand awareness, brand loyalty,

and perceived quality have significant effects on customer based brand

equity. However, brand trust and brand attachments have no significant

effects. This research contributes by developing a valid and reliable model

of brand equity’s dimensions as and output of marketing communications

and their effects on customer based brand equity, while also giving theopportunities for marketers to know how the consumers perceive the

marketing communications. And also it opens doors for new researches to

study why trust and attachments as an output of marketing

communications do not actually affecting customer based brand equity.

INTRODUCTION

The role of brands has changed over the years; it is

no longer seen as just differentiation tool. It plays a

vital role for organization’s success. Market value

nowadays calculated by intangible values of the

brand (Ahmad & Thyagaraj, 2014).

Many scholars illustrated the importance of the

concept to the firms. (Farquhar, 1989) argues that

brand equity gives competitive advantage to firms; it

helps companies to get over turbulences they face. In

addition, it puts barriers for competitors to enter the

market. Also, brand equity the brand equity of a

successful brand secure the way for new brand

extensions with lesser costs (Chun el al., 2014; Pitta

& Katsanis, 1995). In addition, high brand equity

gives companies the ability to charge premium prices

for the products and services; communication efforts





become more valuable (Bendixen, Bukasa, and

Abratt 2004).

The purpose of this study is to determine the effects

of brand equity dimensions as an output of marketing

communications on customer based brand equity for

different demographic groups in the Jordanian market

for mobile phones.

Research questions

Q1: Do trust, association, attachment, loyalty,

awareness, and perceived quality generated ONLY

through marketing communications (regardless of

any other factors) have an effect on the customer

based brand equity?

Perceived Quality

TMC

Brand Awareness

TMC

Brand Loyalty TMC

Brand Association

TMC

Brand

Attachment

TMC

Brand Trust TMC

Customer BasedBrand Equity

Figure 1 Research model

Notes: TMC abbreviation to (Through Marketing Communications)

Variable Description

Customer Based Brand Equity a, The value consumers hold to a brand, and the perception of the overall

advantage of a product holding a brand name comparative to other

brands

Brand awareness TMC a the capability of a consumer to recognize or recall that a brand is a

member of particular product category

Perceived quality TMC a The customer’s perception that the brand offers better quality for the

products and/or services, in comparative to competing brands

Brand association TMC a Everything related inside memory for the brand

Brand Loyalty TMCa

The connection that customers hold to the brand. It is the essence of a

brand’s equity

Attachment TMC b Developing an emotional affection with brands

Brand Trust TMC b The belief of consumers to rely on the brand to perform its stated

function

*TMC is abbreviation to (Through Marketing Communications)

Sources: Based on Literature review: a Aaker (1991); b Lassar et al. (1995)

Table 1 Conceptual framework for the study





Hypotheses

H1. The dimensions (H1a) brand associations, (H1b)

brand trust, (H1c) brand attachment, (H1d) brand

awareness, (H1e) brand loyalty, (H1f) perceived

quality generated through marketing communications

positively affects customer based brand equity.

LITERATURE REVIEWBrand equity has been described as the added value

of the brand to the products (Farquhar, 1989). Price

competition and rivalry between companies have put

a pressure to managers to find better ways to increase

brand equity towards brands (Myers 2003).

(Farquhar, 1989) argues that brand equity gives

competitive advantage to firms; it gives the base for

developing new products, also helps companies to get

over turbulences they face. In addition, put barriers

for competitors to enter the market.

Brand equity has been illustrated in both marketingand finance literatures (Ahmad & Butt (2012); Wood,

2000). The driver to study brand equity from the

point of finance is to estimate the financial market

value of the company by pulling out the value of

brand equity from the value of a firm's other assets,

especially in the case for mergers and acquisition

(Keller, 1993). While from looking to brand equity

from marketing point, the goal is to increase

marketing productivity by understanding consumers’

behavior and what knowledge they have towards the

brand.

(Ahmad and Butt, 2012) argue that Financial BasedBrand Equity is the outcome of consumers’

perceptions on brands. As a result, identifying the

roots that produce positive brand related perception is

more important than measuring its financial

outcomes. Also Keller (1993) added that financial

valuation has little relevance if no value for the brand

has been created in consumers’ minds or when

managers don’t harvest brands’ value by developing

profitable brand strategies.

Therefore, the study focused on the Customer Based

Brand Equity as the main variable of the research by

illustrating the different definitions and dimensions

of CBBE.

Customer Based Brand EquityOver the last three decades, consumer based brand

equity (CBBE) still an important research topic for

academics and a practicing ground for brand

managers around the world (Ahmad & Butt 2012;

Ahmad & Thyagaraj ,2014). The roots of the concept

Customer based brand equity derived from the

psychology (Christodoulides and Chernatony, 2010).

