1

TOWARDS A CLIENT-BASED BRAND EQUITY FRAMEWORK

FOR SELECTED BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS SERVICES

Steenkamp, P., Herbst, F.J, de Villiers, J.C and Terblanche-Smit, M

ABSTRACT

Economics and marketing dictate that brands should be built in an effective manner. The article

presents a conceptual framework to guide effective brand building strategies in a selected

business-to-business (B2B) services context. The model was developed empirically by applying

the Brand Resonance model to a B2B services context. Results prompted the inclusion of a

people dimension and elevated the importance of relationships in an amended model called the

Client-Based Brand Equity (CL-BBE) model. The model proposes that people are at the centre

of service brand building and includes the dimensions of attitude and demeanour, personality

and values, personableness, product knowledge and client knowledge. Relationships, as the

ultimate aim of the model, concern both interpersonal relationships and partnerships. The CL-

BBE model could assist marketing practitioners and researchers to improve the effectiveness of

strategic brand management for B2B services.

KEYWORDS

Brand equity, customer-based brand equity, brand awareness, brand imagery, brand loyalty,

services branding, B2B, industrial.

INTRODUCTION

The indiscriminate use of the Brand Resonance model for business-to-business (B2B) services

may lead to suboptimum brand building strategies, which may result in sources of brand equity

being enhanced that are not applicable and/ or sources that may be important, not being

considered.

2

Brand building strategies create brand equity, which is a base for competitive advantage and

future earnings. The Brand Resonance model [formerly called the Customer-Based Brand

Equity (CBBE) model] incorporates theory and practice to provide a framework for building,

measuring and managing a strong brand. This model approaches brand equity from the

consumer’s point of view. The basic argument of the model is that a brand’s power resides in

the consumer’s mind, that is, that the power of a brand is built through all experiences with a

brand (Keller, 2008: 37-38).

Marketing theory was largely developed around the concept of a product even though offerings

are divided into product and service offerings. Marketing management, in turn, focused on the

differences between the two types of offerings or, more specifically, how existing product

marketing theory can be adapted for service offerings (Vargo & Lusch, 2004: 14-15,1-2). The

services sector is an important part of the economy and a major job creator. Contributing to the

proliferation of services are technology, innovation, globalisation and franchising (McDonald, de

Chernatony & Harris, 2001: 335-336). Branding is not merely important for tangible goods, but it

is also fundamental to the success of service organisations (Berry, 2000: 128).

The extant brand management knowledge has been derived from research predominantly in

business-to-consumer (B2C) markets and, more specifically, fast moving consumer goods.

Academic research into the subject of B2B branding is limited, detached and inconclusive, and

while in the B2C context branding has been accepted as multi-dimensional, in the B2B context

branding is still constrained to a narrow and myopic view of the brand (Leek & Christodoulides,

2011: 230). Even though Keller (2001: 25) mentions that the Brand Resonance model should be

refined, edited and embellished to suit the needs of its users, it is not known what an amended

brand equity model for B2B services would entail.

An adapted brand equity model could assist marketing practitioners and brand decision makers

to improve the effectiveness of brand building and strategic brand management strategies for

B2B services.

3

The aim of the article is to report which brand-building blocks and sub-dimensions of the Brand

Resonance model are confirmed, as well as those that are not confirmed and to suggest others

that may be relevant to selected B2B services. Based on this, a Client-Based Brand Equity

framework is proposed. The empirical research contributes to three areas of brand equity

research, namely 1) the offering type – by investigating service offerings rather than product

offerings; 2) the brand level – by investigating organisation-level brands rather than product-

level brands; and 3) context – by investigating a B2B context rather than a B2C context.

Brand equity and the Brand Resonance model are introduced next, followed by the methods

used to collect data. The data were used to test the applicability of the Brand Resonance model

and its building blocks and sub-dimensions in a real world B2B services context. The article

concludes by proposing a CL-BBE framework.

ENHANCING BRAND EQUITY

In order to develop frameworks that seek to provide guidance for the enhancement of brand

equity, a common understanding of the relevant concepts is necessary. This literature review

will, therefore, define brand equity and differentiate between brand equity and brand value, and

this includes a discussion about the two perspectives on brand equity. This will lead into the

focus of this section, namely the brand equity models. The section concludes with the

theoretical positioning of the present study.

There seems to be ambiguity as far as the term ‘brand equity’ is concerned, with different

definitions and no consensus (Juntunen, Juntunen & Juga, 2011: 302-303). In general, brand

equity seems to entail consumer perception of the brand based on associations attached to the

brand as a result of experiences or a relationship, which differentiates and allows greater sales

volumes, market share or profit margins. Brand equity and the relational concept are linked and

focus on long-term value creation rather than a short-term transaction orientation or profit

maximisation. The relational concept treats the brand and the consumer as partners with

congruent personalities and values and the brand and consumer have a relationship, which is

not dissimilar to relationships between people (The Oxford Dictionary, 2010, Ambler, 1995: 386,

4

388-389, 394). Keller (2008: 48) defines customer-based brand equity as “the differential effect

that brand knowledge has on consumer response to marketing of that brand”.

