Search results

Brand equity is very important to marketers of consumer goods and services. Brand equity facilitates in the effectiveness of brand extensions and brand introductions. This is because consumers who trust and display loyalty toward a brand are willing to try to adopt brand extensions. While there have been methods to measure the financial value of brand equity, measurement of customer‐based brand equity has been lacking. Presents a scale to measure customer‐based brand equity. The customer‐based brand equity scale is developed based on the five underlying dimensions of brand equity: performance, value, social image, trustworthiness and commitment. In empirical tests, brands that scored higher on the customer‐based brand equity scale generally had higher prices. Discusses the implications for managers.

Companies in all industries are searching for new sources of competitive advantage since the competition in their marketplace is becoming increasingly intensive. The resource-based view of the firm explains the sources of sustainable competitive advantages. From a resource-based view perspective, relational based assets (i.e., the assets resulting from firm contacts in the marketplace) enable competitive advantage. The relational based assets examined in this work are brand image and corporate reputation, as components of brand equity, and customer value. This paper explores how they create value. Despite the relatively large amount of literature describing the benefits of firms in having strong brand equity and delivering customer value, no research validated the linkage of brand equity components, brand image, and corporate reputation, simultaneously in the customer value–customer loyalty chain. This work presents a model of testing these relationships in consumer goods, in a business-to-business context. The results demonstrate the differential roles of brand image and corporate reputation on perceived quality, customer value, and customer loyalty. Brand image influences the perception of quality of the products and the additional services, whereas corporate reputation actions beyond brand image, estimating the customer value and customer loyalty. The effects of corporate reputation are also validated on different samples. The results demonstrate the importance of managing brand equity facets, brand image, and corporate reputation since their differential impacts on perceived quality, customer value, and customer loyalty. The results also demonstrate that companies should not limit to invest only in brand image. Maintaining and enhancing corporate reputation can have a stronger impact on customer value and customer loyalty, and can create differential competitive advantage.

This study seeks to investigate the measurement invariance of the consumer‐based brand equity scale across two samples of UK and Spanish consumers.

Brand equity was conceptualised as a multi‐dimensional concept consisting of brand awareness, perceived quality, brand associations and brand loyalty. To test the brand equity scale cross‐nationally a survey was undertaken in the UK and Spain. Measurement invariance was assessed using multi‐group confirmatory factor analysis.

The brand equity scale was invariant across the two countries. Results show that the consumer‐based brand equity scale has similar dimensionality and factor structure across countries. In addition, consumers respond to the items of brand equity in the same way, which allows meaningful comparison of scores.

Future research could examine the cross‐national generalisability of the brand equity scale using other countries' products and services.

Given that the brand equity scale is invariant across countries, researchers and international marketing managers can use this instrument to measure and manage brand equity across countries. This is suitable for testing theoretical and conceptual relationships in different national settings and allows managers to design and implement efficient international brand strategies.

The study contributes to the scarce literature testing the cross‐national applicability of consumer‐based brand equity. Furthermore, the research enhances consumer‐based brand equity measurement by using a non‐student sample and including a different type of brand associations and multi‐item measures for all the brand equity dimensions.

This paper aims to measure customer-based brand equity in the context of hotels, and to develop and empirically validate a new scale, named guest-based hotel equity (GBHE), by incorporating the customer perceived value of hotels as a multidimensional construct in addition to its traditional dimensions (i.e. brand awareness and brand image).

A structured and self-administered survey was used, targeting 348 hotel guests who were surveyed about their experience with the last hotel they had stayed in during the previous year. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were used to assess the research constructs dimensions, unidimensionality, convergent and discriminant validity and composite reliability.

The empirical findings indicate that GBHE is a multidimensional construct with nine dimensions, namely, hotel awareness, hotel overall image and seven dimensions of customer perceived value (i.e. the values of price, quality, self-gratification, aesthetics, prestige, transaction and hedonism). The new scale is found to have excellent psychometric properties; it has demonstrated its predictive power on behavioral intentions.

Although the authors believe that the sample size was reasonable and adequate for conducting CFA analysis, a bigger sample would be better and might increase the robustness of the proposed scale. In addition, to avoid the retrieval failure problem, hotel guests should be surveyed just after their stay in the hotel or not long afterwards. Further, the hotel classification or hotel star rating was not considered in developing and validating the GBHE scale.