Categorization of customer based brand equity fillsinto two categories: Customer perceptions -such as

awareness, brand associations, or perceived quality-

and the other category focus in -consumer behavior -

loyalty and word of mouth- (Ahmad & Butt, 2012).

However, the main driver of the behavioral actions of

the consumers is driven by their perceptions of the

brand. Hence, loyalty and purchase intentions

describe the existence of equity (Buil , Chernatony,

and Martínez, 2008).

Various studies described different aspects of

customer based brand equity. There is no agreeddefinition of brand equity in both financial and

marketing literature (Burmann et al. (2009);

Christodoulides & Chernatony, 2010). Table 2.3

illustrated the existing definitions of brand equity.

Author(s) Definition of Brand Equity

Farquhar (1989) “the added value with which a given brand endows a product”

Aaker (1991)

“A set of brand assets and liabilities linked to a brand, its name and

symbol, that add to or subtract from the value provided by a product or

service to a firm and/or to that firm’s customers”

Keller (1993)“The differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the

marketing of the brand”

Lassar et al. (1995) “The enhancement in perceived utility and desirability a brand nameconfers on a product”

Burmann et al. (2009)“Present and future valorization derived from internal and external

brand-induced performance”

Table 2 Definitions of Brand Equity

There is no agreed definition among researchers on a

unified definition on brand equity. However, they all

sail in the sphere of adding (subtracting) value to

consumers or/and firms. Keller (1993) differentiates

the definition in pointing to consumer responses to





marketing mix based on their knowledge about the

brand (awareness and brand image).Dimensions of Customer Based Brand Equity

Aaker (1991) is one of the pioneers whom

conceptualize the concept. His model is the bedrock

of the developing the measurement of most studies

for successor researchers.

Customer BasedBrand Equity

Perceived

QualityBrand

AwarenessBrand Loyalty

Brand

AssociationOther Proprietary

Brand Assets

Figure 2 Aaker (1991) Customer Based Brand Equity model

Aaker (1991) combined both of perceptions and

behavioral dimensions. He argued that customer

based brand equity is a component of: 1) awareness

2) associations 3) perceived quality 4) loyalty 5)

other proprietary brand assets such as trademarks and

patents. However, following researchers dropped the

fifth dimension, because it is not related to the

consumers’ perceptions (Buil et al., 2008). Therefore,

the fifth dimension of Aakers’ model has been

dropped for this research.

Customer Based

Brand Equity

Value PerformanceSocial Image Attachment Trustworthiness

Figure 3 Lassar et al. (1995) Customer Based Brand Equity model

Lassar et al. (1995) developed a customer based

brand equity model with five dimensions 1)

trustworthiness 2) attachment 3) performance 4)

social image 5) value. Two dimensions (Brand Trust

and Brand Attachment) were added to the dissertation

model taken from Lassar et al. (1995).

Brand AwarenessWhen taking each dimension of CBBE; Awareness is

a key determinant identified in almost all brand

equity models (Y.L & Lee, 2011). Brand awareness

is the capability for consumers to recognize or recall

that a brand name is one of a specific product

category (Aaker, 1991; Keller 1993). It varies from

unrecognizing the brand, to thinking that it is the only

brand in that class (Aaker, 1991). Consumers are

easier to notice strong brands and the frequency of

advertising of strong brands may lead to favorable

associations in consumers’ mind (Hoeffler and

Keller, 2003).

Brand Associations

According to Aaker (1991) brand association is

anything in consumers’ mind linked to the brand.

And it has level of strength as well. That strength

increases by actual experience with a brand or

exposure to communications. The cumulative set of

associations will develop a brand image and meaning

in the consumers’ mind (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993).

These associations and image may not reflect a true

reality of a brand, but if they are favorable they can

gives advantages to the brand over other competing

brands. (Aaker, 1991).

Perceived QualityPerceived quality is one of the crucial dimensions of

brand equity (Aaker, 1996; Atilgan et al., 2009;

Lassar et al., 1995). It is important because it reduce

the perceived risk for consumers (Atilgan et al.,

2009). Also it gives consumers a reason to buy, and it

is associated with the purchase decision (Aaker,1991). Shabbir and Rehman (2013) state that

quality’s part for consumer’s buying decision making

process is vital when it comes to buy any branded

products or services. Brands with high perceived

quality can make marketing programs more powerful.

The likelihood of effective advertising and promotion

will be higher for brands with high perceived quality

(Aaker, 1991). (Keller, 1993) argues that perceived





quality is the most important factor for consume rs’

attitudes towards the brands. Those attitudes

embodied in perceive value and consumers’

satisfaction.