Even though the term brand equity is used most often, in some instances brand equity and

brand value are used synonymously. Brand equity can be financially based and strategy based.

The financially based perspective estimates the economic market value of the brand for

accounting purposes. This refers to the price premium attributable to the brand; brand

preference; replacement value of the brand; share price; and potential future earnings. The

strategy based perspective aims to build brands based on consumers’ perceptions. Nonfinancial

measures of brand equity are used such as brand awareness and attitude. This strategy is

delivered through marketing investment. Therefore, the financial based perspective is

concerned with the value of the asset from an organisation’s point of view, whereas the strategy

based perspective focuses building the brand from the consumers’ point of view. Ambler’s

distinction between brand value (financial worth) and brand equity (strength of brand as asset)

was adopted (Ambler, 1995: 386-387, 392, 394; Pappu, Quester & Cooksey, 2005: 153).

Branding models

Some branding models are simplistic and focus on the tangible aspects of a brand (Schechter,

1994 & Grossman, 1994,) while others focus mostly on the intangible aspects (Kapferer, 1992).

However, the two most cited branding models are Keller’s Brand Resonance model and Aaker’s

Brand Equity model (O’cass & Grace, 2004: 257).

Aaker’s Brand Equity model consists of five dimensions, namely (1) brand loyalty; (2) brand

name awareness; (3) perceived quality; (4) brand associations in addition to perceived quality;

and (5) other proprietary brand assets such as patents, trademarks and channel relationships.

Brand equity, according to this model, is a basis for competitive advantage and future earnings.

Brand knowledge is fundamental to Keller’s Brand Resonance model. Brand equity is the result

of brand knowledge, which creates differential advantage. Brand knowledge consists of brand

nodes in consumers’ minds with associations attached to these nodes (Keller, 1993: 1-22; 2001:

5

15-19; 2008: 60-61). According to the Brand Resonance model, brand knowledge consists of

brand awareness and brand image. Therefore, customer-based brand equity occurs when the

consumer is aware of the brand and strong, favourable, and unique brand associations have

been attached to the brand (Keller, 2008: 49-53).

The Brand Resonance model includes most of Aaker’s Brand Equity model’s dimensions, as

well as other propriety models (Keller, 2001: iv, 25). Kuhn, Alpert and Pope (2008: 41) consider

the Brand Resonance model to be the most comprehensive model to guide the brand

management process. These issues influenced the decision to select the Brand Resonance

model for application to a selected B2B services context. The findings of the application are the

focus of the article, so the Brand Resonance model should be elaborated on.

6

Keller’s Brand Resonance model

The Brand Resonance model (Figure 1) presents brand building as six building blocks, which

correspond with four sequential stages. Each stage is reliant on achieving the objectives of the

previous stage.

2.12

RESONANCE

SALIENCE

JUDGMENTS FEELINGS

PERFORMANCE IMAGERY

4. RELATIONSHIPS =

What about you and me?

3. RESPONSE =

What about you?

2. MEANING =

What are you?

1. IDENTITY =

Who are you?

Figure 1: Brand Resonance pyramid

Source: Keller, 2001: 17; 2008: 60; 2013: 108

The aim of stage 1 of the Brand Resonance model is to ensure that consumers are able to

identify the brand; during stage 2 brand meaning is created by attaching tangible and intangible

associations to the brand in the minds of consumers; based on the previous two stages,

consumers are enticed to respond appropriately during stage 3; and stage 4 deals with

converting stage 3 brand responses into loyal relationships between consumers and brands

(Keller, 2001: 15-19).

7

Each of the six brand-building blocks has various sub-dimensions, as shown in Figure 2 below.

• LOYALTY

• ATTACHMENT

• COMMUNITY

• ENGAGEMENT

• QUALITY

• CREDIBILITY

• CONSIDERATION

• SUPERIORITY

• WARMTH

• FUN

• EXCITEMENT

• SECURITY

• SOCIAL APPROVAL

• SELF-RESPECT

• CATEGORY IDENTIFICATION

• NEEDS SATISFIED

• PRIMARY CHARACTERISTICS &

SECONDARY FEATURES

• PRODUCT RELIABILITY,

DURABILITY & SERVICEABILITY

• SERVICE EFFECTIVENESS,

EFFICIENCY & EMPATHY

• STYLE AND DESIGN

• PRICE

• USER PROFILES

• PURCHASE & USAGE

SITUATIONS

• PERSONALITY &

VALUES

• HISTORY, HERITAGE

& EXPERIENCES

SALIENCE

RESONANCE

FEELINGSJUDGMENTS

PERFORMANCE IMAGERY

Figure 2: Sub-dimensions of Brand Resonance building bocks

Source: Keller, 2001: 17; 2008: 61; 2013: 108

Brand Salience is created during stage 1 of the Brand Resonance model by creating brand

awareness through brand recognition and brand recall. The associations that are linked to the

brand in the consumer’s mind during this stage are the sub-dimensions in terms of ‘needs

satisfied’ and ‘offering category’. Brand elements are employed to achieve this.