The findings of this study provide hotel managers with a new tool to use in assessing the experiential value of the hotel brand equity, other than conventional hotel awareness and brand image. Further, using the multidimensional construct of perceived value provides hotel managers with more insights into what aspects of hotel brand equity they should focus on to influence the behavioral intentions of their guests.

The originality of this research is highlighted in several points. First, it develops and empirically validates a new scale to measure customer-based brand equity in the hotel context, that is, GBHE. Second, it incorporates the customer perceived value of hotels not as a unidimensional construct that is concerned only with cost, but as a multi-dimensional construct which includes in the GBHE scale dimensions that are both cognitive (i.e. of price and quality) and affective (i.e. of self-gratification, aesthetics, prestige, transaction and hedonism) in addition to its traditional dimensions (i.e. brand awareness and brand image). Third, it assesses the predictive power and relative importance of the GBHE dimensions for behavioral intentions (i.e. loyalty to hotels). Finally, no research has been done so far on the brand equity of hotels in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), although it is considered a fertile soil for tourism in the Arabian region.

This study explores the relationship between brand image and brand equity in the context of sports sponsorship. Keller's (1993, 2003) customer-based brand equity models are the conceptual inspiration for the research, with Faircloth, Capella, and Alford's (2001) conceptual model – adapted from the work of Aaker (1991) and Keller (1993) – the primary conceptual model. The study focuses on the sponsorship relationship between the New Zealand All Blacks and their major sponsor and co-branding partner, adidas. The sporting context for the study was the 2003 Rugby World Cup held in Australia. Data were collected from two independent samples of 200 respondents, utilizing simple random sampling procedures. A bivariate correlation analysis was undertaken to test whether there was any correlation between changes in adidas' brand image and adidas' brand equity as a result of the All Blacks' performance in the 2003 Rugby World Cup. Results support the view that Keller (1993, 2003) proposes that brand image is antecedent to the brand equity construct. Results are also consistent with the findings of Faircloth et al. (2001) that brand image directly impacts brand equity.

In today's complex and highly competitive marketplace, universities and colleges, realizing a need to develop sustainable strategies, have turned to branding as a solution. However, because of unique service characteristics, universities’ branding attempts may not always result in success. The purpose of this paper, utilizing the concept of brand equity as a foundation of understanding, is to present a framework and scale measurements of university brand equity and its dimensions.

Because no prior measurement scales for university branding have existed, the scale measures for this study are compiled from the literature on brand equity measurements identifying the core and supporting value-creation factors for higher education. For this exploratory study, several pretests and exploratory factor analyses were conducted to ensure that the scale items are comprehensible and clearly measure the intended constructs. Students are considered as the target population for this study. Data for the main study were collected at a comprehensive university in the Midwestern USA. A total of 30 classes with varying sizes provided 439 usable surveys.

Empirical results from the survey research suggest that some of the brand equity dimensions are more important in developing strong university brands. Of the core dimensions, perceived quality of faculty is the most important brand equity dimension, followed by university reputation and emotional environment, brand loyalty, and brand awareness dimensions for creating a strong university brand. Among the supporting brand equity dimensions, library services was the most important for creating a strong university brand, followed by student living (residence halls and dining services), career development, and physical facilities (e.g. gym, classrooms, labs).

Although the target population was students, as a first step, the survey was administered to students at one university. Administering surveys to students at different universities and comparing the results would improve the reliability of the brand equity scales. The significant correlations found among the brand equity dimensions suggest the interconnectedness of these dimensions. The findings have implications for developing and implementing university brand strategies. The authors suggest serious consideration to be given to a holistic approach to branding efforts.

The branding literature offers no prior research that develops and tests a scale or examines the issues and factors that are important for developing strong university brands and brand equity for higher education institutions. This study develops the scale measurements through a comprehensive literature review, tests the validity of the measurements, and takes the brand equity theory one step further by identifying the core and supporting-value creation factors suggested sporadically in the literature. The framework suggests that both core and supporting value-creating activities are dynamically interrelated and work jointly in creating student learning experiences, and ultimately, a strong university brand.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the impact of retailer personality on consumer‐based retailer equity.