Brand Loyalty

Customer loyalty plays a key role in an

organization’s long term success (Li & Green, 2010;

Nam, Ekinci, & Whyatt, 2011). Brand loyalty exists

as a dimension in many brand choice models (Shum,

2004). Furthermore, retaining current customers cost

five times less than acquiring new ones (Kotler &

Keller, 2006). Most research points to consumer

loyalty from two perspectives: behavioral loyalty and

attitudinal loyalty (Nam et al., 2011). Behavioral

loyalty refers to frequency of repeat purchase, while

attitudinal loyalty is psychological pledge from

consumers in the act of purchasing, such as the

intentions to purchase or be part of word of mouth

marketing by voluntary recommend the brand to

others without actually repurchase the brand.

Brand Trust

Brand trust is the “The willingness of the average

consumer to rely on the ability of the brand to

perform its stated function” Chaudhuri and Holbrook

(2001). Also shared the same essence from Burmann

et al. (2009) defines brand trust is “the willingness of

a buyer to rely on the ability of a brand to fulfill the

communicated functions and attributes.” (Burmann

el al., 2009). In other words, the consumers have

confidence that brands will not to exploit their

vulnerability. Therefore, consumers have high

expectancy that the experience with the brand will

have favorable results for them.

Taking into consideration that brand equity is adding

value for firms and consumers, consumers place a

high value in brands they trust. Additionally,

Ballester & Alema´n (2005) argue that brand equity

is a relational market based asset, implies that trust is

significant for brand equity. Thus, Low brand trust

reduces the likelihood of purchasing products or

services. On the other hand, high trust may convert a

satisfied customer into a loyal one.

Brand Attachment

One of the important drivers of brand equity is

believed to be the emotional and practical

associations with the brands (Park, Macinns and

Prester, 2006; Rafi et al., 2011). In the current era ofmarketing, Marketers are keen to enhance their

branding strategies by developing strong brand

relationships, by implanting attachment with

consumers (Schmitt, 2012). Park et al. (2010)

expresses the brand attachment is the strength of

emotional bonding between the self and the brand,

consumers establish cognitive associations that

connect the brand with the self.

Empirical Studies on Brand Equity Dimensions

Author(s) Dimensions of CBBE CountryProduct

Category

Atilgan et al . (2005) Loyalty, awareness, perceived

quality, associations.

Turkey Beverage

Li et al . (2010) Perceived risk, Information

costs saving, awareness,

image, credibility, Perceived

quality.

China Hotel

Hossien (2011) Attitude, associations,

Personality, Loyalty, Image.

Iran Chocolate

Lee & Leh (2011) Loyalty, awareness, perceived

quality, associations.

Malaysia -

Mishra & Datta (2011) Name, Communication,

Association, Personality,

Awareness, Image, Perceived

Quality, and Loyalty

India Mobile phones

Silva et al. (2012) functionality, image, perceived quality and brand

loyalty

Malaysia Internetservice

providers

Musekiwa et al. (2013) association, awareness,

loyalty, and quality

Zimbabwe Retailers

Shabbir & Rehman

(2013)

association, awareness,

loyalty, and quality

Pakistan Mobile phones

Table 3. Researches on Customer based brand equity dimensions





Atilgan et al . (2005) applied Aaker’s model to test

brand equity in the Turkish culture for the beverage

market. They found that only loyalty has a significant

effect on BE while the other dimensions has no

significant effects.

Li et al. (2010) studied the customer based brand

equity dimensions in the Chinese hotel industry

context. Their model of CBBE consisted of

dimensions perceived quality, perceived risk,

information cost saving, and brand credibility. They

distributed questionnaire for the respondents whom

stayed at brand hotels from the 300 questionnaires

205 of them were usable for the analysis. Li et al.

(2010) found that Perceived risk has a negative effect

on brand equity, while brand awareness is the main

influencer of brand equity, and then came perceived

quality. Thus, suggested that hotels should focus

their marketing communications priority to increase

consumers’ recognition to the hotel and their ability

to recall information about it.

Another study on the dimensions customer based

brand equity was conducted by Hossien (2011). The

researcher’s model consisted of: brand attitude, brand

associations, brand personality, brand loyalty, and

brand image. The conducted study was on the

chocolate market in Iran. 417 completed

questionnaires were analyzed and the results show

that brand loyalty is the major influencer on brand

equity whereas brand attitude does not have any

influence on brand equity. Additional findings of the

study showed that brand loyalty played a foremost

mediating role for building brand equity especially inthe case of brand associations.

Lee & Leh (2011) studied the customer based brand

equity for the Malaysian brands in general regardless

of the product category. Their work was based on

Aaker’s model which consisted of brand loyalty,

brand associations, brand awareness, and perceived

quality. Their analysis showed that perceived quality

is major influence on brand equity with 47% of the

variance. On the other hand the rest of the

dimensions surprisingly show little explanation on

brand equity ranges from 3-5% only. One reason to

describe those results is the product category wasvague, because consumers differs their criteria when

judging different product categories. And the not

knowing the on which category they are talking about

maybe cause some confusion.