Stage 2 of the Brand Resonance model corresponds to brand Performance and brand Imagery,

which refers to the image component of brand knowledge. During this stage the brand’s points

of parity and points of difference are communicated. Brand Performance relates to tangible

8

attributes and benefits of the brand, whereas brand Image refers to the more intangible

associations. Imagery in a B2B context relates to the size and type of organisation.

Stage 3 of the Brand Resonance model corresponds to consumer brand Judgments and

Feelings. Brands are judged and feelings towards the brand developed based on the

Performance and Imagery building blocks.

Brand Resonance is created during stage 4 of the Brand Resonance model.

Conceptual framework

There are differences between products and services, and between consumer and B2B

markets, but the applicability of the Brand Resonance model to a B2B services context has not

been comprehensively assessed (Kuhn et al., 2008: 41). Even though Kotler and Keller (2006:

210–212) mention differences between consumer (customer) and business markets, Keller

maintains that the Brand Resonance model is applicable to a B2B context (cited in Kuhn et al.,

2008: 40–58; O’Cass & Grace, 2004: 257).

9

To visualise the contribution of the research reported on a conceptual framework was

developed, which is depicted in Figure 3 below.

Figure 3: Conceptual framework

Source: Incorporating Kotler and Keller, 2006: 25, Kuhn et al., 2008

and Mudambi, Doyle and Wong, 1997: 438

As depicted in the centre of Figure 3 above, the differences between a product and a service

and the product-service spectrum were at the centre of the study. A pure product, pure service

or product-service combination, together with information about the brand and experience of the

brand, constitute the offering, which is supplied by a supplier and demanded by a consumer.

The supplier and consumer can be any entity, including a person or organisation. Depending on

the situation, the end-user consumer may or may not be more important than the actual

purchaser (Ambler, 1995: 388). The offering contains a value proposition, which provides a

benefit or value to the consumer that satisfies a need. The brand enhances the offering with

10

meaning that differentiates it from other brands. Represented to the left-hand side of the

conceptual framework, the Brand Resonance model (as mentioned, formerly called the CBBE

model) originated from an individual B2C product brand equity perspective; from the supplier-

customer perspective - predominantly a person who purchases a product offering. The right-

hand side of the conceptual framework depicts the need for an amended B2B services brand

equity model. An amended framework is proposed next.

DESIGN AND METHODS

As stated, the purpose of the research was to propose an amended brand equity framework for

B2B services. The present study worked with a known conceptual model, tested the applicability

thereof in a B2B services context, and identified additional dimensions to amend the conceptual

model.

A qualitative research approach was appropriate because the brand equity phenomenon is

complex and multifaceted with many dimensions (Zikmund & Babin, 2010: 61). The aim of the

data collection was to obtain a depth of understanding and not merely to indicate quantity

(Henning et al., 2004: 1, 3, 5). The study was a cross-sectional study and open-ended questions

were used to elicit participants’ perceptions of the Brand Resonance model’s current and

potential sub-dimensions. The study attempted “to understand people’s perceptions,

perspectives, and understandings of a particular situation” (Leedy & Ormrod, 2010: 135, 137-

145), which necessitated lengthy interviews. The interview data was analysed through content

analysis.

Data collection

Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with 14 participants based on judgemental

selection over a period of five months. Selection of participants was based on inclusion on the

Cape Town Tourism and www.booking.com databases, and location (within Cape Town, South

Africa area). All participants had to have some influence on the decision regarding which short-

term insurance brand the hotel was insured with. The interviews were conducted on the fixed

premises of the hotels (demand-side client organisations). The interview guide included mostly

open-ended questions.

11

Interview guide

Some indicators from previous research were included in the interview guide. These include the

candidate measures of the brand-building blocks of the Brand Resonance model (Keller, 2008:

75-76), as well as key findings and questions from Kuhn et al. (2004; 2008: 40–58).

The interview guide was divided into four sections:

• Section A: five open- and closed-ended qualifying questions that

ensured that the interviews were conducted with participants who could

provide sufficient information about the short-term insurance brand with

which the hotels were insured;

• Section B: five closed-ended classification questions to ascertain the hotels’ star-

grading, number of rooms, number of full-time employees and years in

operation;

• Section C: 31 open-ended questions to test the applicability and appropriateness of

the brand-building blocks and sub-dimensions of the Brand Resonance

model for a B2B services context. This section followed the sequence of

the Brand Resonance model and each question was linked to the building

block or sub-dimension being investigated by its specific conceptual

purpose; and

• Section D: 2 open-ended questions, which solicited insights about the

appropriateness of the interview guide to investigate brand equity of

short-term business insurance.