The authors developed a retailer personality scale and find its impact on consumer‐based retailer equity by adopting the scale developed by Pappu and Quester. A mall‐intercept survey was undertaken using a systematic sampling of department store shoppers of age 18 years and above in a metropolitan city, Kolkata, India. The questionnaire was used to collect data from seven department retail brands. The impact of each retailer personality dimension on each consumer‐based retailer equity dimension was explored, using structural equation modeling.

The study proposed a five‐dimensional scale to measure department store personality. Results indicated that the three dimensions of store personality, namely sophistication, dependability and empathy, have significant positive impact on each consumer‐based retailer equity dimension except one (empathy→retailer loyalty). The remaining two dimensions of retailer personality, namely authenticity and vibrancy, have no impact on each consumer‐based retailer dimension.

The paper is the first to propose a scale for measuring department store personality and to explore the link between retailer personality and consumer‐based retailer equity.

Sport teams not only compete with other teams for the ultimate prize but also for a share of customer mind space. For winning fan loyalty and resultant economic success, management of sport teams need to focus on team-branding, and thus, developing and measuring a team’s brand equity becomes essential, which is the core purpose of this paper.

Current work builds upon previous efforts to develop a reliable and, more importantly, a parsimonious sport team brand-equity (STBE) index, as opposed to the usual multi-dimensional reflective scales, too complicated and not of much use to practitioners.

The authors propose that the STBE index having eight indicators is enough to capture the full domain of the concept and provide a snapshot about the ability of a team’s administration to create strong emotional bonds with its fans.

Apart from demographics of the respondents, an important drawback is that the STBE index is from the perspective of television or online viewers and not those watching live in stadiums. This work contributes to extant sports brand equity literature by proposing a simpler scale made of casual variables, as opposed to reflective scales running into large number of similar items, a first of its kind in this domain. The authors also are able to forward the growing call for developing more of such scales through this effort.

Not only can the present scale be easily used by sport-marketers and researchers, it will be especially useful for marketing managers who want to associate their brands with sport teams, as it affects performance of their own brand.

The work represents a novel effort for developing a team-based brand equity and, to the authors’ knowledge, has not been attempted in this literature before.

This paper focuses on the role of manufacturer brands for resellers within retail channels. This topic is important because of the strategic value of manufacturer brands and the increasing influence of resellers within channels of distribution. Much of the branding research emphasizes a customer-brand knowledge perspective; however, emerging perspectives suggest that brands are also relevant to other stakeholders including resellers. In contrast, channels research recognizes the manufacturer sources of market power, but does not consider the impact of manufacturer “push and pull” strategies within channels. Existing theoretical frameworks, therefore, do not address the reseller perspective of the brand. As a result, the research approach is a multi-method design, consisting of two phases. The first phase involves in-depth interviews, allowing the development of a conceptual framework. In the second phase, a survey of supermarket buyers on brands in several product categories tests this framework. Structural equation modeling analyzes the survey responses and tests the hypotheses. The structural model shows very good fit to the data with good construct validity, reliability, and stability. The findings show that manufacturer support, brand equity, and customer demand reflect the manufacturer brand benefits to resellers. A key contribution of this research is the development of a validated scale on manufacturer brand benefits from the point of view of a reseller. This research shows that the resources that relate to the brand, not just the brand name itself, create value for resellers in channel relationships.

The purpose of this paper is to study the effects of sports sponsorship on brand equity using two managerially related outcomes: price premium and market share.

This study uses a best–worst discrete choice experiment (BWDCE) and compares the outcome with that of the purchase intention scale, an established probabilistic measure of purchase intention. The total sample consists of 409 fans of three soccer teams sponsored by three different competing brands: Nike, Adidas and Puma.

With sports sponsorship, fans were willing to pay more for the sponsor’s product, with the sponsoring brand obtaining the highest market share. Prominent brands generally performed better than less prominent brands. The best–worst scaling method was also 35% more accurate in predicting brand choice than a purchase intention scale.

Future research could use the same method to study other types of sponsors, such as title sponsors or other product categories.

Sponsorship managers can use this methodology to assess the return on investment in sponsorship engagement.

Prior sponsorship studies on brand equity tend to ignore market share or fans’ willingness to pay a price premium for a sponsor’s goods and services. However, these two measures are crucial in assessing the effectiveness of sponsorship. This study demonstrates how to conduct such an assessment using the BWDCE method. It provides a clearer picture of sponsorship in terms of its economic value, which is more managerially useful.