In a degree of similarity in the nature of this study’s

purpose, Mishra & Datta (2011) studied the

antecedents and the consequences of customer based

brand equity of in the Indian mobile market, limited

their study on just the Nokia brand. The sample size

was 818 consisted of people of the age 18 or older

that hold mobile phones. The model consisted of:

Brand Name, Brand Communication, Brand

Association, Brand Personality, Brand Awareness,

Brand Image, Perceived Brand Quality, and Brand

Loyalty. And the consequences are Brand Preference,

Purchase Intention. The results of the analysis

showed that brand communication doesn`t affect

brand equity directly. However, it affects it indirectly

due its effects on the dimensions of brand equity,

making its total effect on brand equity with path

coefficient β= 0.72. Additionally, brand

communications highly affect perceived quality β=

0.79, brand loyalty β= 0.74, and brand awareness β=

0.69. Brand association is the highest influencer on

brand equity β= 0.74 while also brand loyalty has

high effect with β= 0.65.

Silva et al. (2012) developed a customer based brand

equity model for the internet service providers in theMalaysian market. The model consisted of brand

functionality, brand image, perceived quality, and

brand loyalty. 400 questionnaires were analyzed and

the results show that perceived quality is the most

influencer factor that affects brand equity while brand

loyalty is the second most important factor.

Musekiwa et al. (2013) studied the customer based

brand equity in Zimbabwean retail market focusing

the study on “OK” supermarket. The model was

consisted of Retail: association, awareness, loyalty,

and quality as dimensions of brand equity. Only 100

questionnaires were analyzed. And the resultssurprisingly show that awareness and association are

highly correlated which came as a bit of strange.

Other results show that store awareness is the most

important factor when it comes to brand equity for

retailers. Store loyalty came second.

Shabbir & Rehman (2013) studied the customer

based brand equity dimensions on the mobile market

in Pakistan the dimensions were: association,

awareness, loyalty, and quality. 210 questionnaires

were analyzed and showed that the brand loyalty and

perceived quality is the most two important

dimensions in brand equity. Also the results showthat all the dimensions are associated with each other,

which means; despite that loyalty is the most

important factor but is associated with the other

dimensions thus neglecting one of those will surely

affect the loyalty levels and decrease the total brand

equity.





METHODOLOGY

The research model for the research is presented in

figure 1. The dimensions of CBBE in the model were

inspired from the work of Aaker (1991) and Lasser et

al. (1995). Quantitative research approach using self-

administrative questionnaire was used in the research

to test the hypotheses.

The research use convenience sampling technique to

approach the intended sample, the survey conducted

in three main cities in Jordan whom have the highest

population. Amman, Zarqa, and Irbid. Mixed venues

utilized to reach for respondents. Two schools and

two universities were chosen to reach for the younger

age groups. And the questionnaire was also available

on 35 different retailers for mobiles. Furthermore, the

researcher randomly reaching participants on coffee

shops and the food courts section in malls.

700 questionnaires were distributed, 542 (77.4%)

were returned, and 39 of them had missing data morethan 10%, resulting to have 503 (71.8%) effective

questionnaires ready for further analysis.

A data screening for Non-engaged response to any

questionnaire that got a result of the standard

deviation of zero was deleted. This process result in

deleting 32 cases that has non-engaged responses,

resulting to have 471 questionnaires for final

analysis.

The validity of the instrument was insured using

multiple methods (content – Face- validity &

construct validity), exploratory factor analysis, and

confirmatory factor analysis. Then, Structural

equation modeling used to test the hypotheses.

A pilot study was held to test questionnaire 60

respondents to analyze the reliability with

Cronbach’s alpha (α), and make the necessary

changes -if any- needed. The results of Cronbachs’

alpha for the pilot study showed the value of (0.95),

and all values were above the accepted level of (0.70)

(Sekaran, 2003) which is a reasonable values

indicating the tool consistency that enhanced its use

for the study.

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA)

According to (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2006), in the

goal of factor analysis is to extract items that are

highly correlated into variables while those items are

independent from other variables.

Four tests were used in EFA; Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin

(KMO), Bartlett's Test, Pattern Matrix, and factor

correlation matrix. The results of KMO and Bartlett'stests are 0.907 and .000 respectively, and they are

acceptable which indicate that the data are suitable

for factor analysis.