Data analysis

Following the interviews, the audio recordings were transcribed. Data manipulation was done by

coding the transcriptions and categorising the codes into themes (Leedy & Ormrod, 2010: 142)

with the aid of the computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS) programme,

Atlas.ti7.

12

Extendibility of findings

For qualitative research the term naturalistic generalisabilty is more appropriate than the more

familiar statistical generalisability. Naturalistic generalisability depends on the reader’s opinion,

which is based on the reader’s experience, awareness and knowledge (Seidman, 2006: 23).

The research reported on makes no claims as to the generalisabilty of the findings to a broader

population; rather, the findings may be extended to similar contexts. Additional comparative

research in different contexts can support extendibility. The location of the present study within

a specific theoretical framework increases the possibility of analytic (theoretical) generalisations.

For the present study the concepts of representativeness and generalisability were subordinate

to the value of exploratory research to identify the building blocks and sub-dimensions of brand

building in the selected context.

Code of conduct and ethics

The research did not include vulnerable members of the community. In addition to the

requirements of the institution that the researcher is affiliated to, the researcher abided by the

code of marketing and social research of the Southern African Research Association (SAMRA).

The code includes explicit guidelines about informed consent and confidentiality.

Limitations

The present study continued the quest to adapt a major branding model for B2B services and

only considered B2B short-term insurance for hotels, so the results may be sector-specific and

may not be representative of all B2B services markets. As a result of the delineation, the results

may also be area-specific.

In reporting the findings, evidence is provided by using quotes from data for three sections to

follow, namely for the insurer brand equity, broker brand equity and Client-Based Brand Equity

frameworks. Quotes are provided for the most pertinent dimensions of the first two frameworks,

and only for the additional dimensions that were included in the Client-Based Brand Equity

framework.

13

FINDINGS AND INTERPRETIVE DISCUSSION

For the selected B2B services context that this article deals with, namely short-term business

insurance, there seems to be two interrelated brand equity frameworks involved. There is an

insurance brand equity framework (between insurer and broker) and a broker brand equity

framework (between broker and end user client). For short-term B2B insurance, the broker

brand and not the individual insurance/ offering brand is of importance, which is contrary to the

case in B2C markets. In consumer markets the relationship is mostly directly between the

individual brand and the end consumer (Webster & Keller, 2004: 397). All participants reported

that they worked via a broker. None of the participants dealt directly with the insurer. Ten

different brokers were used. Intermediaries are not referred to in the Brand Resonance model

(Figure 2). Kuhn et al. (2008: 50-51) suggest the inclusion of a ‘Sales force’ building block,

which speaks to the importance of the human element. The present study’s findings differ, since

the broker dimension cannot simply be included in an amended model because there are two

branding models involved – one to build insurance brand equity and one to build broker brand

equity. The broker is not a dimension that should be added to the existing Brand Resonance

model; rather, the broker has a brand equity model of its own. The human element involved

from the broker’s side is a dimension that should be included in the broker brand equity

framework. The relationship between the client and broker is indicated by the follow typical

responses (the sub-dimensions were inserted in square brackets by the researcher):

They [the broker] recommended that we change one of the policies, $ – you know to a new policy for the – I think it was as I said the contents – I didn’t really question. I mean he went through the policy, it covered everything [primary characteristics]. It saved us money [price] and you know but it’s not like I went out and did my own investigation (P7: 367, 375); and

$ and because I’m not doing any research into it, but the fact that they came forward and said listen we recommend maybe you go for this you can save money (P7: 551).

14

Figure 4 below indicates all the confirmed sub-dimensions (in bold text) of insurer brand equity.

Figure 4: Confirmed sub-dimensions of insurer brand equity

Even though the Salience brand-building block and the sub-dimensions were confirmed for

insurer brand equity it was found that it did not matter whether the client was aware of the

insurer brand. The following responses speak to this issue:

I can’t tell you much about their brand [the insurer]. I haven’t really done much research to be totally honest – I am dealing with the broker and that is where my real relationship is (P6:44, 45); and

I don’t really deal with them [the insurer] directly$ I actually know nothing about them. (P12:343,347, 359, 363).

What matters was whether the broker was aware of the insurer brand and whether the

participant was aware of the broker brand, which can be gleaned from the comments below:

$ he presented [insurance brand] to me in the first place where I didn’t know about (P13: 317); and

15

Listen there’s a new guy on the block, they’re specially tailoring for the hotels and this is their product (P19: 419).