Convergent ValidityConvergent validity is to which amount of correlation

between the items that supposed to measure the

intended factors are correlated (Hair et al., 2010). The

minimum value of loading for each item in the

pattern matrix should exceed .30, and do not cross

load on another factors. A pattern matrix of all the

items was analyzed in table 4

ItemsFactor

1 2 3 4

Association 3 .861

Association 2 .842

Association 4 .830

Association 1 .787

Equity 4 .834

Equity 2 .829

Equity 3 .816

Equity 1 .807

Quality 2 .874

Quality 1 .835Quality 3 .821

Quality 4 .776

Trust 3 .896

Trust 2 .803

Trust 4 .794

Trust 1 .698

.

ItemsFactor

5 6 7

Attachment 2 .892

Attachment 3 .824

Attachment 4 .802

Attachment 1 .680

Loyalty 2 .820

Loyalty 3 .812

Loyalty 1 .778

Loyalty 4 .715

Awareness 1 .847

Awareness 4 .804

Awareness 2 .801

Awareness 3 .731

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization.

Table 4. Pattern Matrix





All items are loading above the minimum acceptable

value of .3 and doesn’t cross load on more than one

factor. Which indicate the scale does establish the

convergent validity in EFA.

Reliability Test

Variable Cronbach’s alpha value1. Brand Association TMC 0.857

2.

Brand Trust TMC 0.8513. Brand attachment TMC 0.854

4. Brand Awareness TMC 0.812

5.

Brand Loyalty TMC 0.821

6.

Perceived Quality TMC 0.864

7.

Brand Equity TMC 0.851

8.

Total Questionnaire scale 0.919

Table 5. Cronbach’s Alpha analysis

Table 5 shows that the alpha value for each variable

exceed the recommended value of 0.7 for Cronbach’s

alpha test, the values range from 0.812 – 0.864 for

the variables and the total scale scored 0.919 which

indicates that the questionnaire results are reliable.

Discriminant ValidityDiscriminant validity is to test whether or not the

factors which are supposed to be not correlated, are

actually not correlated (Hair et al., 2010). In the

factor correlation matrix, the value of the correlation between the variables should not exceed 0.7.

Factor Association Equity Quality Trust Attachment Loyalty Awareness

Association 1.000

Equity .345 1.000

Quality .448 .377 1.000

Trust .555 .298 .469 1.000

Attachment .604 .311 .451 .576 1.000

Loyalty .449 .383 .555 .415 .476 1.000

Awareness .079 .184 .062 -.046 .042 .126 1.000

Table 6. Factor Correlation Matrix

In table 6 all the correlation between the variables in the acceptable level below 0.7 which indicates that the scale

establish the discriminant validity.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis[[

Test Value Acceptable values

X2/DF 1.851 ≤ 3

RMSEA 0.043 < 0.05

SRMR 0.034 < 0.05

CFI 0.958 ≥ 0.95

Table 7 Model fit tests

In table 7 shows that the model is satisfying the entire model fit tests with values of X 2/DF, RMSEA, SRMR, and

CFI indicating that the model has a good fit.





CR AVE MSV ASV Loyalty Association Equity Quality Trust Attachment Awareness

Loyalty 0.822 0.537 0.506 0.292 0.732

Association 0.857 0.600 0.540 0.295 0.568 0.774

Equity 0.853 0.592 0.237 0.164 0.487 0.421 0.769

Quality 0.865 0.615 0.506 0.268 0.711 0.520 0.464 0.785

Trust 0.851 0.589 0.542 0.293 0.558 0.671 0.379 0.553 0.768

Attachment 0.855 0.595 0.542 0.314 0.585 0.735 0.396 0.549 0.736 0.771

Awareness 0.815 0.526 0.056 0.018 0.175 0.104 0.236 0.086 -0.050 0.061 0.725

Table 8. Convergent & Discriminant validity and Reliability Note: CR: Composite reliability/ AVE: Average Variance Extracted /MSV: Maximum Shared Variance/ ASV: Average Shared

Variance

Table 8 shows the values of CR, AVE, MSV, and

ASV and the correlation between the variables. For

discriminant validity; the values of MSV and ASV

should be lower than the value of AVE (Hair et al.,

2010). For convergent validity the value of AVE

should be higher than 0.5. And for reliability thevalue of CR should exceed the value of 0.7. All

values were acceptable to insure the validity and

reliability of the model.

HYPOTHESES TESTINGAfter conducting several tests and alterations to reach

the final measurement model, the next step is to test

the research hypotheses using structural equation

modeling.

H1. Dimensions of brand equity (H1a) brand

associations, (H1b) brand trust, (H1c) brand

attachment, (H1d) brand awareness, (H1e) brand

loyalty, (H1f) perceived quality generated through

marketing communications positively affects

customer based brand equity.