Therefore, as far as the Salience aspect of the insurer brand is concerned, the insurance

houses should ensure that the brokers are aware of their brand; that the insurer is an option

within the short-term business insurance sector, and that the brokers know what the insurers’

offerings entail.

The insurer Performance sub-dimensions that were confirmed all support the broker brand

equity. The insurer has an influence over the ‘primary characteristics and secondary features’,

or what is covered by the insurance policy. The insurer provides the cover, but the client

specifies their requirements to the broker. Similarly, the insurer influences the ‘product reliability’

sub-dimension or whether a claim against the insurance policy will be paid or repudiated. But

the client will submit the claim to the broker and follow up with the broker, which is evident from

the quotes below:

They pay out when you’ve got a claim (P15:211); and

I think they’re pretty good at settling claims (P6:227).

The insurer also affects ‘service effectiveness and efficiency’ if the insurer is slow or ineffective

when responding to the broker, as indicate below:

very quick in responding to claims (P2:189); and

I actually haven’t been happy with the way our claims have been settled. So we’ve actually moved away from $ (P6:255).

‘Price’ is a combination of the insurer’s cost plus the broker’s fee, but is probably mostly under

the insurer’s control. However, the broker presents the quote to the client for the items that are

included in the policy. The only sub-dimension under the Performance building block where the

insurer has a direct connection or impact on the client is when the insurer’s assessor visits the

client. A respondent reported as follows:

I mean things can always be done quicker. It does mean that obviously, because they’re a broker they obviously need to get hold of the company then the assessor is someone else entirely as well [people].

This indicates that the assessor can directly affect the client’s perception of the ‘service

effectiveness, efficiency and empathy’ sub-dimension.

16

The findings suggest that the insurer’s Imagery sub-dimensions do not matter to the client. The

insurance is bought through a broker (which refers to the ‘purchase situation’ sub-dimension)

and the client has almost no direct interaction with the insurer. As mentioned, the broker has full

control reagrding which insurance brand is purchased, so even though some of the participants

could mention some of the insurers’ ‘personality and values’ and ‘history’ sub-dimensions, it is

not relevant to the client. The study found that, as far as the insurance brand to client link is

concerned, the insurance brand does not have to build brand awareness or attach image

associations to their brand in the client’s mind. The insurance brand should be registered and

associations should be attached in the broker’s mind.

Furthermore, even though the participants could judge the ‘quality’, ‘credibility’ and ‘superiority’

of the insurance brand, it did not have a direct link with the client. The participants judged the

‘quality’ and ‘credibility’ of the broker, as they deal exclusively with the broker, but the insurers

have an impact on these judgments.

The sub-dimensions of insurer brand equity that were confirmed can have an impact on how

well the broker’s brand is perceived by the client. But, these are all a layer removed from the

client. The client’s interaction, level of satisfaction, relationship and ultimate loyalty, is with the

broker.

17

Figure 5 below indicates all sub-dimensions of broker brand equity that was confirmed (in bold

text) by the study.

Figure 5: Confirmed sub-dimensions of broker brand equity

Participants referred to their relationship with the broker and not to their relationship with the

insurance house, even though they are aware of the insurance house:

Just saves me some time not dealing directly and giving him all the work to do; what I’m paying them for (P3:56, 421);

$ they’re like an important link between you and the insurers (P4:763); and

$ taking the burden away of me worrying about the insurance because it’s not my business. It’s not my main business to be worried about insurance. I should be insured, that’s it and the broker shall take care about all the other stuff and give me the feeling and the confidence that I’m rightly insured. $ they’ve always been very professional (P5:493, 503).

18

Yet another also talked about the broker’s professionalism and ‘efficiency’:

$ they’ve always been very professional $ and prompt (P6:503, 511).

Participants were loyal towards their brokers:

Every year we just go with the same guy [loyalty] (P17: 399) and

We’ve got a certain amount of loyalty and that’s part of our values as well. We don’t just chop and change relationships for the sake of it $ (P16:641).

The brand-building blocks and sub-dimensions that were confirmed for the insurance brands

and brokers respectively are almost identical. The sub-dimensions and building blocks that were

not confirmed are those that are indicated as faded grey text in figures 4 and 5 above.

No additional dimensions about insurer brand equity were reported, but additional dimensions of

broker brand equity emerged from the study. Therefore, the broker brand equity model (Figure

5) was amended further. The result of combining the confirmed brand-building blocks and sub-

dimension of broker brand equity with the additional sub-dimensions and building blocks

uncovered by the study is shown below as Figure 6. As alluded to before, this is an amended

Brand Resonance framework for the selected B2B services and is called the Client-Base Brand

Equity (CL-BBE) framework for selected business-to-business services.