Perceived

Quality

Brand

Awareness

Brand Loyalty

Brand

Association

Brand

Attachment

Brand Trust

Customer based brand

equity

.15*

(IS)

(IS)

.19**

.23**

.2**

R2 = .381

Figure 4. Standardized coefficients

Note: *p-value < 0.05; ** p-value < 0.01; (IS) insignificant





Unstandardized Standardized

Hypothesis β Beta C.R. P Acceptance

H1a Association → Equity 0.129 0.152 2.288 0.022 √

H1b Trust → Equity 0.069 0.08 1.161 0.246 ×

H1c Attachment → Equity -0.025 -0.027 -0.363 0.716 ×

H1d Awareness → Equity 0.182 0.203 3.28 *** √

H1e Loyalty → Equity 0.176 0.193 4.997 *** √

H1f Quality → Equity 0.194 0.227 0.194 *** √

Table 9 Hypotheses testing

Two sub hypotheses were rejected H1b, H1c ; which

are the effect of trust and attachment generated from

marketing communications on brand equity, because

the critical value between paths of those variables are

insignificant under P<0.05. The rest of the sub

hypotheses were accepted.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study is to determine and

compare the effect of brand (Association, Trust,

Attachment, Awareness, Loyalty, and Quality) as an

output of marketing communications on customer

based brand equity in the Jordanian market for

mobile phones.

The effect of brand equity’s dimensions on brandequity

It is important to note that the wording of used in the

items that measure the dimensions are only capturing

the effect of marketing communications, not anyother factor including in effect, The results of

Hypotheses showed that not all the dimensions of

brand equity generated through marketing

communications do affect brand equity. Brand

attachments and brand trust does not significantly

affect brand equity. The most effect came from

perceived quality with Beta value of 0.227.

Awareness, loyalty and associations had Beta values

of 0.203, 0.193, and 0.152 respectively. Therefore,

the main factor that affects CBBE is perceived

quality in other words the perceived quality

consumers hold to mobile phones brands is the most

important factor that affects the brands’ equity.Awareness came in 2nd place, while loyalty and

associations came in 3rd and 4th places respectively.

Theoretical contribution

Customer based brand equity research largely

focused on the developing dimensions that measures

the brand equity from consumers’ point of view as in

general marketing terms. However, this study looked

at the dimensions of brand equity as a result of

marketing communications only. Also, same studies

can produce different results among different cultures

and even differ in the same culture when conducted

on different product categories (Parameswaran &

Yaprak’s, 1987). This leads to the assumption that

this study’s results may be inconsistent with the other

studies’ results from general marketing due to the

reason mentioned earlier. Also, due to the context of

the market may lead to different result than the

mobile phones market.

The result of this study showed that brand trust and

brand attachment that are generated only through

marketing communications for mobile phones have

no significant effect on brand equity. While in

comparisons to general marketing research, brand

trust has been found significant dimension on brand

equity in the milk sector for the study conducted by

(Tahnh, 2012). While also found a significant

predictor in the health food market in the researchconducted by (Tung et al., 2010). Additionally trust is

significant predictor for brand equity in the durables

goods (Rajasekar & Nalina, 2008). However the

results of this study for trust are consistent with the

results from the internet banking research. As

Loureiro (2013) found that internet banking trust has

no significant direct effect on internet banking brand

equity.

Another major finding from this study; that brand

attachments generated from marketing

communications for mobile phones don’t have a

significant effect on brand equity. It is inconsistentwith the results that Chen & Hung (2011) got in the

bicycle market as they found that brand equity and

brand attachment has a positive relationship, while

same results came from the study conducted by Rafi

et al. (2011). Also, Rajasekar & Nalina (2008) found

that attachment is antecedent of brand equity.

Also the research finds that awareness, loyalty,

associations, and perceived quality as outcomes of





marketing communications have a significant effect

on brand equity. This result is consistent with most

empirical studies in general marketing from various

cultures and product categories. Li et al (2010) found

that awareness and quality are strong influencers on

BE in the Chinese hotel market. Hossien (2011)

found that brand associations and loyalty are

affecting BE in the chocolate Iranian market. Also

(Mishra & Datta, 2011; Shabbir & Rehman, 2013)

found that all awareness, loyalty, associations and

quality dimensions are affecting BE for mobile

phones. Similar results found that quality and loyalty

are antecedents of BE in the Malaysian internet

service providers market (Silva et al., 2012). On the

other hand, the results are inconsistent with Atilgan et

al. (2005) study in the beverage market in turkey, as

they found associations, awareness, and quality are

not affecting BE.

Managerial implications

This study offers key implications for marketers inthe mobile phones market. For a starter, it gives a

valid a reliable ability for marketers to systematically

measure the effectiveness of dimensions though

marketing communication on brand equity from

consumers’ point of view.

Also, the results indicate that perceive quality that is

generated from marketing communications is the

most influencer factor that affecting brand equity. So

marketers should focus on communicating the

superior qualities that their phones have in order to

generate higher brand equity levels. Moreover, brand

awareness and loyalty are vital factors in generating brand equity. Thus, marketers should keep remind the

consumers with the features and importance of their

mobile phones to keep and increase the brand

position in the consumers’ minds and let them be

advocates to the brands by sharing and

recommending the brand to their social circles. Brand

association has the least significant effect on brand

equity between the 4 factors. Yet, it is still important

for marketers to increase the level for brand image

and memories for consumers through marketing

communications.

Marketing communications don’t achieve significantoutcome in letting consumers generate level of trust

and attachment with the brand to be effective in

creating brand equity. In other words even if

consumers hold high brand equity levels to the brand

this is not a result from trusting the brands’

communication nor the attachment that came from it.

It is really important for marketers to address this

deficiency, especially since the study is based on the

brand equity for consumers’ “favorite mobile phone

brand” as it is a sign of high brand equity. One

solution could be transparency between the brands

and its’ customers, acknowledging the issues with

their mobile phones. As a recent example may be

logical why consumers don’t trust brands

communications even if they grip high value to the

brand, Apple iPhone 6 has outstanding selling

performance but with major bending issues from

thousands of consumers reporting their experience on

social media stating that their mobile phone bends in

their pockets. Those reports create a huge buzz in the

media. However, Apple’s official response was

denying those issues.

Conclusion

This study expands the understanding of the

relationship between two important aspects;

marketing communications and brand equity to fill

the gap in the literature. The results indicate that

perceived quality, awareness, loyalty and associations

that are generated only through marketingcommunications are significantly affecting CBBE.

However, brand trust and attachment don`t have

significant effects on CBBE. Thus, marketers need to

find solutions to capture consumers’ trust in

marketing communication, and increase the level of

fond with the brands when exposed to marketing

communications.

Limitations

It is mandatory to point to the limitation that the

study faced. This study has limitations as follows:

A limitation related to the sampling. The

researcher used convenience sampletechnique to reach the sample. This

technique has its own limitation when it

comes to generalizability of the results

Lack of theories regarding the dimensions of

brand equity generated only through

marketing communications, leads the

researcher to make use of general theories

and apply it by changing the wording for the

items. That may lead to lose some of the

effectiveness of the scale. Therefore, the

researcher conducted a series of validity and

reliability procedures to minimize this issue

This study conducted on one market (mobile phones) in Jordan. The results of this study

maybe differ for other markets. Also,

different culture may lead to different results

even for the same market.

Directions for future researches

A follow up studies should be conducted to

investigate why and how brand trust and

attachments generated from marketing





communications does not affect brand

equity. Therefore, using qualitative research

methods to precisely address the problem

Future researches shall be conducted on

different markets and different cultures to

measure and compare marketing

communications’ effectiveness among

markets and cultures. and If there is

possibility to use random sampling this will

lead to more concrete results that are

representative to the population

REFERENCES

Aaker, D. (1991). Managing brand equity:

Capitalizing on the value of a brand name.

New York, N.Y. : Toronto: New York, N.Y.:

Free Press.

Ahmad, A., & Thyagaraj, K. S. (2014). Brand

Personality and Brand Equity Research: Past

Developments and Future Directions. IUP

Journal Of Brand Management, 11(3), 19-56.Ahmad, S., & Butt, M. M. (2012). Can after sale

service generate brand equity? Marketing

Intelligence & Planning, 307 - 323.

Atilgan, E.; Aksoy, S.; Akinci, S.; Kaynak, E. (2009),

Customer-Based Brand equity for Global

Brands: A Multinational Approach, Journal of

Euromarketing, 18: 115-132.

Ballester, E., & Alemán, J. L. (2005). Does brand

trust matter to brand equity?. Journal of

product & brand management, 14(3), 187-

196.

Bendixen, M., Bukasa, K. A., & Abratt, R. (2004).

Brand equity in the business-to-businessmarket. Industrial Marketing

Management, 33(5), 371-380.

Buil, I., Chernatony, L., & Martínez, E. (2008). A

cross-national validation of the consumer-

based brand equity scale. Journal of Product

& Brand Management , 384-392.

Burmann, C., Marc, J.-B., & Nicola, R. (2009).

Towards an identity-based brand equity

model. Journal of Business Research, 390 –

397.

Chen, Y. T. L. S. C., & Hung, C. S. (2011). The

impacts of brand equity, brand attachment,

product involvement and repurchase intentionon bicycle users. African Journal of Business

Management, 5(14), 5910-5919.

Christodoulides, G., & Chernatony, L. (2010).

Consumer-based brand equity

conceptualization and measurement : a

literature review. International journal of

research in marketing , 43-66.