19

Client-Based Brand Equity framework for selected business-to-business services

Figure 6: Client-Based Brand Equity framework

for selected business-to-business services

The brand-building blocks and sub-dimensions in bold text are those that were confirmed and

retained from the Brand Resonance model (Figure 2), while those in a lighter tone are additional

building blocks and sub-dimensions that have been identified by the study. The sub-dimension

‘Distribution’ is merely a name change from that used in the Brand Resonance model. The CL-

BBE framework introduces two new brand-building blocks and a number of sub-dimensions.

Brand Salience

The Salience brand-building block of the Brand Resonance model was confirmed and retained

in its entirety in the CL-BBE framework, including both sub-dimensions, namely ‘category

identification’ and ‘needs satisfied’. However, as an amendment to the Brand Resonance model

and Kuhn et al.’s (2008: 40-58) findings, the brand equity of the broker brand (study reported on

on/ CL-BBE framework) is more important to the client than the individual brand (Brand

20

Resonance model) or the brand of the insurer/ organisation brand (Kuhn et al., 2008: 40-58).

Salience in Figure 6, therefore, refers to the prominence of the broker brand. Salience has to do

with the brand achieving prominence in the client’s mind. This is achieved by establishing brand

awareness; both brand recognition and brand recall of the broker’s brand. It associates the

needs that the brand satisfies and the category within which the brand operates to the brand

node in the client’s mind. This is achieved through the use of various brand elements.

Brand Service Performance

The Performance brand-building block of the Brand Resonance model (Figure 2) was renamed

Service Performance in the CL-BBE framework (Figure 6) because the short-term B2B

insurance offering approaches a pure service. It deals with the actual service that is rendered.

Most of the sub-dimensions of the Brand Resonance model’s Performance brand-building block

were confirmed in the study reported on, as was the case with the study by Kuhn et al. (2008:

40-58). The sub-dimensions that were retained in the CL-BBE framework are: ‘primary

characteristics and secondary features’, ‘product reliability’, ‘service effectiveness, efficiency

and empathy’ and ‘price’. In the Brand Resonance model the sub-dimension ‘service

effectiveness and efficiency’ and ‘product reliability’ includes the processes dimension. For the

CL-BBE framework, ‘processes’ was spun off as a separate sub-dimension to give proper

relevance to the importance of the processes that support the service related sub-dimensions.

The Brand Resonance model’s ‘usage situation’ sub-dimension was incorporated into this

building block and renamed ‘distribution’. ‘Servicescape’ was added as an additional sub-

dimension. Here the sub-dimensions will be related to the study reported on in a B2B services

context:

- Primary characteristics: refer to the specific items that are covered under the

business short-term insurance policy. For example, hotel furniture, vehicles and so

on;

- Secondary features: are the additional, non-standard/ customised items that are

covered under the business short-term insurance policy. For example, public liability;

- Product reliability: deals with whether the business insurance policy will be honoured

when there is a claim against the policy;

21

- Service effectiveness: according to the Brand Resonance model, service

effectiveness means degree of satisfaction and service efficiency means the

promptness with which the service is rendered. For example, the time that lapses

from submitting a claim to the time that the claim is settled;

- Service empathy: has to do with how the service is delivered; whether the service

provider cares about the client;

- Processes: is part of the extended marketing mix and includes all processes that

support the service that is rendered. This includes the documentation involved with

the claim submission process and so on, as referred to by participants:

$ there was stuff sitting on there that was like nearly two years old. So it was just oh the paper work went missing and we had to submit the same stuff about three or four times$ (P4:547, 543) [processes]; and

It’s just two forms, quotes. You need to get quotes and then I just send it off to one of the consultants (P7:479).

- Price: the policy premium and related aspects;

- Distribution: is called purchase situation in the Brand Resonance model, but is more

commonly known as place, as part of the marketing mix. It refers to the channel of

distribution, be it the broker’s office, online or a call centre; and

- Servicescape: the ambience and other aspects of the physical environment in which

the service is delivered. The CBBE model does not include servicescape (facilities’

visual appeal, employees’ appearance and other material appeals), as described by

O’Cass and Grace (2004: 262).

People

Based on the findings of the study reported on, a People brand-building block was added to the

CL-BBE framework in Figure 6, together with the following sub-dimensions:

- Attitude: the service providers’ internalised way of thinking and feeling, which informs

their behaviour towards the client. For example, a conscious decision and

commitment to deliver professional service, while remaining approachable. The

participant below mentioned the broker’s professionalism:

22

$ they’ve also been very – $professional (P7:419).

- Demeanour: is the outward behaviour of the service providers towards the client. For

example, the broker referred to below did not display a friendly demeanour:

the way that they like cross question you. It’s just not on,$ (P18:440, 444).

- Personality: the characteristics and qualities of the service providers’ character. For

example, having an engaging personality. Aaker (1997) identified brand personality

scale measures, but Kuhn and Alpert (2004) and Kuhn et al. (2008:47) found that the

B2B brands that were studied did not possess any personality traits. This

necessitated testing for this dimension. Personality traits of insurer brands were

mentioned by the following participants:

It’s conservative, $ (P2:177); and

$ modern, more innovative company (P2:185).

Throughout the analysis of the interview data, the importance of the human element

became evident. Baumgarth and Binckebanck (2011: 487-498) mention the

salesperson’s personality as opposed to the brand’s personality.

- Values: the service providers’ principles or standards of behaviour. This refers to a

way of doing business; of what is acceptable and what is not. An example of this is

when a participant mentioned that “they’re honest” (P17:271).

- Personableness: having a pleasant personal appearance and manner. The

participants below identified with this dimension:

I like my broker and the staff there, they are very friendly, very efficient and very caring $ (P2:405); and my broker needs to be efficient, friendly, trustworthy, responsible $ (P2:459, 461).

- Product knowledge: brokers having an understanding of the insurance policy that

includes what should be covered, exclusions, special precautions/ requirements and

so on were important to participants:

They know their subject. The guy in charge has been in the game a long time, know his subject so and I think that’s what you need. I can pick and ask him any question I like and he will give me an answer straight away; and

$ if they don’t know your business and the product that you sell then it creates problems because then you sit with things like – like conference rooms that’s basically standing

23

empty for months because they don’t want to you know there’s no effort, real effort from their side to actually resolve the issue (P4:767).

- Client knowledge: being familiar with the client as an individual and their business

needs were considered valuable:

$ if they don’t know your business and the product that you sell then it creates problems because then you sit with things (P4:767).

Client brand Judgments

The client forms opinions, which are based on the previous three brand-building blocks and all

associations attached to the brand. The Judgments sub-dimensions include:

- Service quality: the client assesses the service, which is delivered against their

expectations and forms an opinion of the degree of quality;

- Credibility and trust: the degree to which the client believes in and trusts the broker;

and

- Satisfaction: the level of satisfaction is based on how well the service was performed.

For the CL-BBE framework, service effectiveness and satisfaction are treated as two

sub-dimensions. Service effectiveness refers to whether the service, which is

rendered has produced the desired result. For example, if a client sends an email to

the insurance broker requesting that his or her policy should be amended and the

amendment is successfully and correctly made, then the service was effective. The

judgment that the client makes based on the effectiveness of the service or the

pleasure that the client derives from this is accounted for under the sub-dimension

‘satisfaction’, which is part of the ‘Judgments’ brand-building block.

Client-brand Relationships

A second additional brand-building block was added to the CL-BBE framework (Figure 6),

namely Relationships. This is supported by Kuhn et al. (2008: 40-58) who found that sales force

relationships was an important dimension that should be included in an amended brand equity

framework. The CL-BBE framework extends this finding to include relationships with all

representatives of the organisation who are involved with rendering the service. The two sub-

dimensions of the ‘Relationships’ building block are:

24

- Interpersonal: the personal relationship between the client and the broker’s

representatives based on business interaction was referred to by a participant:

I can phone Sean at 12 at night and he will do whatever he needs to do to assist with my problem. He’s just 24/7 on my phone.

- Partnerships: between a broker and client working together towards achieving a

common goal.

I think that that I could say there’s a partnership involved. They have an interest in our – I feel that they have an interest in our business ... we’ve built up a relationship $ (P19:547); and $ they know us like the palm of their hand (P18:540).

Meaningful and beneficial interpersonal relationships will enable the formation of longer-term

partnerships.

The pinnacle of the Brand Resonance model is the Resonance brand-building block (Figure 2).

Of the four sub-dimensions of the Resonance building block, only Loyalty towards the broker

was confirmed by the study. The study supports Aaker’s (1991: 15-18) view that brand loyalty

can be considered both as a dimension of brand equity and an outcome of brand equity, hence

the decision to omit the Resonance building block from the CL-BBE framework. The outcome or

result of the CL-BBE framework is brand loyalty. Taylor et al. (2004: 218) also found brand

equity and trust to be antecedents of ‘loyalty’.

The study continued the process of assessing and adapting a major brand equity model for the

B2B services context, but it is by no means conclusive.

Conclusion

Brand marketing researchers and practitioners generally agree that creating brand equity is

critical to long-term business success. There is no consensus about the applicability of the

Brand Resonance model, one of the most prominent brand equity models (figures 1 and 2), to

services and to business-to-business contexts. This model was tested in a selected B2B

services setting that included an intermediary. The findings of the study reported on suggest

that an adapted Client-Base Brand Equity framework, as illustrated in Figure 6, is more

25

appropriate for selected B2B services. The study reported on investigated real brands with real

B2B services clients and provided insights into how B2B services brand equity should be

conceptualised and measured.