Chun-Chen, H., Szu-Wei, Y., Cheng-Yi, L., & Te-

Pei, C. (2014). THE RELATIONSHIP

AMONG BRAND EQUITY, CUSTOMER

SATISFACTION, AND BRAND

RESONANCE TO REPURCHASE

INTENTION OF CULTURAL AND

CREATIVE INDUSTRIES IN

TAIWAN. International Journal Of

Organizational Innovation, 6(3), 106-120.

Farquhar, P. (1989). Managing Brand Equity.

MARKETING RESEARCH , 24-33.

Hair, J. F., Tatham, R. L., Anderson, R. E., & Black,

W. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (Vol. 7).

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice

Hall.

Hoeffler, S., & Keller, K. (2003). The marketing

advantages of strong brands. Brand

Management , 10(6), 421-445.

Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, Measuring,

and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity.

Journal of Marketing, 1-22.

Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2009). Marketing

management . Upper Saddle River, N.J:Pearson Prentice Hall.

Lassar, W., Mittal, B., & Sharma, A. (1995).

Measuring customer-based brand equity. The

Journal of Consumer Marketing, 11-19.

Lee, G. C & Leh, F. C. Y. 2011. Dimensions of

Customer -Based Brand Equity: A Study on

Malaysian Brands. Journal of Marketing

Research and Case Study,1-10.

Li, B., Gu, H., & Yang, H. (2010). Study of the

Dimensions of Customer-Based Hotel Brand

Equity. Journal of China Tourism

Research, 6(1), 2-21.

Li, M. & Green, D. R. (2010). A mediating influenceon customer loyalty: The role of perceived

value. Journal of Management and Marketing

Research, 1-12.

Loureiro, S. M. (2013). THE EFFECT OF

PERCEIVED BENEFITS, TRUST,

QUALITY, BRAND

AWARENESS/ASSOCIATIONS AND

BRAND LOYALTY ON INTERNET

BANKING BRAND EQUITY. International

Journal Of Electronic Commerce

Studies, 4(2), 139-158.

Mishra, P. & Datta, B. (2011). Perpetual asset

management of customer-based brand equity-the PAM evaluator. Current Research Journal

of Social Sciences, 3(1), 34-43.

Musekiwa, A., Chiguvi, D., & Hogo, H. (2013).

Customer Based Retail Brand Equity (RBE)

Dimensions Effect on Retail Brand Equity for

OK Supermarket in Bindura. International

Journal of Business and Management , 8(19),

45-54





Myers, C. A. (2003). Managing brand equity: a look

at the impact of attributes. Journal of Product

& Brand Management , 39 - 51.

Nam, J., Ekinci, Y., & Whyatt, G. (2011). Brand

equity, brand loyalty and consumer

satisfaction. Annals of Tourism

Research, 38(3), 1009-1030.

Parameswaran, R., & Yaprak, A. (1987). A Cross-

National Comparison of Consumer Research

Measures. Journal of International Business

Studies, 18, 35 – 49.

Park CW, Macinns DJ, Prester J (2006). Beyond

attitudes: Attachment and consumer behavior.

Seoul National Journal, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 3-

36

Pitta, D. A., & Katsanis, L. P. (1995). Understanding

brand equity for successful brand

extension. Journal of consumer

marketing , 12(4), 51-64.

Rafi, A., Ahsan, M., Saboor, F., Hafeez, S., &

Usman, M. (2011). Knowledge metrics of brand equity: critical measure of brand

attachment and brand attitude strength. Asian

Journal of Business Management, 3(4), 294-

298.

Rajasekar, N., & Nalina, K. G. (2008). Measuring

Customer-Based Brand Equity in Durable

Goods Industry. Journal Of Marketing &

Communication, 4(1), 48-58.

Schmitt, B. (2012). The consumer psychology of

brands. Journal of Consumer

Psychology, 22(1), 7-17.

Sekaran, U. (2003). Research methods for business:

A skill-building approach (4th ed.). New

York: J. Wiley.

Shabbir, J., & Rehman, K. (2013). Impact of

Perceptual Dimensions and Behavioral

dimension on brand equity in Pakistan.

Information Management and Business

Review, 5(7), 347-359.

Shum, M. (2004). Does Advertising Overcome Brand

Loyalty? Evidence from the Breakfast-Cereals

Market. Journal of Economics & Management

Strategy, 13, 241-271.

Silva, S., Nikhashemi, S. R., Haque, A., Yasmin, F.,

& Khatibi, A. Critical Factors for Developing

Brand Equity: An Empirical Investigation In

Malaysia. IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 1 (4), 13-20

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2006). Using

multivariate statistics. New York: Harper and

Row.

Wood, L. (2000). Brands and brand equity: definition

and management. Management Decision, 662

- 669.

The Effect of Marketing Communications on Customer Based Brand Equity

Documents

Transcript of The Effect of Marketing Communications on Customer Based Brand Equity