The context of the study reported on included an intermediary (B2B short-term business

insurance broker), which showed that brand equity should be built between the insurance brand

and the broker (insurer brand equity) and between the broker and client (broker brand equity),

but not between the insurer and client. The insurer brand has an impact on how the broker

brand is perceived by the client.

The Client-Based Brand Equity framework incorporates a People dimension as a core aspect of

B2B services brand equity, with sub-dimensions of attitude and demeanour, personality and

values, personableness, product knowledge and client knowledge. Relationships, both

interpersonal and as partnerships, are at the pinnacle of the framework. The study reported on

confirmed the rational route to brand building - of building Salience, Service Performance,

Judgements and Relationships. The emotional route that included Feelings was not confirmed.

For practitioners it is important to have an adapted framework to effectively implement branding

strategies. The Client-Based Brand Equity framework presented in Figure 6 can, therefore, be

used to guide brand building strategies for B2B services. For brand researchers the model

provides constructs and sub-dimensions that were not previously included in B2B services

brand equity frameworks, which can direct future research.

An adapted brand equity model could assist marketing practitioners, brand decision makers and

researchers to improve the effectiveness of brand building and strategic brand management

strategies for B2B services.

26

List of references

Aaker, J. 1997. Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of marketing research, XXXIV(August), 347-356.

Ambler, T. 1995. Brand equity as a relational concept. The journal of brand management, 2(6),

386-397.

Baumgarth, C. & Binckebanck, L. 2011. Sales force impact on B-to-B brand equity: conceptual framework and empirical test. Journal of product and brand management, 20(6), 487-498.

Berry, L.L. 2000. Cultivating service brand equity. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 28(1), 128-137.

Henning, E., van Rensburg, W. & Smit, B. 2004. Finding your way in qualitative research.

Pretoria: Van Schaik.

Juntunen, M., Juntunen, J. & Juga, J. 2011. Corporate brand equity and loyalty in B2B markets: A study among logistics service purchasers. Journal of Brand Management 18 (4/5), 300 – 311.

Kapferer, J.N. 1992. Strategic brand management : new approaches to creating and evaluating brand equity. London: Kogan Page.

Keller, K.L. 1993. Conceptualising, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of marketing, 57 (January), 1-22.

Keller, K.L. 2001. Building customer-based brand equity: a blueprint for creating strong brands. Marketing Science Institute. Working Paper: report no. 1-107.

Keller, K.L. 2008. Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and managing brand equity. 3rd edition. New Jersey: Pearson Education.

Keller, K.L. 2013. Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and managing brand equity. 4th edition. New Jersey: Pearson Education.

Kotler, P. & Keller, K.L. 2006. Marketing management. 12th edition. New Jersey: Pearson Education.

Kuhn, K.L., and Alpert, F. (2004). Applying Keller's Brand Equity Model in a B2B Context: Limitations and an Empirical Test. In Jim Wiley and Peter Thirkell (eds). Proceedings of the 2004 Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference. Wellington, New Zealand: Victoria University.

Kuhn, K.L., Alpert, F. & Pope, N.K.L. 2008. An application of Keller's brand equity model in a B2B context. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 11(1), 40–58.

Leedy, P.D. & Ormrod, J.E., 2010. Practical research: Planning and design. 9th edition. New

Jersey: Pearson Education.

Leek, S. & Christodoulides, G.A., 2011. A literature review and future agenda for B2B branding: challenges of branding in a B2B context. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(6), 830-835.

27

McDonald, M.H.B., de Chernatony, L. & Harris, F. 2001. Corporate marketing and service brands – moving beyond the fast-moving consumer goods model. European Journal of Marketing, 35(3/4), 335-352.

Mudambi, S.M., Doyle, P. & Wong, V. 1997. An exploration of branding in industrial markets. Industrial Marketing Management, 26, 433-446.

O’Cass, A. & Grace, D. 2004. Exploring consumer experiences with a service brand. Journal of product and brand management, 13(4), 257-268.

Oxford dictionary. 2010. [Online] Available: http://oxforddictionaries.com [Accessed: 14 September 2011].

Pappu, R., Quester, P.G. & Cooksey, R.W. 2005. Consumer-based brand equity: improving the measurement – empirical evidence. Journal of product and brand management. 14(3), 143-154.

Seidman, I. 2006. Interviewing as qualitative research: a guide for researchers in education and social sciences. 3rd edition. New York: Teachers College Press.

Taylor, S.A., Celuch, K. & Goodwin, S. 2004. The importance of brand equity to customer loyalty. Journal of product & brand management 13(4), 217-227.

Vargo, S. L. & Lusch, R.F. 2004. Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of marketing 68 (January), 1-17.

Webster, F.W. & Keller, K.L. 2004. A roadmap for branding in industrial markets. Journal of Brand Management, 11(5), 388-402.

Zikmund, W.G & Babin, B.J. 2010. Exploring marketing research. 10th edition. n.p.: South-

Western, Cengage Learning.